TexasCHLforum.com

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

SewTexas wrote:I thought that something said that the ltc's had to support the department? if that's the case then it can't be fee free? this doesn't make sense...understand, I'll go for anything that means I'm not giving the govn't more of my $. I'm just not understanding how this can't work withing what I understand the law to be.

There's no legal or constitutional requirement that the LTC program be self-supporting. That has been the Legislature's requirement since 1993 (HB1776). It's still going to be a hard sell since the fiscal note on the Bill is going to be a shocker. Nevertheless, it's the right thing to do.

Chas.

I like the sentiment of zero fees, but if I had limited capital to spend, this isn't even 1% as useful as eliminating/reducing gun free zones.

RoyGBiv wrote:I like the sentiment of zero fees, but if I had limited capital to spend, this isn't even 1% as useful as eliminating/reducing gun free zones.

Additionally, remove criminal penalties for violations of 30.06 and 30.07 signage, make it a civil penalty with fine like a traffic ticket.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

rotor wrote:If you eliminate the fee then tax dollars from other programs have to pay for the processing of the LTC. I am not going to argue whether LTC should be eliminated but the person applying for one should be at a minimum paying for it.

I understand your point, but we are dealing with a constitutional right. If the Legislature feels that the licensing law should exist for public safety reasons, then the cost should be born by the general public. The cost of voter registration is born by the public and voting is also a constitutional right.

Chas.

I agree. The LTC process isn't for our benefit. It's for the benefit of others so that they can feel safe with the idea that only licensed, vetted individuals will be carrying. If the general public expects me to jump through hoops so I can exercise a Constitutional right, then I think it's reasonable for me to expect them to pay for those hoops.

RoyGBiv wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

SewTexas wrote:I thought that something said that the ltc's had to support the department? if that's the case then it can't be fee free? this doesn't make sense...understand, I'll go for anything that means I'm not giving the govn't more of my $. I'm just not understanding how this can't work withing what I understand the law to be.

There's no legal or constitutional requirement that the LTC program be self-supporting. That has been the Legislature's requirement since 1993 (HB1776). It's still going to be a hard sell since the fiscal note on the Bill is going to be a shocker. Nevertheless, it's the right thing to do.

Chas.

I like the sentiment of zero fees, but if I had limited capital to spend, this isn't even 1% as useful as eliminating/reducing gun free zones.

I wholeheartedly agree, but the Lt. Gov. wants this badly. When the "boss" wants something that sets the stage.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

SewTexas wrote:I thought that something said that the ltc's had to support the department? if that's the case then it can't be fee free? this doesn't make sense...understand, I'll go for anything that means I'm not giving the govn't more of my $. I'm just not understanding how this can't work withing what I understand the law to be.

There's no legal or constitutional requirement that the LTC program be self-supporting. That has been the Legislature's requirement since 1993 (HB1776). It's still going to be a hard sell since the fiscal note on the Bill is going to be a shocker. Nevertheless, it's the right thing to do.

Chas.

I like the sentiment of zero fees, but if I had limited capital to spend, this isn't even 1% as useful as eliminating/reducing gun free zones.

I wholeheartedly agree, but the Lt. Gov. wants this badly. When the "boss" wants something that sets the stage.

Chas.

Copy that. I'll salute it.

Well I hope the "boss" reserved a low bill number for wiping out the licensed carry no-go zones...

honestly? I want the "church security volunteers" bill way more than I want this one. I know that right now that one is just a house bill, but right now that is the one I want.

Of course, this bill doesn't impact most of us as much as it impacts those who don't have their LTC yet and don't have a lot of money to get their LTC. High fees impacts low class families in their ability to exercise their rights. (Poll tax, anyone?) I ultimately want to see both the elimination of gun free zones and the reduction/elimination of LTC fees, but this will get more people on our side to help push future legislative goals.

If I were given a choice between the two, I would still choose elimination of gun free zones, but this one isn't that far behind. Hopefully we won't have to choose and get the best of both worlds.

ELB wrote:Well I hope the "boss" reserved a low bill number for wiping out the licensed carry no-go zones...

I was using the term "boss" tongue-in-cheek. A number has not been reserved for an off-limits bill.

Chas.

mr1337 wrote:Of course, this bill doesn't impact most of us as much as it impacts those who don't have their LTC yet and don't have a lot of money to get their LTC. High fees impacts low class families in their ability to exercise their rights. (Poll tax, anyone?) I ultimately want to see both the elimination of gun free zones and the reduction/elimination of LTC fees, but this will get more people on our side to help push future legislative goals.

If I were given a choice between the two, I would still choose elimination of gun free zones, but this one isn't that far behind. Hopefully we won't have to choose and get the best of both worlds.

I agree with you this is like a poll tax. So are other hindrances like taxes and fingerprint fees and other hurdles that some states even put up for buying a gun. While I'm more anxious to see fewer gun free zones, this bill is still a step toward making a constitutional right easier to exercise. Especially helpful for law abiding poor people. That's why I don't want to "common sense reforms" like universal background checks. This is really a forcing mechanism to start pushing all sales through FFL. Leftists don't like intrastate sales between private individuals, because they are cheap and anonymous.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:...
I was using the term "boss" tongue-in-cheek. ....

Chas.

Me too! But I still hope he is ready to push the most important bill...

I can see a logical argument for waiving the 'poll tax' CHL fees first: shores up the argument that it's a constitutional right, and therefore not subject to financial hurdles. Once that foundation's poured, shrinking off limits areas would seem to follow naturally.

Of course, 'logic' seems to be about as relative a term as 'common sense', so who knows how far this line of thinking can carry us.

While I certainly agree that our right to bear arms is a right and therefore should not come with a fee, I feel I must ask this. Will this bill, if passed, potentially cause impedance to LTC/CHL holders in any way? My first thoughts would be:

With the CHL/LTC, we have already had times where applications and/or renewals were taking long periods of time. What potential is there that they will take much longer when there is no funding from the fees paid?

I believe that I've heard or read several complaints from what I understand, at the federal level, when there is NICs denial, many people have appeals that are piled up and waiting.

What about the potential for a different bill or other action that could sneak in there to pull funding for LTC processing?

I'm sure there is potential for other concerns as well.

Please note, I'm not trying to be difficult or argumentative in any way. I greatly appreciate all of the efforts put forth to fortify our rights.

While my initial reaction to SB 16 was mostly "meh", the more I let it gestate, the more I like it. I like the idea that if the citizens (through their elected officials) want to require a license to exercise an Enumerated Right, that the whole of the citizenry should also share the cost... And the fee reduction would reduce the barrier for lower income Texans. Bonus.

I might call it "generous" to remove the non-resident fees as well.

I just read the text for SB 16, and it appears to me it removes the fee for LTC initial and renewal, and instructors, but not for the capitol access pass that was created to allow people to get a background check and use the LTC lane at the state capitol without getting a full-blown LTC.