CCMIN060199 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Tarver asked if the adjustment of the fee from $400 to $350 was based on the exemptions for people that would not need to have background checks. Mr. Roush indicated the $400 would have been all inclusive of the staff time and the application to process the fingerprints. When staff reviewed it, the staff time was separated out to represent the $350 and the dealers will pay $94 per employee for the use of the lifescan. So it is actually more than $400. Mr. Tarver suggested that anyone dealing with a firearm sale, whether processing the DROS or otherwise dealing with a customer, should be taken into this process. Would the fee structure need to be changed? Mr. Roush said that would expand the number of employees involved. The initial permit fee would remain at $350, but there would be an additional cost of $94 per employee. The distinction between the two was that the person with the background check would most likely fill out the DROS form initially, because that is the person who works in the department and is most likely to be involved with the showing of the firearm and taking information initially. Sometimes, if that person is otherwise engaged, then another retail person who has not had a background check could take the information. The information is checked later. When the buyer comes back after the ten day waiting period, then the employee with the background check would be the one to interact with the customer and would verify all identification. Council can certainly expand the scope of employees required to have background checks if it so desires. Ms. Dennis had two concems in the process. One was control of access to the product and the other was the paperwork. She was concerned with the relative potential inexperience of the people who may be called on to do the initial contact. Because of the level of skill and the awareness that this is not a sale of a normal product, there is the need for greater responsibility for accuracy. She was very concerned about the completion of the form at the start of the process. She would prefer to have anyone involved with the paperwork to have a background check so there is a heightened level of awareness. Mr. Tarver had the same concern. The point is the emphasis placed on the sale of the gun and the report that has to be completed and what a salesperson is supposed to be doing in the process. One way to reduce the cost is to limit the number of people that you give that responsibilityto and the number that have to go to the ATF training. He hoped that people dealing with firearms in the stores have the proper training in checking. Ms. Michelotti asked for clarification, was Ms. Dennis suggesting that clerks who can deal with a customer but not have access to the actual guns would not be required to have a background check? But any person who had access to the guns (and have a background check) would be the ones that have to actually fill out the forms. Ms. Dennis agreed with that. Access to the product is limited to only certain people and she was comfortable with that. It was the paperwork aspect that disturbed her more because that is a Pleasanton City Council 21 06/01/99 Minutes