On 2/26/04 1:03 PM, "Jimmy Wales" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> With respect to the Hancock Amendment issue (which involves a
> provision against unfunded mandates) the court leaves open the
> possibility that this issue may be ripe later, if a county claims that
> the fees for the permit exceed their costs. (I may not have the exact
> details of this right.)
>
This is a confusing decision. If I'm understanding it correctly, the court
is saying that it would be constitutional if the new statute had provided
that the application fee went to the *state*, and the state then reimbursed
the county's extra costs. But it wouldn't be just a user fee if the amount
exceeded actual costs. So the statute would have to provide that each county
tell the state what its costs of administration of the carry permit are, and
then the state would charge that amount as a user fee, and send it back to
the county.
Alternatively, a county could choose voluntarily to divert money from other
programs to fund the service. But if so, it's not clear to me what would
happen to the application fee.
Looks like this is going to create a huge mess.
--
Bob Woolley
St. Paul, MN
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Integrity without knowledge is weak and useless, and knowledge without
integrity is dangerous and dreadful.
-- Samuel Johnson
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof
