Case in point

[mr.72]

For the first time since we've been married, my wife is working. One day a week, she's delivering little newspapers to restaurants and coffee shops and she has three routes.

She doesn't have a CHL.

Yesterday she was mentioning some places on her route and knowing the part of town she is going to be in (East Austin), I immediately thought "you need to take the gun". But of course, she has no CHL and could not carry it outside the car! Many of the places she must visit are 51% establishments and post the "The unlicensed possession ... felony..." sign, so it would be very high legal risk to carry, high safety risk not to.

The cost of the class + application fee for her for a CHL will be one month's wages for the job at which she would need to carry.

It would probably take 4+ months for her to get her CHL since she lives in the same county as I do (obviously) and I am hovering around day 100 and have not yet completed the background checks.

We need to reform the CHL process in Texas right now. Forget 60 days, it needs to be:

1. pay $25 administrative fee
2. pass written test
3. get provisional license TODAY that lasts 60 days
4. get final license post-background-check in 60 days MAX, otherwise an automatic renewal of the provisional license.

[Purplehood]

I respectfully disagree.

The hands-on demonstration that you can at least shoot should be a MINIMUM requirement. As it is, there are still alot of folks that have had "training" and I wouldn't trust them with a dull butter-knife.

[mr.72]

I respectfully disagree.

The hands-on demonstration that you can at least shoot should be a MINIMUM requirement. As it is, there are still alot of folks that have had "training" and I wouldn't trust them with a dull butter-knife.

Maybe I would like to see you have "training" and a license in order to exercise your freedom of speech.

[Purplehood]

Have you ever been next to someone with a live hand-grenade that has absolutely no idea what they are doing with it?

We can do all sorts of comparisons, but I see no problem with having requirements for training on the proper handling and usage of firearms.

I see your literal comparison, and logically it makes sense, but I would never agree to relaxing our laws to the extent that I understand you to be asking for.

[ScrapMetal]

Maybe I would like to see you have "training" and a license in order to exercise your freedom of speech.

Speech cannot kill someone. Not a fair comparison. Although they are both rights given to us under the same document, CHL is a different animal. Along with having a CHL we take on a massive responsibility.

I could NEVER support giving a license without a background check. Then you run the risk of letting convicted felons carry, even if only for 30-60 days. Bad Idea IMO.

I would support lower fees definitely, but someone has to be paid to process the applications ect. I also would like to see more training made readily available. Not as a requirement, but definitely some courses that get more into tactical training, crisis management/tactics. Stuff more along the lines of Police officer training

[Charles L. Cotton]

The problem with issuing a temporary or provisional CHL is that 1) we would lose our NICS exemption; and 2) we would lose reciprocity (and other types of recognition short of a formal reciprocity agreement) with states that require a background check before issuing a license. This is every state with which we currently have reciprocity and all but one or two that unilaterally recognize Texas.

Chas.

[FlynJay]

I would support lower fees definitely, but someone has to be paid to process the applications ect.

The way I understand the funding system works:
1.The fee goes into the general revenue fund.
2. DPS is doled out what has been alloted them in the last legislative session.

I think the fees should go directly to DPS. That way when they have an increase in the total number of applicants they have an immedate and proportional increase in budget. The fee should reflect that actual cost of DPS to process applications, if there is a surplus the fee should be reduced.

[mr.72]

Thanks, Charles for pointing out the NICS and reciprocity issues. I am well aware of those issues. I would add those to the list of things that need to change :)

[Xander]

Personally, from a philosophical view, I'm in favor of the Alaskan model. No license needed to carry concealed at all. New Hampshire isn't *too* terribly bad either...Fill in the form, give them $10, presto-change-o you have a license.

I also wouldn't be opposed to a two-tier system, where one tier was based on one of the above systems, and the other tier worked the same way as the current system (with no under-21 exceptions, like the active military exception we have now) for NCIS and reciprocity purposes.

[Xander]

I respectfully disagree.

The hands-on demonstration that you can at least shoot should be a MINIMUM requirement. As it is, there are still alot of folks that have had "training" and I wouldn't trust them with a dull butter-knife.

And I disagree with that. That's just a watered-down version of the anti-gun position that CHLers can't be trusted with guns, and it can be refuted with exactly the same facts, which are that states that don't have shooting requirements for licensed carry (like New Hampshire) don't have a higher rate of problems with CHLers than states that do.

[bdickens]

How about a test to make sure someone can put together a coherent thought before he can write something for public consumption?

How about a test to make sure someone has a basic grasp of Theology before he can start a church?

Oh, yes, speech can kill someone. And has. Same with religion. The improper use of speech and religion both have killed more people or destroyed more lives than probably anything else. Certainly more than any citizen with a gun has.

[mr.72]

Maybe I would like to see you have "training" and a license in order to exercise your freedom of speech.

Speech cannot kill someone. Not a fair comparison. Although they are both rights given to us under the same document, CHL is a different animal. Along with having a CHL we take on a massive responsibility.

I am pretty sure speech is at least as dangerous as a hand gun.

I could NEVER support giving a license without a background check. Then you run the risk of letting convicted felons carry, even if only for 30-60 days. Bad Idea IMO.

Well is that a background check, or a criminal history check?

You can't buy a gun if you are a convicted felon and a gun dealer can run that check in less than 10 minutes.

Certainly if the DPS cannot figure out if a person standing in their office is a convicted felon or not within a normal waiting room time frame, then we have a much more serious problem here.

I would support lower fees definitely, but someone has to be paid to process the applications ect. I also would like to see more training made readily available. Not as a requirement, but definitely some courses that get more into tactical training, crisis management/tactics. Stuff more along the lines of Police officer training

Private training is currently available. I don't think I recall suggesting that we disallow people from seeking private training.

Fees are not attached to the costs, not in this bureaucracy or in any other in the State. Fees are set by fiat. Costs are paid by the general fund. Our taxes fund everything, and the license fee for a CHL or for any other thing requiring a license is simply an additional tax.

[Xander]

I could NEVER support giving a license without a background check. Then you run the risk of letting convicted felons carry, even if only for 30-60 days. Bad Idea IMO.

I'm pretty sure that convicted felons who decide they want to carry, assuming they still tend towards criminal behaviour (the only ones we really *don't* want licensed to carry) aren't concerned about licensing restrictions, and how to circumvent them to get an illicit license. I'm pretty sure most of them are just going to stick a pistol in the ol' waistband and carry regardless. I don't really think we need to worry about how a change in licensing would affect that situation, because it isn't going to.

[mr.72]

Right on Xander. All of this debate over how to deal with criminals seeking a CHL is kind of ridiculous.

Why would a criminal, intent on continuing to use a gun in a crime, want to get a CHL? Do they really want to notify the State that they are routinely carrying a gun?

When did these career criminals begin to follow these silly laws anyway?

[ScrapMetal]

I am pretty sure speech is at least as dangerous as a hand gun.

I understand that words can escalate a situation to cause death, but you can not kill someone simply by speaking. You seem pretty passionate about this subject, which I appreciate as a fellow CHL holder, but I think you have to be able to calm down and admit that a mouth and a gun are not equally deadly. Words and bullets are not equally deadly. This is really not the issue at hand though.

I don't think I recall suggesting that we disallow people from seeking private training.

I wasn't insinuating that you did, that was just me adding something I though should be considered. Also to the other poster, I'm sure training is available out there, but it maybe mentioning it in the class or making people more aware of it would be nice. I wasn't suggesting a change to the system. I guess its just that I don't know where such training is available. That is clearly my responsibility though.

Well is that a background check, or a criminal history check?

You can't buy a gun if you are a convicted felon and a gun dealer can run that check in less than 10 minutes.

Certainly if the DPS cannot figure out if a person standing in their office is a convicted felon or not within a normal waiting room time frame, then we have a much more serious problem here.

I would say the same check that is done for CHL now.

I think in the end this idea would be OK if the laws we already have in place would be enforced more strictly or offered more harsh punishment (illegal use/ownership/sale of weapons). I am hesitant because I think there are too many stupid people out there that should not be allowed to own guns, but by using that logic I am only hurting the case for RKBA and CHL's in general. I am a little torn.

There are just so many stupid people. I do agree that the law abiding should not be punished for the "sins" of others though.

hmm