TexasCHLforum.com

What TAM said...

I agree.

Most laws as they are originally passed are imperfect. Often these so-called loopholes are created (a loophole is an exception in the law that the speaker dislikes). When the legislature becomes aware of actions that are contrary to its intent, they fix the law. Sometimes courts provide clarification.

I personally think the Texas CHL is too expensive and the requirements are too rigorous, but we need to fix that problem in Texas.

I understand the historical reasons that Texas had a weapons ban to begin with, and I understand the political obstacles to expanding the right to keep and bear arms, but I am disappointed with the performance of the current majority. I have pointed out for years that the CHL fee is more than it needs to be to cover the cost of processing applications, and states that have less stringent requirements have no problem with their situation.

- Jim

with the Annoyed Man

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!

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.

Reciprocity is in the Texas CHL law.

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.

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.

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.

with TAM.

I'm glad nobody thinks there's an "Indiana Problem" that needs solving.

So if Texas "fixes" this problem, what happens to people who move to Texas with a license from another state? If they're visiting their license is just fine but if they stay here their license is no good? Can't carry until they get a Texas license?

Bullwhip wrote:So if Texas "fixes" this problem, what happens to people who move to Texas with a license from another state? If they're visiting their license is just fine but if they stay here their license is no good? Can't carry until they get a Texas license?

Wouldn't the issue be more that once they become a Texas resident then they are no longer in possession of a valid resident permit from the State they came from?

If I have a Nevada resident permit and I then become a Texas resident, then I would need a Nevada non resident for my permit to be valid, correct?

It's kind of a catch 22, you can't get a non resident till you have a Texas ID, but once you get that your resident State permit in no good, so you can then request a non resident, but at that point you going to be with no permit until either your old state issues you a non resident or you get you CHL.

Lol this seems like time travel paradox.

seamusTX wrote:I agree.

Most laws as they are originally passed are imperfect. Often these so-called loopholes are created (a loophole is an exception in the law that the speaker dislikes). When the legislature becomes aware of actions that are contrary to its intent, they fix the law. Sometimes courts provide clarification.

I personally think the Texas CHL is too expensive and the requirements are too rigorous, but we need to fix that problem in Texas.

I understand the historical reasons that Texas had a weapons ban to begin with, and I understand the political obstacles to expanding the right to keep and bear arms, but I am disappointed with the performance of the current majority. I have pointed out for years that the CHL fee is more than it needs to be to cover the cost of processing applications, and states that have less stringent requirements have no problem with their situation.

- Jim

I agree, but I also disagree. I like what we have, only there should be no restrictions on where we can carry for a CHL. OC and CCwould be great but they would have restrictions, such as interstate resiprecity,51%, etc.

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.

You analogy breaks down, as Charles pointed out, when you try to use the tax laws to offset my point. The "loopholes" are deliberately designed into the tax code and are part of it. So when you take advantage of a tax code "loophole," you are acting within the intent of the legislature that wrote the code. "Cheating" on CHL law by avoiding it and carrying under a nonresident CFP only violates the intent of the legislature that wrote the CHL law. If they wanted you to be able to do that, they would have written into the code. Instead, rather than exploiting a loophole written into the code, you are circumventing the code entirely as if you believe that Texas law does not apply to you, because you're somehow special.

I'm not offended by someone's decision to try and cheat the law - because that's exactly what that is - I just recognize it for what it is, and I call it what it is: morally compromised. Like I said, if you willfully violate this law, what other laws do you willfully violate every day, and how can you claim to be a constitutional absolutist when you don't believe in absolutes?