[Redbob]

Interesting stuff: Sounds like the legislature clearly screwed up in not providing funding for the various activities (background checks, fingerprinting, etc.) required under the act, but the law prohibits local governments from enacting new fees to pay these expenses without voter approval.

[TroutStalker]

The localities will still make money from the fees involved, afterall money is fungible.

What this means is that residents from the rest of the state will be able to carry in the four counties while the locals won't be allowed. Once the locals there figure out that the out of towners are carrying, while they lose money by not issuing, they will change their opposition.

[Luke Skyfreeper]

Interesting stuff: Sounds like the legislature clearly screwed up in not providing funding for the various activities (background checks, fingerprinting, etc.) required under the act, but the law prohibits local governments from enacting new fees to pay these expenses without voter approval.

No. They provided plenty of funding. They only screwed up in the wording (and only very slightly at that), by failing to quite specifically specify that it was "the permit money left over after the expenses" instead of "the permit money" that was to be spent only on equipment and training.

The antis successfully got this small mistake in wording interpreted to be a prohibition against applying money submitted for the permits to expenses of processing the permits.

This in spite of the fact that in the very next paragraph, which authorizes county sheriffs to farm out the processing of permits to city police chiefs, it was explicitly stated that the police chiefs were to deduct all expenses required for processing the permits.