Background Check Fee.

imported post

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/W/WI_BUDGET_GUN_CHECKS_WIOL-?SITE=WIKEN&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=ap_content_popup.html



Yeah, right- punish the law abiding gun purchasers.

imported post

Mar 2, 7:12 PM EST
Wis. gov. wants to increase gun background fees
By TODD RICHMOND
Associated Press Writer

MADISON, Wis. (AP) -- Handguns would get more expensive in Wisconsin under Gov. Jim Doyle's budget proposal.

The Democratic governor's spending plan would increase background check fees from $8 to $30, a move that could affect tens of thousands of gun buyers. Republicans pounced on the idea. Rep. Scott Suder, R-Abbotsford, branded it "outrageous."

"Gun owners should not be unfairly taxed when legally purchasing a firearm to help Governor Doyle balance his budget," Suder said in a statement.

Doyle's budget director, Dave Schmiedicke, said the increase would help offset shortfalls in the background check program and other law enforcement programs funded through offender surcharges.

"It's related to addressing criminal justice needs," Schmiedicke said.

Right now, the FBI runs background checks on long rifle buyers in Wisconsin. The state Justice Department handles handgun checks through a hot line for dealers.

They call in with information on the purchaser, which the agency uses to make a preliminary check. The dealer then submits written information for verification. Each dealer is assessed $8 per check, a cost typically passed on to the purchaser. The money goes to cover the cost of the program.

Last year DOJ took 47,373 hot line calls and approved 46,782, according to agency data. In 2007, it took 38,849 and approved 38,261.

The $8 fee has remained unchanged since it was created in 1991 and the background program has ended each fiscal year since then in the red. The Legislative Fiscal Bureau projects it will finish the year that ends June 30 with an estimated $1.2 million shortfall.

Doyle proposed increasing the fees from $8 to $30 in his 2007-09 state budget, but the measure died. He wanted to meld the fee money with criminal surcharges to create a new fund to support an array of law enforcement and prison initiatives, such as alcohol and drug treatment, victim-witness services and recording police interrogations.

Dwindling revenue from those surcharges has resulted in a deficit over the last few budgets, Schmedike said. The fiscal bureau in 2007 perdicted surcharge-backed appropriations would end that year $1.6 million in the hole, and Schmedike said Monday they're on track for an $8 million shortfall now.

This time around, Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen, a Republican, asked the governor to increase the fees to $13 to eliminate the deficit. Doyle dusted off his old plan instead, including a
"Our estimate is that $13 is the actual cost of the check. J.B. does not think it (the fee) should be used as a profit center for unrelated purposes," Justice spokesman Bill Cosh said.

National Rifle Association spokeswoman Rachel Parsons, like Suder, called the fee a tax on the constitutional right to own and bear arms. She said the background checks should be free.

"This could push buying a handgun out of the price range for many people," Parsons said.

Schmiedicke stressed blending surcharge and background fees coupled with another budget proposal to chop 5 percent from surcharge-backed programs would help close the deficits in both funding mechanisms.

Bill Turner owns Wild Bill's Outpost, a gun shop in Cameron. He said the background check increase might make gun buyers think harder about exactly what they want to spend their money on and might drive buyers to purchase from their friends to avoid the fees.

Still, he doubted it would curtail his sales much. Everyone is buying now in anticipation Democrats will tighten gun laws, he said.

"Right now guns are going nuts," he said, noting his sales so far this year are up 30 percent. "People are buying whatever they can buy because they're afraid they won't get them."

Wisconsin faces a $5.7 billion deficit because state agencies' spending requests outpace projected revenue.

The state Senate and Assembly would have to pass an identical version of the budget and Doyle would have to sign it before it could become law. Democrats control both legislative houses, leaving Republicans powerless to stop Doyle's spending plans.

imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:

Doyle's budget director, Dave Schmiedicke, said the increase would help offset shortfalls in the background check program and other law enforcement programs funded through offender surcharges.

"It's related to addressing criminal justice needs," Schmiedicke said.

Click to expand...

Off course reinforcing the idea that there's a necessary connection between gun ownership and crime. :cuss:

imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:

Doyle proposed increasing the fees from $8 to $30 in his 2007-09 state budget, but the measure died. He wanted to meld the fee money with criminal surcharges to create a new fund to support an array of law enforcement and prison initiatives, such as alcohol and drug treatment, victim-witness services and recording police interrogations.

Click to expand...

Socialist; and an incompetent one at that.

imported post

I wonder if the background check fee is even constitutional. The $8 fee let alone the $30 proposed fee. Now that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the 2nd amendment applies to the individual and we know that the Wisconsin RKBA amendment Article I section 25 applies to the individual, it would strike me that charging a fee to purchase a firearm is an infringement on those rights. An infringement because it discriminates between those that can afford the fee and those that can not. Therefore the rights to own a gun for those that can not afford the fee are denied. I recall, but don't remember the specifics, but I seem to recall that in 1993 when the NICS program was put into effect the FBI wanted to charge a fee for background checks, but that was "shot" down on grounds of constitutionality. Just some thoughts.

Before some of you comment that anyone buying a $600 gun can surely afford a $30 background check let me remind you that the $30 fee will even apply to that old Iver Johnson break action bought from a dealer at a gun show, a $75 gun.

imported post

Lammie wrote:

Before some of you comment that anyone buying a $600 gun can surely afford a $30 background check let me remind you that the $30 fee will even apply to that old Iver Johnson break action bought from a dealer at a gun show, a $75 gun.

Click to expand...

I will also submit that many FFL's do not charge the bare minimum to encompass their time in performing the phone check. My particular dealer with whom I have great relations and is very ethical hits me for $10 - so they get 2.

There are other gunshops who will tack this proposed $22 increase onto their already highway-robbery like phone-call fees. So it's not just $30 in many cases.

imported post

I would rather see a $30.00 fee charged to be able to vote! Along with a basic competency test! I know I am traveling into unsafe waters by stating that, but WTH?

imported post

If there can be logic in political legislation, the logic here is nearly identical to a poll tax. 'Nearly' because there is no enumerated right to vote in the Constitution or BoR.

I too would infinitely prefer a poll test and tax to any infringement to the Second Amendment.

Prescriptive statements are characterized by 'would', 'should' and 'could' and have no truth value. Positive statements can be tested true or false.

imported post

Just got home from my gun shop and the owner mentioned this. Was going to post the question but I see its already hit the site. He heard the fee was $50, whatever.. But mentioned something else he heard the Governor planned which is why I'm posting here. He heard Doyle is also going to be asking for a $300 card fee for anyone who wants to purchase a gun or ammunition. Anyone hear anything on this?

Oh by the way, I'll be picking up my new Ruger 380 LCP in a couple days! Plan to stop at Fleet Farm tomorrow and stock up on ammo regardless of whether the $300 card rumor is true or not.

imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:

there is no enumerated right to vote in the Constitution or BoR..

Click to expand...

The "right to vote" is in the Constitution-- specifically mentioned in Amendments 15, 19 and 26. One could not logically deny the "right to vote" on the basis of race, sex or age is there is no right to vote in the first place.

imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:

Prescriptive statements are characterized by 'would', 'should' and 'could' and have no truth value. Positive statements can be tested true or false.

Click to expand...

imported post

The phrase "could not logically" has the same meaning as "it is impossible." Logical impossibility is the strictest sense of impossibility. It is descriptive, not prescriptive.

imported post

I think it's ludicrous for a gun dealer to charge additional money to just conduct a background check. They already make about 30% profit on the sale of the gun. Performing a background check should be considered part of the cost of doing business. I can understand them wanting to recover the State's "blood money" but to charge a fee in addition just to make the check is only a way to add to the bottom line. While I had my FFL ( Expired Mar. 1) I never charged a fee to request a BC. Even though I was a dealer for 25 years I consider gun dealers a strange lot.

imported post

I think it's ludicrous for a gun dealer to charge additional money to just conduct a background check. They already make about 30% profit on the sale of the gun. Performing a background check should be considered part of the cost of doing business. I can understand them wanting to recover the State's "blood money" but to charge a fee in addition just to make the check is only a way to add to the bottom line. While I had my FFL ( Expired Mar. 1) I never charged a fee to request a BC. Even though I was a dealer for 25 years I consider gun dealers a strange lot.

imported post

Lou Dobbs show tonight, Lou stated on show that if Wisconsin was losing money on the handgun transaction the federal boys would do it for no charge, just like long guns. Be a good way to dump some of the extra help at the capital and save some cash.



I had not heard this before, if true why hasn't it been brought up before.

imported post

What was said on the Lou Dobbs show is correct. The National Instant Check System check is done by the FBI free of charge. When NICS was enacted States had the option to have NICS do background checks on handguns. The states acted as Point Of Interest. Whereas the federal NICS check is free and conducted by the FBI the state check is performed by the state's Department of Justiceand the state was allowed to charge a minimal fee to defray costs. Wisconsin chose to conduct DoJ background checks on all handgun sales and to invoke a 48 hour waiting period on handgun purchases. Doyle is trying to capitalize on the fee, not to defray cost of the check, but to be a revenue maker in order to balance the state budjet. In my opinion the state check is also less effective than a NICS check. The NICS check on long guns is a national criminal and domestic violence check. The state check generally discloses criminal conduct only at the state level.

Why hasn't it been brought up before? For the same reason many other laws, rules and regulations are cast upon us. Those of us that are affected are so involved in our own daily lives and survival that we don't pay any attention to what congress or the state legislature are doing untill it is too late and all we can do is cry about it. We are the silent majority and act like a flock of sheep. We will discuss, argue and debate an issue to nausea within the flock but few will have the guts to stray outside the flock for fear of being eaten by the wolves. That is unfortunate because today we have the tools to really get our opinions heard by those that can make a difference. At both the state and federal level there are goverment run web sites that post all bills and resolutions that are up for debate and vote in the state and federal law making bodies. The web sites track a bill from start to finish. It lists all the sponsors of the bills and when the vote is cast, who voted aye or nay. The web sites also contain the email addresses to all law makers. With a few key strokes we canlet those lawmakers know what our opinions are, not only in attempt to influence their vote but to also let them know our opinion of their vote. The web sitesalso give us the opportunity to thank them when they vote in our favor. Very few of us even know the URL's to the web sites let alone use them. Most of us would rather banter among ourselves than to stray from the flock and draw attention to ourselves. Most of us fail to recognize the power we have in front of us called a keyboard, instead we only use it as a convieneint way to pass jokes back and forthamong us.

The reasons I statedare why the the proposed fee increase for a state background check on handgun purchases will become law. As with all bills the special interest groups will win because too many of us "talk the talk but refuse to walk the walk". Don't just sit there and tell each other how bad the plan is , we already agree with you. Get on the net and tell the people that can make it happen or not happen.

What I say not only applies to the background check fee increase, it also applies to getting state widel law enforcement recognition of open carry. It also applies to any plans Obama, Biden, Holder and the "Brady bunch" have regarding gun control. In a democracy the executive branch haslimited authority. It is congress that has law making authority. More gun control won't happen unless congress approves. The internet gives us the opportunity to influence that approval. IF WE USE IT.

There, got that off my chest.

imported post

Lammie wrote:

There, got that off my chest.

Click to expand...

And nicely said.

imported post

WIG19 wrote:

Lammie wrote:

There, got that off my chest.

Click to expand...

And nicely said.

Click to expand...

Seond that, but why don't you tell us what really bothers you.

imported post

Well, I wrote to 4 various assembly figures explaining that having the FBI do the hangun check instead of the state would provide better information as they use more resources, and this would save the state and taxpayers their financial resources at a time when this money is better used elsewhere.

I would also write the Green Bay Press-Gazette, but had letter published there couple weeks ago, have to wait 30 days. But, will try Appleton Post-Crescent. We'll see if there is any feedback.

imported post

borrowed time wrote:

Well, I wrote to 4 various assembly figures explaining that having the FBI do the hangun check instead of the state would provide better information as they use more resources, and this would save the state and taxpayers their financial resources at a time when this money is better used elsewhere.

I would also write the Green Bay Press-Gazette, but had letter published there couple weeks ago, have to wait 30 days. But, will try Appleton Post-Crescent. We'll see if there is any feedback.

Click to expand...

That is an excellent post. You are taking some action. I fully agree that the Governor is trying to turn gun sales into a profit center for the State. That is completely obvious when the state can get a free FBI background check (NICS) on every gun buyer. Other states that use NICS get instant results, for free, and the sale can be completed immediately. The Governor's new price is way too high for a state background check. Private companies do a pre-employment and tenant background search for less than that.