Who will pay for gun checks?Gun buyers would have to pay for background checks

Josey1

Who will pay for gun checks?Analyst calculates state would save $1.8 million if gun buyers were billed for background screeningsBy John Sanko, News Capitol BureauGun buyers would have to pay for their own criminal background checks when they purchase weapons in Colorado under a plan suggested Tuesday to lawmakers. Budget analyst Paul Doyle told members of the legislative Joint Budget Committee -- who are looking for ways to save money in a weak economy -- that shifting the cost from taxpayers to buyers could save nearly $1.8 million. Seventeen of the 25 states that operate their own Insta-check programs for gun buyers now charge the buyer part or all of the cost of a criminal background check, Doyle said. The cost in Colorado would be $14.80. The suggestion brought a cool response from Republican committee members but support from two Democrats. "The argument against it is (that) the Insta-check provides for well-being and safety of the public at large," Doyle admitted. "It serves more than the gun owners, so the entire public should pay." Rep. Brad Young, R-Lamar, the committee chairman, and Rep. Gayle Berry, R-Grand Junction, shrugged off the suggestion, but that wasn't the reaction from Sen. Penfield Tate, D-Denver, and Rep. Todd Saliman, D-Boulder. "I think it's a benefit to the gun owner," Tate said. "Absent the background check, you might not get the weapon at all. There is a benefit. I will tell you very candidly that absent a background check, there are some members of the legislature who wouldn't agree with a weapons sale at all." Saliman said he hoped legislators would at least consider a middle ground where gun buyers picked up some of the cost. Young and Berry said they would oppose any such effort. "This one is a huge policy issue -- we had a huge debate about whether the public should pay or the user should pay," Berry said. "I'm pretty comfortable with the way it's set right now. I don't think that's a policy path I would be comfortable going down." The committee also was told the state could save money -- from $48,064 to $147,196 -- by cutting back on the number of employees who do the background checks. That would work because there have been fewer background checks than initially expected -- 134,817 in the past fiscal year. The program had been funded for 163,638 checks http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/legislature/article/0,1299,DRMN_37_877317,00.html