No.Would it not be a legislative issue per se, for not mandating the necessary funding across the SOs? I can hear a sheriff ‘whine’ they don’t have the money to implement, their mantra is then taken to the state sheriff’s association who now lamenting the mantra in chorus?
Or find a cheeper[sic] way to implement?
My response to the Executive Director:Mr. OC for ME:
The question you pose is complicated. I am happy to provide background information about the CCW permit system, the entities involved, and the responsibility of each entity. Although we assist to the extent that our personnel and financial resources allow, the Missouri Sheriffs' Association is not the entity required by statute to support the statewide concealed carry permit system. Your indication to your state and county representatives that MSA has not provided the required support for 30 months is inaccurate. Revised Missouri Statute 650.350.5 (shown farther below) assigns responsibility and dictates the funding mechanism and process.
The Missouri general assembly has the ability to appropriate funds to go into the Concealed Carry Permit Fund. The Missouri Department of Public Safety is required to make those funds available for distribution approved by the Missouri Sheriff Methamphetamine Relief Taskforce. MoSMART, for short, is a statutorily created entity. The Sheriffs' Association in a private non-profit without affiliation to MoSMART or the Department of Public Safety. The law does allow any designee that is created and authorized to support sheriffs in the creation, maintenance, and operation of a statewide concealed carry permit system for Missouri sheriffs and law enforcement purposes to receive grant funding from the Department of Public Safety with the approval of MoSMART. The Sheriffs' Association and MoSMART have entered into a MOU where the Association is a designee authorized to support sheriffs in the creation, maintenance, and operation of a statewide concealed carry permit system contingent upon MoSMART providing sufficient funding through grants as authorized by the general assembly for the ongoing operation of the statewide concealed carry permit systems for Missouri. MoSMART cannot approve grant funds to be distributed by the director of public safety because the general assembly has not appropriated money to go into the Concealed Carry Permit Fund.
In September of 2016, an override of Governor Nixon's veto allowed for the issuing of extended and lifetime permits. The general assembly appropriated money for the Concealed Carry Permit Fund. Those funds, in addition to ongoing maintenance, warranties, and support were to update software programing to the then current network to allow for entering, printing, monitoring, issuing, and administering extended and lifetime permits. The statute requires different template designs for these permit cards, as well as different language required to be printed on the extended and lifetime permit cards. Governor Nixon withheld $115.5 million of the total general assembly appropriations. The money appropriated for the Concealed Carrey Permit Fund was part the $115.5 million withheld by the Governor. The general assembly has not appropriated funds since that time.
In closing, there is no money from the state to ensure county law enforcement agencies' ability to comply with the issuance of concealed carry permits including, but not limited to, equipment, records management hardware and software, personnel, supplies, and other services. Until the General Assembly, the Governor's office, the Department of Public Safety, and MoSMART work together on funding, the statewide permit system will not be able to issue and administer extended or lifetime permit.
Missouri Sheriff’s Association
The executive director omitted the second half of RSMo 650.350.5. Just a nit? I'll let my state/county reps decide.Mr. Executive Director,
Thank you Sir for the clarification of MSA's position with regards to RSMo 571.205.
A couple of points.
RSMo 571.101 and 205, subsections 8 and 9 respectively are identical in wording regarding the data and design of the current five year permit and the lifetime/extended permits. If there are further design requirements located in RSMo please educate me as to the relevant RSMo so that I may further educate those interested in this topic.
RSMo 650.350.5 has a clause that indicates that "All equipment, software, and services necessary to create, maintain, and operate the concealed carry permit system shall be the property of the sheriffs and MoSMART's designee." Is MSA the MoSMART designee?
SCCPD states that MSA is responsible, and by implication MSA has not supported SCCPD for 30 months. I merely passed along SCCPD's response to my question regarding lifetime/extended permits to my state and county reps.
I will forward you comments to my state/county reps to better educate them on the status of lifetime/extended permits and the opportunities that have presented themselves.
Again, thank you for taking time out of your busy day to educate me on MSA's position regarding RSMo 571.205.
OC for ME
And we have a winner. If MSA responds to my "couple of points" I will post those as well. Perhaps MSA will be included in their discussions.Thank you Mr. OC for ME for the added info. This sure is getting complicated. Seems to me all they would have to do is put "lifetime" in the box for the expiration date on the CCW permit. But no, nothing in government is that simple. I always start worrying whenever I see lots of acronyms being used.
I am forwarding this to our sheriff whom I believe should be handling the CCW's under state law. But County attorneys are stating that County Police should do this. I will ask for greater clarity for the reasoning behind that position.
I appreciate citizens like yourself who bring matters like this to the attention of those elected. We often miss this stuff without help.
Sheriff and myself will work on this and let you know how it progresses.
MSA seems to be less than forthcoming.Mr. Cronin,
I did a little thinking on and research regarding the Executive Director's response to my inquiry.
"Governor Nixon withheld $115.5 million of the total general assembly appropriations. The money appropriated for the Concealed Carrey[sic] Permit Fund was part the $115.5 million withheld by the Governor. The general assembly has not appropriated funds since that time." - Executive DirectorThe below is from the FY 2018 Budget Request for DPS:"In closing, there is no money from the state to ensure county law enforcement agencies' ability to comply with the issuance of concealed carry permits including, but not limited to, equipment, records management hardware and software, personnel, supplies, and other services. Until the General Assembly, the Governor's office, the Department of Public Safety, and MoSMART work together on funding, the statewide permit system will not be able to issue and administer extended or lifetime permit." - Executive Director
It appears that then Gov. Greitens signed the budget letter for the FY 2018 DPS budget requests.FY 2018 BUDGET REQUEST WITH GOVERNOR'S RECOMMENDATIONS, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, BOOK 1 OF 2, Page 89
2. CORE DESCRIPTION:
For the 2017 budget three items were included for the MSA.
For the purpose of funding grants related to the issuance of the conceal and carry permits for all counties of real time sharing of Mo Dex core, Mo Dex core interfaced mobile evidence collection software documenting crime for accident, and incidents, class Ill counties CCW equipment, and class Ill counties enhanced sheriff and deputy training and products through the MSATA. The grant recipient shall not use more than four percent (4%) of the grant award for administrative costs ($1,630,000) GR.
FY 2019 does not list similar language. CCW is not listed in 2019 HB 8."On June 30, 2017, I approved said Conference Committee Substitute for Senate Committee Substitute for House Committee Substitute for House Bill No. 8."
Based on my research, I can find no indication in publicly available MO budget data, that DPS was not provided the funds to support MoSMART, and by implication MSA, to support the implementation of lifetime/extended permits. You are in a better position to determine if my research is accurate.
OC for ME
I have done a wee bit more research and there appears to be some discrepancies with RSMo 650.350 compliance by more than MSA and SCCPD. My rep and senator are on the case and corrective action is in the works.On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of Counts I through III for lack of standing. St. Louis Cty. v. State, 424 S.W.3d 450, 453-54 (Mo. banc 2014). With regard to Count IV, the Court ruled that the Superintendent was the only plaintiff with standing to challenge MoSMART's rejection of the grant application. The Court found that the Superintendent “has a legal interest in obtaining judicial review of whether he is a county sheriff who is eligible to file a grant application.” Id. at 454. Therefore, the Court reversed the dismissal of the Superintendent's claim under Count IV and remanded the case to the circuit court. Id.
On remand, the circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of the Superintendent in February 2015. In its judgment, the court found that the Superintendent was a “sheriff” who was eligible to file a Fund grant application; that the St. Louis County police department was a “county sheriff's office” under Section 57.015(4) and its officers were “deputy sheriffs” under Sections 57.015(1) and 57.278; and that there was no rational basis for treating St. Louis County licensed peace officers differently from deputies in other counties that were awarded grant funds simply because St. Louis County uses different job titles for employees that perform the same statutory duties as sheriffs.
Patience is recommended at this time.The system (new and renewal CCW permit fees) was supposed to be self-sustaining, using the money from the fees to pay for maintenance and updates (include lifetime/extended permits). However, in 2017, Missouri became a constitutional carry state, and permits are no longer required. This has resulted in a major decline of fees collected. - Office of my state senator
The CCPF has not been funded since its authorization. Budget documents for fiscal years 2017, 2018, and 2019 do not list the CCFP. This is a case of a unfunded mandate by the state legislature. We must wait until October for any insight as to the specific efforts to remedy this issue. Back burner this issue must be placed.RSMo 650.350.5. A special fund is hereby created in the state treasury to be known as the "Concealed Carry Permit Fund" (CCPF). The state treasurer shall invest the moneys in such fund in the manner authorized by law. All moneys appropriated by the general assembly to the fund shall be deposited to the credit of the fund. ...