State Fiscal Highlights

STATE FUND	FY 2006*	FY 2007	FUTURE YEARS
General Revenue Fund (GRF)
Revenues	- 0 -	Potential negligible loss in court cost revenues	Potential negligible loss in court cost revenues
Expenditures	- 0 -	Potential incarceration cost increase, likely to be no more than minimal	Potential incarceration cost increase, likely to be no more than minimal
Victims of Crime/Reparations Fund (Fund 402)
Revenues	- 0 -	Potential negligible loss in court cost revenues	Potential negligible loss in court cost revenues
Expenditures	- 0 -	- 0 -	- 0 -

Note: The state fiscal year is July 1 through June 30. For example, FY 2006 is July 1, 2005 – June 30, 2006.

*This analysis assumes that any fiscal effects created for the state as a result of the bill will occur no earlier than FY 2007.

· Incarceration expenditures. It is possible as a result of the bill's felony penalty enhancement that, in the future: (1) offenders that might not otherwise have been prison-bound under current law and sentencing practices may be sentenced to a prison term, and (2) offenders that would have been prison-bound under current law and sentencing practices may be sentenced to a longer prison term. Assuming all other conditions remain the same, either outcome theoretically at least increases the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction's (DRC) GRF-funded incarceration costs. As the number of offenders that might be affected in either manner annually appears likely to be relatively small, any related increase in DRC's annual GRF-funded incarceration costs would be minimal at most. For the purposes of this fiscal analysis, minimal means an estimated cost of less than $100,000 per year for the state.

· Victims of Crime/Reparations Fund (Fund 402). In addition to any fines and local court costs imposed, those convicted of violating a local firearms ordinance, which would be classified as a misdemeanor, must pay locally collected state court costs. State court costs for a misdemeanor conviction total $24, of which $9 is credited to the Victims of Crime/Reparations Fund (Fund 402) and $15 is credited to the GRF. Given the relatively small number of firearms-related arrests, prosecutions, and convictions that would have occurred under existing local ordinances, but would most probably not occur as a result of the bill's provision declaring that the regulation of firearms is a matter of statewide concern, the state's GRF and Fund 402 are likely to lose no more than a negligible amount of annual revenue. For the purposes of this fiscal analysis, a negligible loss in state revenues means an estimated decrease of less than $1,000 per year for either state fund.

Local Fiscal Highlights

LOCAL GOVERNMENT		FY 2006	FY 2007	FUTURE YEARS
Counties – Sheriff's Concealed Handgun License Issuance Expense Fund
Revenues	Gain of up to $120,000 or more		Gain of up to $240,000 or more	Gain of up to $240,000 or more
Expenditures	- 0 -		- 0 -	- 0 -
Counties and Municipalities
Revenues	Minimal effect on moneys generated by local criminal justice systems		Minimal effect on moneys generated by local criminal justice systems	Minimal effect on moneys generated by local criminal justice systems
Expenditures	Minimal effect on local criminal justice system operating costs		Minimal effect on local criminal justice system operating costs	Minimal effect on local criminal justice system operating costs

Note: For most local governments, the fiscal year is the calendar year. The school district fiscal year is July 1 through June 30.

· Concealed carry license fee. Legislative Service Commission fiscal staff estimate that the bill's $10 fee increase per concealed carry license application would generate up to $240,000 or more annually statewide in additional local revenues to be deposited in the appropriate county treasuries to the credit of their respective Sheriff's Concealed Handgun License Issuance Expense Fund, the purpose of which is to finance the duties and responsibilities of the sheriff under the existing Concealed Carry Licensing Law.

· Local firearms ordinance violations. In some local jurisdictions, as a result of the bill's provision declaring that the regulation of firearms is a matter of statewide concern, it appears that a few individuals that might have been arrested, prosecuted in a county court or a municipal court, convicted, and subsequently sanctioned for violating a local firearms ordinance, will likely not be so arrested, prosecuted, convicted, and sanctioned. The fiscal effect of such an outcome could be a decrease in county and municipal criminal justice system expenditures, but any such decrease would be unlikely to exceed minimal annually. In addition, some municipalities may lose related fine and court cost revenues and some counties may lose related court cost revenues, but any such loss in local revenues would be unlikely to exceed minimal annually. For the purposes of this fiscal analysis, minimal in the context of county and municipal criminal justice systems means a change in revenues and/or expenditures estimated at no more than $5,000 per year for any affected local criminal justice system.

· Local firearms regulation. It appears that, in some local jurisdictions, for example, the City of Columbus, a permit to purchase a firearm within that jurisdiction is required and the application process imposes a $5 fee. Presumably, as a result of the bill's provision declaring that the regulation of firearms is a matter of statewide concern, these permit revenues would be lost to certain municipalities, including the City of Columbus, that assess such an application-processing fee under their local ordinances. It appears unlikely that the amount of this application processing fee revenue lost annually would be very large. It is also likely that this loss of revenues would be offset by the elimination of the administrative burden associated with processing applications, issuing final permits, and, in the case of Columbus, paying for a criminal records check conducted by the city police department.

· Penalty enhancements. The bill's penalty enhancements could increase a county or municipal criminal justice system's costs related to investigating, prosecuting, adjudicating, defending (if the offender is indigent), and subsequent sanctioning of certain offenders, as such offenders may work harder to avoid the imposition of a term, or a longer term, of incarceration in jail or prison. The possibility of an enhanced penalty also means that a county or municipality could gain more related fine revenue from certain criminal cases than might otherwise have been the case under current law and practice. As the number of criminal cases affected by the penalty enhancements in any given local jurisdiction appears likely to be relatively small, any related changes in local criminal justice system revenues and expenditures seems unlikely to exceed minimal on an ongoing basis. For the purposes of this fiscal analysis, minimal in the context of county and municipal criminal justice systems means a change in revenues and/or expenditures estimated at no more than $5,000 per year for any affected local criminal justice system.

Detailed Fiscal Analysis

Overview

The bill identifies the right of any person, except as restricted by provisions in the Revised Code, to own, possess, purchase, otherwise acquire, transport, carry, sell, or otherwise transfer a firearm, a component of a firearm, or ammunition for a firearm, and makes a number of changes and adjustments to the laws governing licenses to carry a concealed handgun. For the purposes of this analysis, LSC fiscal staff has, as of this writing, identified the significant provisions as follows:

· Increases the fee charged to applicants for a concealed carry license or a renewal license from the current maximum allowable fee of $45 to $55.

· Specifically provides that any person may own, possess, purchase, otherwise acquire, transport, carry, sell, or otherwise transfer a firearm, firearm component, or ammunition for a firearm.

· Stipulates that the provision described in the immediately preceding dot point and certain other sections of the Revised Code dealing with firearms are constitutionally protected rights in every part of the state of Ohio and therefore preempt and supersede any local laws dealing with those matters.

· Enhances the penalties for certain offenses related to the state's Concealed Carry Licensing Law.

Concealed carry license fee

State fiscal effects

As of this writing, the provision of the bill that increases the fee for a concealed carry license or a renewal license does not appear to directly affect state revenues and expenditures.

Local fiscal effects

Under current law:

· If an applicant for a concealed carry license or a renewal license has been a resident of Ohio for five or more years, the fee for the license is an amount that does not exceed the lesser of the actual cost of issuing the license, including, but not limited to, the cost of conducting the criminal records check, or $45.

· If an applicant has been a resident of Ohio for less than five years, the fee for the license is an amount that must consist of the actual cost of having a criminal background check performed by the FBI, if performed, plus the lesser of the actual cost of issuing the license, including, but not limited to, the cost of conducting the criminal records check, or $45.

· The fee for a temporary emergency license is an amount that does not exceed the actual cost of conducting the criminal background check, or $30.

The bill makes no change to the fee for a temporary emergency license, but for a regular license it: (1) eliminates the fee distinction based on the number of years a person has been a resident of Ohio, and (2) increases the fee for a license or renewal application made on or after the effective date of the bill to $55.

Based on data for the first three quarters of calendar year (CY) 2005 collected by the Office of the Ohio Attorney General, and estimating for the final quarter based on the average of the previous three quarters, LSC fiscal staff estimate that approximately 24,000 licenses for concealed carry were issued in CY 2005. Assuming a similar estimate for CYs 2006 and 2007, the $10 fee increase per license application would generate up to $240,000 or more annually statewide in additional local revenues to be deposited in the appropriate county treasuries to the credit of their respective Sheriff's Concealed Handgun License Issuance Expense Fund, the purpose of which is to finance the ongoing duties and responsibilities of the sheriff under the existing Concealed Carry Licensing Law.

Penalty enhancements

The bill enhances the penalties for certain offenses related to the state's Concealed Carry Licensing Law as follows:

· Increases the penalty for a concealed carry licensee who fails to inform a law enforcement officer who has stopped the licensee that the person has a loaded handgun in a motor vehicle from a misdemeanor of the fourth degree to a misdemeanor of the third degree.

· Increases the penalty for a person who knowingly has a loaded handgun in a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, a drug of abuse, or a combination of them or in violation of state OVI law from a felony of the fifth degree to a felony of the fourth degree if the loaded handgun is concealed on the person's person.

Local criminal justice systems

Expenditures. The bill's penalty enhancements could increase a county or municipal criminal justice system's costs related to investigating, prosecuting, adjudicating, defending (if the offender is indigent), and subsequent sanctioning of certain offenders, as such offenders may work harder to avoid the imposition of a term, or a longer term, of incarceration in jail or prison. As the number of criminal cases affected by the bill in any given local jurisdiction appears likely to be relatively small, any potential related increase in criminal justice system expenditures seems unlikely to exceed minimal on an ongoing basis. For the purposes of this fiscal analysis, a minimal expenditure increase means an estimated cost of no more than $5,000 per year for any affected local criminal justice system.

Revenues. The possibility of an enhanced penalty means that a county or municipality could gain more fine revenue from certain criminal cases than might otherwise have been the case under current law and practice. As the number of criminal cases that could be affected by the bill's penalty enhancements in any given county or municipality appears likely to be relatively small, any potential related gain in fine revenues seems unlikely to exceed minimal on an ongoing basis. For the purposes of this fiscal analysis, a minimal revenue gain means an estimated increase of no more than $5,000 per year for any affected county or municipality. Also of note is that courts appear to rarely impose or collect the maximum potential fine.

State fiscal effects

Incarceration expenditures. It is also possible as a result of the bill that, in the future: (1) offenders that might not otherwise have been prison-bound under current law and sentencing practices may be sentenced to a prison term, and (2) offenders that would have been prison-bound under current law and sentencing practices may be sentenced to a longer prison term. Assuming all other conditions remain the same, either outcome theoretically at least increases the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction's (DRC) GRF-funded incarceration costs. As the number of offenders that might be affected in either manner annually appears likely to be relatively small, any related increase in DRC's annual incarceration costs would be minimal at most. For the purposes of this fiscal analysis, minimal means an estimated cost of less than $100,000 per year for the state.

Regulation of firearms is a matter of statewide concern

Local fiscal effects

The bill contains provisions preempting local firearms regulations if they are considered general laws. This means that all local ordinances prohibiting certain actions with respect to firearms must fall into line with state law and that these local ordinances would have to be repealed and presumably rewritten to comport with state law.

According to the Ohio Municipal League, the cities of Toledo and Columbus have both enacted some of the most restrictive local ordinances banning the possession of certain types of firearms. In both cities, a violation of their local firearms ordinances is a misdemeanor of the first degree. Under state law, a violation of a misdemeanor of the first degree is punishable by an individual fine of up to $1,000 and/or a possible jail stay of not more than six months. Based on discussions with local prosecutors in Toledo and Columbus, it appears that very few criminal cases are handled annually under these local ordinances and the amount of the fine revenues collected in association with convictions is very small.

Thus, in some local jurisdictions, as a result of the bill's provision declaring that the regulation of firearms is a matter of statewide concern, it appears that a few individuals that might have been arrested, prosecuted in a county court or a municipal court, convicted, and subsequently sanctioned for violating a local firearms ordinance, will likely not be so arrested, prosecuted, convicted, and sanctioned. The fiscal effect of such an outcome could be a decrease in county and municipal criminal justice system expenditures, but any such decrease would be unlikely to exceed minimal annually. In addition, some municipalities may lose related fine and court cost revenues and some counties may lose related court cost revenues, but any such loss in local revenues would be unlikely to exceed minimal annually. For the purposes of this fiscal analysis, minimal in the context of county and municipal criminal justice systems means a change in revenues and/or expenditures estimated at no more than $5,000 per year for any affected local criminal justice system.

Additionally, it appears that in some local jurisdictions, for example, the City of Columbus, a permit to purchase a firearm within that jurisdiction is required and the application process imposes a $5 fee. Presumably, as a result of the provision declaring that the regulation of firearms is a matter of statewide concern, these local permit revenues would be lost to certain municipalities, including the City of Columbus, that assess such an application processing fee under their local ordinances. It appears unlikely that the amount of this application processing fee revenue lost annually would be very large. It is also likely that this loss of revenues would be offset by the elimination of the administrative burden associated with processing applications, issuing final permits, and, in the case of Columbus, paying for a criminal records check conducted by the city police department.

State fiscal effects

In addition to any fines and local court costs imposed, those convicted of violating a local firearms ordinance, which would be classified as a misdemeanor, must pay locally collected state court costs. State court costs for a misdemeanor conviction total $24, of which $9 is credited to the Victims of Crime/Reparations Fund (Fund 402) and $15 is credited to the GRF. Given the relatively small number of firearms-related arrests, prosecutions, and convictions that would have occurred under existing local ordinances, but would most probably not occur as a result of the bill's provision declaring that the regulation of firearms is a matter of statewide concern, the state's GRF and Fund 402 are likely to lose no more than a negligible amount of annual revenue. For the purposes of this fiscal analysis, a negligible loss in state revenues means an estimated decrease of less than $1,000 per year for either state fund.

LSC fiscal staff: Joseph Rogers, Senior Budget Analyst

HB0347HP.doc/cm

BILL:	Sub. H.B. 347		DATE:	March 28, 2006
STATUS:	As Passed by the House		SPONSOR:	Rep. Aslanides
LOCAL IMPACT STATEMENT REQUIRED:		No —	Minimal cost