Requiring criminal history record check information relating to hemp producers to be sent to the state fire marshal, updating the fingerprinting language for the state banking commissioner for money transmitters and earned wage access services providers and authorizing the state gaming agency and attorney general to have access to more criminal history record information.
SB 248 makes several changes to Kansas criminal history record check laws across multiple regulatory programs. The bill shifts responsibility for hemp producer fingerprinting and criminal history checks to the state fire marshal, while keeping the Kansas Bureau of Investigation involved in the actual record check process. It also adds hemp producer applicants to the list of persons whose criminal history information may be released to the state fire marshal and updates related hemp licensing disqualification rules, including a felony-based bar for certain recent drug offenses and a five-year ineligibility period for repeated negligent violations.
The bill also revises the Kansas money transmission act and earned wage access services provisions to modernize fingerprinting and background-check language for the state bank commissioner. It clarifies that the commissioner may require fingerprints and criminal history checks for applicants, licensees, control persons, and key individuals, and it expands the background information that may be reviewed, including credit, criminal, regulatory, and litigation history. Related confidentiality provisions are also updated, with several criminal history and examination materials made confidential and subject to sunset review in 2029.
In addition, SB 248 expands the list of agencies that may receive criminal history record information from the Kansas Bureau of Investigation. The attorney general and the state gaming agency are added or clarified as recipients for certain applicants, employees, and licensees, and the state bank commissioner is expressly authorized to receive criminal history information for applicants in control of a licensee, licensees, and key individuals. The bill also updates language in the private detective/firearm permit statute to conform to the broader criminal history record framework.
The overall impact is to broaden and standardize access to criminal history records for licensing and regulatory screening in hemp, banking, gaming, and related occupations, while preserving confidentiality and limiting use to official licensing or enforcement purposes. It amends K.S.A. 2024 Supp. 2-3906, 9-555, 9-565, 9-2411, 22-4714, and 75-7b01 and repeals the prior versions of those sections.
No committee transcript or recorded vote information was provided, so the general sentiment appears neutral and administrative rather than controversial. The bill’s structure suggests a technical cleanup and regulatory update measure, with the main points of potential contention likely centered on expanded background-check authority, confidentiality of criminal history records, and the scope of disqualifying offenses for hemp and financial-services applicants.
SB 248 amends Kansas statutes governing industrial hemp licensing, money transmission, earned wage access services, criminal history record checks, and private detective/firearm permit licensing. It expands who may be fingerprinted, what criminal history information may be shared, and which agencies may receive it, while also updating confidentiality rules and sunset provisions for certain records. The bill primarily affects applicants, licensees, control persons, key individuals, hemp producers, and regulated businesses subject to state licensing and background screening.
No votes or committee discussion were provided, so there is no recorded public debate to characterize. Based on the bill text, the measure appears to be a largely technical and regulatory update with an emphasis on licensing integrity, public safety, and administrative clarity. The tone is generally neutral and procedural, with no explicit evidence of strong support or opposition in the available materials.
The most likely points of contention are the expansion of criminal history access and the breadth of background checks for regulated industries. Hemp producers may be affected by the shift to state fire marshal oversight and the felony disqualification rule, while financial-services stakeholders may scrutinize the commissioner’s expanded authority to require fingerprints, review credit and litigation history, and keep records confidential. Privacy concerns may also arise from the bill’s broad sharing of criminal history information among agencies, even though the bill limits use and imposes confidentiality requirements.