TexasCHLforum.com

vjallen75 wrote:

mr1337 wrote:You'd be surprised on how much people can put off something based on the price. $140 is a pretty big chunk of change for most people. Eliminating the fee will eliminate one big reason that people don't end up getting it.

Of course, those serious about self defense would still get it regardless of price (within reason), but what I'm thinking about are people who are interested in getting started in their personal protection. It tears down a rather large barrier to entry that will make it easier to expand the types of people that apply for their LTC.

I think what he is trying to say is that removing the fees would not cause a steady impact on applications being submitted. I tend to agree with Skiprr on this one, overall. I do think there would be an initial serge of people who have not done an LTC course and submitted to a BG check and fingerprinting. There are a few people I know who haven't done so because of the fees. All in all, if there is a will there is a way. I made sure I found the funds to submit my application while my wife knew she wouldn't carry all the time so she decided against submitting an app. She will eventually but she's not ready to carry, but if the legislature is successful in the removal off fees she would surely at least get the LTC.

Agreed, but I still think the overall result, even when the dust settles, will be more people obtaining their LTC than would have otherwise with a $140 fee.

How it will effect new applicants is that people will put off putting in their applications until Sept 1st (The date that the new law is likely to take affect. After Sept 1st the dam will be released.

I like no fees for Texas residents but I don't know a good reason Texas taxpayers should subsidize licenses for nonresidents.

Alf wrote:I like no fees for Texas residents but I don't know a good reason Texas taxpayers should subsidize licenses for nonresidents.

Would you agree that more people carrying is a good thing in general? If so, why would you want to discourage this?

It's probably a moot point anyways, because I don't think many people get non-resident Texas licenses, when something like a Florida license is easier to get (not having to travel to Texas to take a class).

I prefer educated people to ignorant people but that doesn't mean I want to pay higher taxes so Yankees can attend UT without paying tuition.

If they're non-residents they're almost certainly conducting all sorts of taxable commerce with Texas businesses when they're here traveling.

Alf wrote:I prefer educated people to ignorant people but that doesn't mean I want to pay higher taxes so Yankees can attend UT without paying tuition.

Secondary education isn't a public safety issue. LTC background checks are for public safety issues, so the public should cover the costs.

I understand your point about non-residents and it wouldn't give me any heartburn if it becomes necessary to charge a fee. The fee could and should be minimal, perhaps just enough to cover the FBI fingerprint check ($23.50). However, if we drop the requirement for FBI fingerprints, then the cost of processing a background check is the cost to type a name into one DPS computer that checks, NCIC, TCIC, NICS and one other database. Now that's a big IF, because the opposition to deleting the fingerprint requirement is strong. It's frustrating because we don't get any additional information from an FBI fingerprint check that DPS doesn't get through their own computer check.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote: It's frustrating because we don't get any additional information from an FBI fingerprint check that DPS doesn't get through their own computer check.

Chas.

Ah, but the government gets to add even more citizens to the fingerprint database.

Ah, but the government gets to add even more citizens to the fingerprint database.

Fingerprints are old tech. Now, "THEY" are moving towards collecting DNA on citizens.

CleverNickname wrote:

Alf wrote:I like no fees for Texas residents but I don't know a good reason Texas taxpayers should subsidize licenses for nonresidents.

Would you agree that more people carrying is a good thing in general? If so, why would you want to discourage this?

It's probably a moot point anyways, because I don't think many people get non-resident Texas licenses, when something like a Florida license is easier to get (not having to travel to Texas to take a class).

If the non-resident Texas LTC was free, that might increase the number of people opting for Texas over Florida (or other options). That said, I agree that more people with LTC's, even non-residents, is a good thing. If we want to target taxes just to folks from out of state, there are plenty of ways to do that. How about only charging sales tax to non-residents? If you show a Texas ID, you don't pay sales tax. Or increase hotel taxes, etc., etc.

tomneal wrote:

Ah, but the government gets to add even more citizens to the fingerprint database.

Fingerprints are old tech. Now, "THEY" are moving towards collecting DNA on citizens.

Every time I see the Ancestory.com DNA test commercials I wonder if it's a front for government DNA collection.

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

CleverNickname wrote:

Alf wrote:I like no fees for Texas residents but I don't know a good reason Texas taxpayers should subsidize licenses for nonresidents.

Would you agree that more people carrying is a good thing in general? If so, why would you want to discourage this?

It's probably a moot point anyways, because I don't think many people get non-resident Texas licenses, when something like a Florida license is easier to get (not having to travel to Texas to take a class).

If the non-resident Texas LTC was free, that might increase the number of people opting for Texas over Florida (or other options). That said, I agree that more people with LTC's, even non-residents, is a good thing. If we want to target taxes just to folks from out of state, there are plenty of ways to do that. How about only charging sales tax to non-residents? If you show a Texas ID, you don't pay sales tax. Or increase hotel taxes, etc., etc.

Not to mention that in order to get a non-resident license here, you have to travel to the state to do so. That brings out-of-state money into the state in the form of hotel, food, entertainment, etc. that the out-of-state resident will need while in Texas. It may not be a $1 for $1 compared to spending $140 on a state license fee, but it's hardly putting the entire burden on the State to support these visitors' LTC costs.

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

CleverNickname wrote:

Alf wrote:I like no fees for Texas residents but I don't know a good reason Texas taxpayers should subsidize licenses for nonresidents.

Would you agree that more people carrying is a good thing in general? If so, why would you want to discourage this?

It's probably a moot point anyways, because I don't think many people get non-resident Texas licenses, when something like a Florida license is easier to get (not having to travel to Texas to take a class).

If the non-resident Texas LTC was free, that might increase the number of people opting for Texas over Florida (or other options). That said, I agree that more people with LTC's, even non-residents, is a good thing. If we want to target taxes just to folks from out of state, there are plenty of ways to do that. How about only charging sales tax to non-residents? If you show a Texas ID, you don't pay sales tax. Or increase hotel taxes, etc., etc.

I still think a Florida license would be preferred because while the Florida license has a fee ($102 for new applications) it doesn't require a class. A Texas LTC wouldn't have a fee, but it would still require a $50-$100 class, plus spending time in class (also requiring a trip to take the class in-state). I doubt there would be much increase at all from non-resident applicants.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
I understand your point about non-residents and it wouldn't give me any heartburn if it becomes necessary to charge a fee. The fee could and should be minimal, perhaps just enough to cover the FBI fingerprint check ($23.50). However, if we drop the requirement for FBI fingerprints, then the cost of processing a background check is the cost to type a name into one DPS computer that checks, NCIC, TCIC, NICS and one other database. Now that's a big IF, because the opposition to deleting the fingerprint requirement is strong. It's frustrating because we don't get any additional information from an FBI fingerprint check that DPS doesn't get through their own computer check.

Chas.

Is the NICS call in exemption a result of the FBI fingerprint requirement?

bblhd672 wrote:Every time I see the Ancestory.com DNA test commercials I wonder if it's a front for government DNA collection.

I think that every time as well