Missing revenue from permitless firearms?

[Fenix]

I know that the safety of permitless carry and the permitless concealed carry of firearms is hotly debated, but has anyone come across information about missed revenue? I wonder how much money it's cost local those local governments to do away with the permitting fees. Do you think it's a sizable amount?

 

[Winny]

I know that the safety of permitless carry and the permitless concealed carry of firearms is hotly debated, but has anyone come across information about missed revenue? I wonder how much money it's cost local those local governments to do away with the permitting fees. Do you think it's a sizable amount?

That's a good question. I did a little bit of digging and I found an article that discusses this exact thing in Tennessee. They have a permittless carry law. It says it costs them $20M a year. I don't know if that's a true number, seems very high. And it's said to be because of them no longer receiving the money from handgun permits. But it also includes the fact of increased incarceration costs due to the change. You can read that article here - Tennessean

 

[Jake]

That's a good question. I did a little bit of digging and I found an article that discusses this exact thing in Tennessee. They have a permittless carry law. It says it costs them $20M a year. I don't know if that's a true number, seems very high. And it's said to be because of them no longer receiving the money from handgun permits. But it also includes the fact of increased incarceration costs due to the change. You can read that article here - Tennessean

Makes you wonder what it's like in other states that have also done something similar. I imagine it costed them a lot of money as well. But yeah, $20 million a year is crazy to lose out on. Maybe they should bring permits back.

 

[Eric]

Here's another article discussing revenue losses at sheriff's offices in Alabama after Alabama's "constitutional carry" law went into effect last year. The Sheriff for Morgan County was quoted as saying that the lost revenue was "affecting what we are able to do operationally speaking." The article mentions that concealed carry licensing fees had previously been used to fund "operational expenses like equipment, vehicles, and training."

Does anyone else see something wrong with this picture? Why were sheriff's departments so reliant on concealed carry licensing fees to fund their operations in the first place? Over in this thread and this thread, we discussed the extent to which building permit fees should cover building department labor costs as opposed to departments relying on taxpayer money to fund their operations. I really liked @W3 Planning and Research's take on this when he said, "I have always believed that the budget should be completely covered by the costs of the permits (minus code enforcement activities) so that the tax payers aren't paying for developers permits." It makes sense that permit fees should cover a department's labor costs for permit processing/compliance - even achieving this level of cost recovery has proven difficult for many departments. What doesn't make sense to me is the idea that permit fees should cover department activities in general, beyond just permit processing labor. Why should operational expenses like training - which is in the general public interest - be dependent on concealed carry permits? When a state adopts permitless carry, I feel like the only budget item affected should be funding for staff who were previously administering the concealed carry licensing programs.

 

[Winny]

Here's another article discussing revenue losses at sheriff's offices in Alabama after Alabama's "constitutional carry" law went into effect last year. The Sheriff for Morgan County was quoted as saying that the lost revenue was "affecting what we are able to do operationally speaking." The article mentions that concealed carry licensing fees had previously been used to fund "operational expenses like equipment, vehicles, and training."

Does anyone else see something wrong with this picture? Why were sheriff's departments so reliant on concealed carry licensing fees to fund their operations in the first place? Over in this thread and this thread, we discussed the extent to which building permit fees should cover building department labor costs as opposed to departments relying on taxpayer money to fund their operations. I really liked @W3 Planning and Research's take on this when he said, "I have always believed that the budget should be completely covered by the costs of the permits (minus code enforcement activities) so that the tax payers aren't paying for developers permits." It makes sense that permit fees should cover a department's labor costs for permit processing/compliance - even achieving this level of cost recovery has proven difficult for many departments. What doesn't make sense to me is the idea that permit fees should cover department activities in general, beyond just permit processing labor. Why should operational expenses like training - which is in the general public interest - be dependent on concealed carry permits? When a state adopts permitless carry, I feel like the only budget item affected should be funding for staff who were previously administering the concealed carry licensing programs.

Yeah that is odd. You'd think they should be paid from our tax dollars and from the state. So I don't get why they relied so heavily on these permits to get by. It sounds as if they are just trying to go back to the old ways so that they keep racking in the money.

If anything I think police forces need to hire people to monitor their expenses, because it's clear they're doing something wrong if these permits were providing so much revenue for them.

 

[Jake]

Here's another article discussing revenue losses at sheriff's offices in Alabama after Alabama's "constitutional carry" law went into effect last year. The Sheriff for Morgan County was quoted as saying that the lost revenue was "affecting what we are able to do operationally speaking." The article mentions that concealed carry licensing fees had previously been used to fund "operational expenses like equipment, vehicles, and training."

Does anyone else see something wrong with this picture? Why were sheriff's departments so reliant on concealed carry licensing fees to fund their operations in the first place? Over in this thread and this thread, we discussed the extent to which building permit fees should cover building department labor costs as opposed to departments relying on taxpayer money to fund their operations. I really liked @W3 Planning and Research's take on this when he said, "I have always believed that the budget should be completely covered by the costs of the permits (minus code enforcement activities) so that the tax payers aren't paying for developers permits." It makes sense that permit fees should cover a department's labor costs for permit processing/compliance - even achieving this level of cost recovery has proven difficult for many departments. What doesn't make sense to me is the idea that permit fees should cover department activities in general, beyond just permit processing labor. Why should operational expenses like training - which is in the general public interest - be dependent on concealed carry permits? When a state adopts permitless carry, I feel like the only budget item affected should be funding for staff who were previously administering the concealed carry licensing programs.

Sounds like they're running things poorly if that's the case. No police force should be relying on permit sales to keep the place running properly. I thought the state paid the police force, or the government since they're public servants right? That's how I always assumed things go. Plus like Winny said with taxes, I imagine our taxes go to help paying for the police and even their police department.

So if the police rely so heavily on those permits, things need to change to where they are paid in other ways.

 

[Davenport]

I agree, @Eric, otherwise it feels like they were overcharging for the permits in the first place. I've never thought of permits as a means for the city or state to add surplus revenue to their coffers.