TexasCHLforum.com

Yes, vendors, retailers, shopkeepers certainly have a right to tell a customer to get bent if they wish, especially when it is obvious the "customer" is not really there to buy but to morally harangue and waste the vendor's time with pejoratively phrased questions. (Especially if the "moral" position is off-base). The customer is certainly free to take his business elsewhere.

The root cause of the problem is not Utah or Utah CFP instructors, the root cause is Texas, in particular the legislature, who a) requires a license for a right that is supposed to be protected by the 2nd Amendment, and b) charges an exorbitant fee and sets onerous requirements unrelated to the that right to get it.

The CHL is only tolerable as a significant stepping stone from the total ban lunacy to protecting the right of self-defense as it should be done (i.e. without state permission being required). One of the "flagship" bills for the next legislature (since it is too late for this one) should at least be to ratchet down the fees, and deal with the requirement problems. I doubt we'll be quite ready to eliminate it altogether yet.

I do not think limiting the abilities of someone to carry on a CHL or a CFP or whathaveyou from any state can be considered a good thing. The whole CHL idea itself should be dispensed with; it is tolerable only in that it represents a step forward from where we used to be. It is not a desireable endstate. Any adult of the US who does not have a feloniously violent criminal history or is not certifiably looney should be able to defend himself with whatever he chooses tote along.

The laws of the US, the state of Texas, or whoever, are not Holy Writ handed down like the Ten Commandments. They are a hodge podge of thought, thoughtlessness, compromise, and balancing among various power centers. Someone may start out with the holiest of intents, but the law that is produced is still a man-made sausage. This is one reason why trying to go by "legislative intent" is not only hard, but a positively bad idea. It makes the text of the law irrelevant, and subjects the alleged violator to the whims of whoever gets chosen to decide "intent." "The legislature" is not a single entity; even people who vote for the same Act can do so for different reasons. Judging laws according what you think the legislature meant is in fact lawless -- it turns the law into whatever you think it means.

When someone is trying to exercise their fundamental human right to self-defense to fullest extent he can legally, and in fact meets the strictures of an often convoluted, and contradictory law, to call that "morally compromised" is outrageous. If the law is really allowing a bad thing, (and in this case, it is not), then change it, but do not insult and smear those who are in fact obeying the law.

The most straightforward solution to the "problem" would be for Texas to reduce the CHL fee to reasonable level. (That is, until we can dispense with the program altogether).

This is the root of the problem, not "loopholes." I understand politically why feathers get ruffled when money heads out of state, but really that is an ego-based response -- "hey, those guys are flouting our authority/taking our money!" Phooey. That money does not belong to the state of Texas, it belongs to the guy buying the licence. The real answer to is look at the root of the problem and realize the State is taxing a fundamental right at a burdensome level, then reduce (or eliminate) it.

When you tax something too highly, or tax something that should not have been taxed at all, you drive business and tax payers out of state. Texas is generally in much better shape than the states that are taxing the bejabbers out of people, because it has generally not used its taxing power excessively- with the exception of Amazon.com and Texas CHL holders. And note in Amazon's case the Governor is calling on the legislature to fix it -- by reigning in the Comptroller's attempt to tax them. Would be nice if he did that for Texas CHL holders as well, since what is being taxed is far more a fundamental human right than online sales.