The focal point for Texas firearms information and discussions
https://mail.texaschlforum.com/
I agree.ScottDLS wrote:The fee reduction for those below the poverty line is an appropriate step to reduce the governmental burden on the exercise of CHL rights. However, as a practical matter the cost of the gun, ammunition, and some training/practice (legally mandated or otherwise) make up the bulk of the expense. Relief of requirements around the required CHL class standards photo/print fees, etc. would be nice, but realistically the gun, ammo, and practice are the limiting factors.
I don't understand the second part of your statement. Women are more likely to be poor and are more likely to have lower paying jobs and they are more likely to have to use their available sick and leave time (if they get any) to take care of sick children. Studies show that even households with two professionals have this dynamic where women are the ones who have to take off to care for the sick kids. Anecdotally, we saw it when Palin was running for VP. There was lots of discussion on if she would be able to attend to her duties and be a mom at the same time. That discussion is never had when it is a man, and on the flip side, a man's employer is not as likely to expect or be forgiving for him taking off for the reason of caring for sick children. It's ridiculous, but reality for the majority in our country. Also a reality is that there is a much higher percentage of single mothers than there are single fathers, meaning the sole responsibility for childrearing falls to more women than men. Therefore, having to use a significant amount of her available time and resources to meet a requirement of training hours by a certified trainer is a larger burden to women than it is to men, statistically speaking.ScottDLS wrote:How do the current standards specifically increase the burden on women and minorities who are not poor? There are poor white men too...I think...
10 hours of minority person's time is more of burden than that of a non-minority's? Our kids don't need to be taken care of somehow when my male "life partner" is attending the CHL training, getting photo'ed, printed...
How did he do after seeing that many guns where he previously thought there weren't any?snatchel wrote:I am married to a fairly liberal, beautiful Asian woman who doesn't exctly agree with me carrying but chalks it up to, "boys will be boys."
Her dad was down this weekend, and was his first visit to TX. He caught me putting my glock IWB one morning and started zapping me with questions. He is a very liberal, legal immigrant, and said that "you say everyone in Texas carries, but your the only one I have seen." He walks back into the living room where my grandpa, two cousins, and brother are sitting. They all raise their shirts to show grips of an array of handguns. Chaching**
By the way, I hold a BA in biochemistry, and consider myself educated :) And for the record, my wife is a pharmacist and her dad is a college professor- PHD in mechanical engineering. I'm out educated, and a redneck. Fail.
My point number 2 was that the "disadvantaged" are at a greater burden in getting a Texas CHL because of their disadvantages...crappy job, no extra cash, poor child care options; NOT because of their race, gender, ethnicity, national origin, or sexual orientation... The law doesn't say you have to take a 10 hour course if you're black, and 5 hours if you're white. While women and minorities may suffer certain disadvantages in greater proportion to the population as a whole, that is not the fault of the CHL law.Hoi Polloi wrote:I agree.ScottDLS wrote:The fee reduction for those below the poverty line is an appropriate step to reduce the governmental burden on the exercise of CHL rights. However, as a practical matter the cost of the gun, ammunition, and some training/practice (legally mandated or otherwise) make up the bulk of the expense. Relief of requirements around the required CHL class standards photo/print fees, etc. would be nice, but realistically the gun, ammo, and practice are the limiting factors.
I don't understand the second part of your statement. Women are more likely to be poor and are more likely to have lower paying jobs and they are more likely to have to use their available sick and leave time (if they get any) to take care of sick children. Studies show that even households with two professionals have this dynamic where women are the ones who have to take off to care for the sick kids. Anecdotally, we saw it when Palin was running for VP. There was lots of discussion on if she would be able to attend to her duties and be a mom at the same time. That discussion is never had when it is a man, and on the flip side, a man's employer is not as likely to expect or be forgiving for him taking off for the reason of caring for sick children. It's ridiculous, but reality for the majority in our country. Also a reality is that there is a much higher percentage of single mothers than there are single fathers, meaning the sole responsibility for childrearing falls to more women than men. Therefore, having to use a significant amount of her available time and resources to meet a requirement of training hours by a certified trainer is a larger burden to women than it is to men, statistically speaking.ScottDLS wrote:How do the current standards specifically increase the burden on women and minorities who are not poor? There are poor white men too...I think...
10 hours of minority person's time is more of burden than that of a non-minority's? Our kids don't need to be taken care of somehow when my male "life partner" is attending the CHL training, getting photo'ed, printed...
Minorities are more likely to be poor and to have little to no benefits in their job. Again, there are plenty of exceptions, but I'm talking about statistics. They are also more likely to be disadvantaged by limited command of the English language. While there are a few CHL classes offered in Spanish (a topic that came up on this forum recently and met a lot of resistance), it is a larger burden to expect a poor immigrant community to know about the laws, then to get a person down to Austin and through the CHL instructor course, then to get that person back up to the immigrant community and teaching classes in their native language. And this does not address those who have no English. I'm just talking about those who use English every day but aren't fluent and specialized enough to fully understand the nuances of legal discussions in a specialized topic with words they are unlikely to have occasion to use in their daily conversations, especially when their mastery of the knowledge is essential such as those with life and death and prison consequences. It is a disadvantage.
The poor have an economic disadvantage in that the costs are a higher proportion of their income and therefore are felt harder, and their income has a lower actual dollar amount of discretionary spending which means it takes significantly more work and effort to get it than a more economically advantaged person. This group is also more likely to have a second job which has no benefits, meaning evenings and weekends are not free for discretionary activities and they are unable to take off to make it so as they'd lose their job and necessary income to comply. They also are unlikely to have access to alternative streams of education and are therefore not likely to be aware of the history and movements that created and perpetuated gun control or that have used their low income public schools to indoctrinate the perpetuation of it among them and their children. So, yes, 10 hours of a poor person's time has more grave consequences than 10 hours of a rich person's time (possible loss of job, housing, food, etc), which is not at all to disregard the burden on the rich person or to say it is justified if it doesn't cause grave burdens.
I don't mean any of this to say that because they are disadvantaged that the government has a responsibility to make all things equal for them. All of us have particular disadvantages. What I am saying is that the government is restricting and regulating a legal right in a way which excessively burdens and further disadvantages already disadvantaged groups when there are alternatives available which meet the same aim and do not add further disadvantage to these groups. All people have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms and this right should not be excessively burdened to the point that entire demographics are disadvantaged by those burdens to constitutional rights. It's like a poll tax or a literacy test and is not at all comparable to a desire for socialized medicine.
ScottDLS wrote:I'd prefer no training requirement and a nominal fee ($25?) that covers the cost of printing the card and doing the background check every 5 years (so we'd still have a NICS exemption and GFSZA carry). Also no prints and photo...works OK for numerous states. This should help people of all socioeconomic breakdowns, races, gender identities, etc...
As an alternative we could just follow the 2nd Amendment, and have Constitutional Carry. IMHO this make much more sense than trying figuring out a way that the state can regulate something the shouldn’t be, at a price everyone can afford.ScottDLS wrote: The 10 hours in class is a greater absolute economic cost to the wealthy person than the poor person, because the loss of their time is more expensive to them. If we're going to still have a class, I'd like to see it reduced to 5 hours and include more (any!) gun safety. I'd prefer no training requirement and a nominal fee ($25?) that covers the cost of printing the card and doing the background check every 5 years (so we'd still have a NICS exemption and GFSZA carry). Also no prints and photo...works OK for numerous states. This should help people of all socioeconomic breakdowns, races, gender identities, etc...
Hmm, maybe that could pay off the federal deficit.steveincowtown wrote:What if the state stated charging for Free Speech Classes?
Maybe sorta like the State-mandated curriculum requiring me to take Texas history in 7th grade, U.S. history in 8th grade, Government in High School, and one or two semesters of political science in college.steveincowtown wrote:ScottDLS wrote:What if the state stated charging for Free Speech Classes?
03Lightningrocks wrote:I personally don't think the fee should be adjusted based on income. I believe the fee should be adjusted for everyone or even eliminated completely.
The courts ruled poll taxes and literary tests for voting are unconstitutional. 
Actually, it's the ties that cut off circulation to the brain.tacticool wrote:03Lightningrocks wrote:I personally don't think the fee should be adjusted based on income. I believe the fee should be adjusted for everyone or even eliminated completely.
Maybe the robes make them unable to understand difficult words like infringed.
C-dub wrote:How did he do after seeing that many guns where he previously thought there weren't any?snatchel wrote:I am married to a fairly liberal, beautiful Asian woman who doesn't exctly agree with me carrying but chalks it up to, "boys will be boys."
Her dad was down this weekend, and was his first visit to TX. He caught me putting my glock IWB one morning and started zapping me with questions. He is a very liberal, legal immigrant, and said that "you say everyone in Texas carries, but your the only one I have seen." He walks back into the living room where my grandpa, two cousins, and brother are sitting. They all raise their shirts to show grips of an array of handguns. Chaching**
By the way, I hold a BA in biochemistry, and consider myself educated :) And for the record, my wife is a pharmacist and her dad is a college professor- PHD in mechanical engineering. I'm out educated, and a redneck. Fail.
Biochemistry degree is a BA? Wow! I thought it was a bull.
http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2011/04/ ... in-public/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;WildBill wrote:Hmm, maybe that could pay off the federal deficit.steveincowtown wrote:What if the state stated charging for Free Speech Classes?
This saddens me too. We have recently become a "lower income" family. When I renewed my CHL, I had to do so in "installments." I took the renewal course. A few months later, I sent in the paperwork. I'm thankful that it was only a renewal. We also did not need to purchase guns since we've had them for years (and they don't expire if you take good care of them).kjolly wrote:The sad truth is that the 2nd amendment is only available for people of certain economic excesses. The numbers of CHL holders in poor neighborhoods dramaticaly decreases due to the cost of guns, training, and the license.
I don't mind the class; the laws change and it helps everyone to remain current. I do think that the fees should go down. I do not understand why the renewals can't take place at local DPS offices for a nominal fee. I can see where initials may cost more due to the background check & finger printing, but I think $50 should cover everything if the local DPS offices could take care of it.ScottDLS wrote:My point number 2 was that the "disadvantaged" are at a greater burden in getting a Texas CHL because of their disadvantages...crappy job, no extra cash, poor child care options; NOT because of their race, gender, ethnicity, national origin, or sexual orientation... The law doesn't say you have to take a 10 hour course if you're black, and 5 hours if you're white. While women and minorities may suffer certain disadvantages in greater proportion to the population as a whole, that is not the fault of the CHL law.Hoi Polloi wrote:I agree.ScottDLS wrote:The fee reduction for those below the poverty line is an appropriate step to reduce the governmental burden on the exercise of CHL rights. However, as a practical matter the cost of the gun, ammunition, and some training/practice (legally mandated or otherwise) make up the bulk of the expense. Relief of requirements around the required CHL class standards photo/print fees, etc. would be nice, but realistically the gun, ammo, and practice are the limiting factors.
I don't understand the second part of your statement. Women are more likely to be poor and are more likely to have lower paying jobs and they are more likely to have to use their available sick and leave time (if they get any) to take care of sick children. Studies show that even households with two professionals have this dynamic where women are the ones who have to take off to care for the sick kids. Anecdotally, we saw it when Palin was running for VP. There was lots of discussion on if she would be able to attend to her duties and be a mom at the same time. That discussion is never had when it is a man, and on the flip side, a man's employer is not as likely to expect or be forgiving for him taking off for the reason of caring for sick children. It's ridiculous, but reality for the majority in our country. Also a reality is that there is a much higher percentage of single mothers than there are single fathers, meaning the sole responsibility for childrearing falls to more women than men. Therefore, having to use a significant amount of her available time and resources to meet a requirement of training hours by a certified trainer is a larger burden to women than it is to men, statistically speaking.ScottDLS wrote:How do the current standards specifically increase the burden on women and minorities who are not poor? There are poor white men too...I think...
10 hours of minority person's time is more of burden than that of a non-minority's? Our kids don't need to be taken care of somehow when my male "life partner" is attending the CHL training, getting photo'ed, printed...
Minorities are more likely to be poor and to have little to no benefits in their job. Again, there are plenty of exceptions, but I'm talking about statistics. They are also more likely to be disadvantaged by limited command of the English language. While there are a few CHL classes offered in Spanish (a topic that came up on this forum recently and met a lot of resistance), it is a larger burden to expect a poor immigrant community to know about the laws, then to get a person down to Austin and through the CHL instructor course, then to get that person back up to the immigrant community and teaching classes in their native language. And this does not address those who have no English. I'm just talking about those who use English every day but aren't fluent and specialized enough to fully understand the nuances of legal discussions in a specialized topic with words they are unlikely to have occasion to use in their daily conversations, especially when their mastery of the knowledge is essential such as those with life and death and prison consequences. It is a disadvantage.
The poor have an economic disadvantage in that the costs are a higher proportion of their income and therefore are felt harder, and their income has a lower actual dollar amount of discretionary spending which means it takes significantly more work and effort to get it than a more economically advantaged person. This group is also more likely to have a second job which has no benefits, meaning evenings and weekends are not free for discretionary activities and they are unable to take off to make it so as they'd lose their job and necessary income to comply. They also are unlikely to have access to alternative streams of education and are therefore not likely to be aware of the history and movements that created and perpetuated gun control or that have used their low income public schools to indoctrinate the perpetuation of it among them and their children. So, yes, 10 hours of a poor person's time has more grave consequences than 10 hours of a rich person's time (possible loss of job, housing, food, etc), which is not at all to disregard the burden on the rich person or to say it is justified if it doesn't cause grave burdens.
I don't mean any of this to say that because they are disadvantaged that the government has a responsibility to make all things equal for them. All of us have particular disadvantages. What I am saying is that the government is restricting and regulating a legal right in a way which excessively burdens and further disadvantages already disadvantaged groups when there are alternatives available which meet the same aim and do not add further disadvantage to these groups. All people have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms and this right should not be excessively burdened to the point that entire demographics are disadvantaged by those burdens to constitutional rights. It's like a poll tax or a literacy test and is not at all comparable to a desire for socialized medicine.
The 10 hours in class is a greater absolute economic cost to the wealthy person than the poor person, because the loss of their time is more expensive to them. If we're going to still have a class, I'd like to see it reduced to 5 hours and include more (any!) gun safety. I'd prefer no training requirement and a nominal fee ($25?) that covers the cost of printing the card and doing the background check every 5 years (so we'd still have a NICS exemption and GFSZA carry). Also no prints and photo...works OK for numerous states. This should help people of all socioeconomic breakdowns, races, gender identities, etc...