TexasCHLforum.com

trueno wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Both options are in the IRS Code, so that's not a loophole. You're going to have to try harder to make yet another snide comment. It will probably be your last, by the way.

Chas.

The so-called "loophole in the Texas CHL law" is also an option, at least for now, it's comparable to the "gunshow loophole" so often parroted by anti-2nd types - ie: private sales without NICS.
t

You need to reread the post to which I was responding, as well as the definition of "loophole" I quoted. Every "loophole" is an option but not every option is a loophole. The U.S. Congress intended to offer alternative tax deductions so that is not a loophole. Texas residents carrying on other state licenses was never intended when the legislature set up our reciprocity provisions. Thus, Texans carrying on another state's license meets the definition of a loophole.

As I've said many many times, I don't want to see HB356 pass, nor do I want Texas law changed in this respect.

Chas.

Bart wrote:

seamusTX wrote:(a loophole is an exception in the law that the speaker dislikes)

That's the bottom line. Isn't it.

Some people may be offended that others pay lower taxes because of a "loophole" in the tax laws, and some people may be offended that others paid less for their RKBA license/permit because of a "loophole" in the Texas CHL laws.

The offended people may use ad hominem to insinuate that the people who use loopholes violate the law, when in reality the people who use the loopholes are obeying the law to the letter.

Please reread the Webster definition in my post. A loophole is not merely something the speaker doesn't like. It is a clearly defined term that fits the situation of a Texas resident carrying on another state's license. There's no loophole in the IRS Code dealing with tax deductions as it accurately expresses legislative intent.

Chas.

Bart wrote:Reciprocity is in the Texas CHL law.

The IRS Code intentionally provides alternatives in terms of tax deductions. The Texas Government Code does not provide options for Texas residents to carry on another state's license; that was not legislative intent. That's a loophole by definition.

Webster wrote:: a means of escape; especially : an ambiguity or omission in the text through which the intent of a statute, contract, or obligation may be evaded.

Chas.

Bart wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:Whether you carry under authority of a CFP because you cannot qualify for a Texas CHL, or you carry under the authority of a CFP because you qualify but don't want to spend the $140 for a CHL, you are circumventing the laws of the state of Texas, and you are circumventing the intent of the legislature in passing CHL. What other laws are you circumventing in your daily behavior simply because you don't think the laws apply to you?

They're probably using tax loopholes like itemizing to deduct mortgage interest or business expenses, instead of taking the standard deduction.

The horror!

Both options are in the IRS Code, so that's not a loophole. You're going to have to try harder to make yet another snide comment. It will probably be your last, by the way.

Chas.