TexasCHLforum.com

The "gun" is definitely NOT the problem. It is the one who controls the hand that holds the gun. I don't know why you would think the gun is the problem. It's just a really nice paper weight until someone pulls the trigger.
*********************************************************************************************

C-dub, I agree with you 100! What I was trying to say was that a gun, in a potential bad guy's hands, is the start of the possibility of a problem. But then as I said, the b/g is probably not going to try to buy with a background check anyway.

"Mine got rejected for "dishpan hands"".
****************************************************

Well, for sure, that is only apt to happen when one washes the dishes/whatever with lye soap!!! Probably took your nails off too!!

Another shared opinion probably won't make any difference on this, however I do have a few comments. First, IMHO, being required to get digital finger prints for the CHL "sucks". That just shouldn't happen, and yes, it probably did come with the push and support of the now "sole source vendor", who had monetary gain to receive through this measure. If the State/DPS wanted to implement the digital requirement, then it also should have been planned to have every DPS office set up with the equipment to do the digital fingerprinting. Equipment too expensive?? Then stay with the ink prints until the price of the digital equipment comes down.

Personally, I think it is an amusing situation to require any kind of finger prints to apply for the CHL anyway, when it is really the "gun" that would be the problem, in the wrong hands!! And, of course, no fingerprints required, for buying a "gun". Just fill out a form, and have a drivers license ID and Social Security number. Wallah! 10 minutes and the background check is done. Now, with "gun" in hand, one can take that "gun" anywhere in the State, with the lawful exceptions, in the car while "traveling", in accordance with the State's definition of "one traveling in an automobile". So, being able to have a "concealed gun" lawfully in the car while "traveling", with no CHL necessary, and to be able to lawfully have "gun/guns on your own property, for personal protection, with no CHL necessary, the need in State laws for finger prints of any kind is questionable.

Yes, I did see where the requirement for the prints could go away fairly soon.

I do wonder why just a standard background check, like when buying a "gun", wouldn't be enough for getting a CHl, after whatever training is lawfully required. Proof of background check and proof of CHL training would make getting a CHL pretty simple. Of course, only those of us who want to be able freely carry, in accordance our rights in the laws of this land, will apply for a CHL anyway. The "bad guys" won't be making application foe a CHL, nor buying a gun with a background check - why would they??

So, pretty much all of this CHL requirements stuff is pretty much to just "make it as difficult as we can on the good guys". I personally don't believe that is in accord with the intentions of the founders of our country, in making it a "right " to cary a gun.

Now, with all of that said, my ink prints, made by the CHL class instructor, were rejected twice. I finally did go to to the DPS office in Garland to have them made. The officer making them said in all of his printing, he has had only one set rejected. And that rejection was a female who had just about worn off her fingerprints, with a lifetime of typing work!