TexasCHLforum.com

I have heard that the CHL prices are going up, has anyone heard anything about this ?

texas80 wrote:I have heard that the CHL prices are going up, has anyone heard anything about this ?

Isn't everything bigger in Texas?

The fees for CHL applications are set by DPS as administrative rules (The fee for replacement licenses or address changes is in the statute).

Before changing the fees, DPS would have to publish notice in the Texas Register. They have not done so. The most recent administrative rule changes having to do with CHL were tweaks of the rules for instructor qualification made in December 2010.

I can't see how to provide a URL to query results, but you can perform the search yourself, here:
http://info.sos.state.tx.us/pls/pub/regviewctx$.startup" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm not an expert on how the Texas state bureaucracy works. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong.

- Jim

If I'm not mistaken the actual fee of $140 was defined by the legislature, so it would take a bill to change that . But not to worry, there is a bill that would allow the fee to be set by the director of the DPS up to $280. There are other changes in this bill as well, I believe the bill in question is HB2613.

You're right. The $140 fee is built into the statute.

I was not aware of that bill.

- Jim

G.A.Heath is correct, the bill is HB2613 by Rep. Flynn. The Bill is intended to establish a permanent, non-renewable CHL, but it has an unusual quirk in that it would require a new criminal background check every five years to remain valid. The theory behind the higher fee (up to $280) is to cover the cost of a lifetime of background checks.

Rep. Flynn was so angry over the huge delays in processing CHL applications, that he filed a bill in 2009 that would establish an optional "permanent CHL." Licensees could chose to have a NICS-exempt renewable CHL, or a lifetime CHL at a higher fee. The lifetime CHL in the 2009 bill didn't require background checks every five years; the CHL would simply be revoked if a person were convicted of a disqualifying offense. The "permanent" CHL would have been clearly marked as being permanent, and the renewable CHL would obviously have an expiration date. Based upon this, I was able to get confirmation from BATFE that the renewable CHL would remain NICS exempt, because they could send a notice to FFL's that the Texas "permanent" CHL was not NICS exempt. It was the ability to easily distinguish the two CHL's that saved the NICS exemption.

Candidly, HB2613 was filed to achieve a laudable goal, but it's structure is problematic. The five year background checks is intended to retain NICS eligibility, but I'm not sure it will accomplish that goal. There will be no way for the FFL to know if the background check was actually performed and with no expiration date on the license, I fear the BATFE will remove the Texas CHL from the exemption list. Also, not having a periodic retraining requirement may cause problems with reciprocity in certain states. I like his approach last session, but I worry about the method he is using in HB2613.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:G.A.Heath is correct, the bill is HB2613 by Rep. Flynn....

Thanks for that clarification; explains a lot.

Oldgringo wrote:

texas80 wrote:I have heard that the CHL prices are going up, has anyone heard anything about this ?

Isn't everything bigger in Texas?

It's already one of the most expensive of the "shall issue" licenses.

Right now, if we had over one million CHLers the campus and parking would be in a MUCH stronger position. Other CHL inprovements would not be so hard to get and take so long.

Two million even better!

In talking to others, THE most common "Brick wall" is the $ 140.00 fee. Suddenly they loose interest.
Elderly and young familys are commonly on a tight budget. $ 140 IS BIG!

Go check the DPS fees and you will find that an amazing number of people who pay $ 0.00. or very reduced fees. Make note that the next level down from $ 140.00 is $ 70.00.

Background checks are FREE for military, aerospace. Govn employees and the CHLers who pay $ 0.00 (and convicts!) .
The actual plastic card- perhaps a few dollars.
If DPS has a $ 0.00 fee then the actual cost cannot be very much.
Computers do most of the 'work'

-CUT the fee to $30.00, OR LESS, for EVERYONE and watch the Utah problem go away, the 1 million CHLers arrive soon and the power to get CHL laws improved. (Make it free, if it takes over 30 days to process.)

--Or..... Constitutional Carry ....... NO fees and NO delays! - (Same price for everyone!).

--Make Note that ,MPA IS FREE AND NO DELAYS, and appears to be working just fine. - (Same price for everyone!).

I haven't heard of any of this, but I don't pay for mine anyway. I am exempt from fees for the CHL

While we talk about fees, and such, we need to watch the case filed by the NYSRPA and SAF against New York City. If the case goes as planned (meaning that it goes to the US Supreme Court and NYC looses) then you can bet that someone will sue Texas over its prices which could get interesting considering that Texas has Indigent fees (1/2 standard rate) with even lower/no fees for other people.

I looked at the text of HB026131, which I previously was ignorant of. The text is here:
http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82 ... navpanes=0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As I understand it, this bill would not affect the fee for the five-year CHL that we have now. It pertains only to the proposed lifetime CHL.

Also it is dead in committee.

I agree that the cost of a CHL is higher than it needs to be. DPS spends far less processing CHLs than the state collects on CHL fees. DPS does not get to "keep the change."

I don't know how many people qualify for the indigency rate. The income level necessary to qualify for that is very much poverty level.

I would not look to the courts for a remedy. The courts generally support taxes and fees set by legislatures.

It is completely within the power of the Texas legislature to decrease the current fees. The governor would most likely sign such a bill. Nothing stands in the way of this change.

- Jim

blue wrote:In talking to others, THE most common "Brick wall" is the $ 140.00 fee. Suddenly they loose interest.
Elderly and young familys are commonly on a tight budget. $ 140 IS BIG!

my understanding is that the state's fee structure makes allowances for poverty. Why don't more people try to take advantage of this?

Well technical its $150 now since you have to pay $10 to L1 for their monopoly over fingerprints.

seamusTX wrote:I looked at the text of HB026131, which I previously was ignorant of. The text is here:
http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82 ... navpanes=0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As I understand it, this bill would not affect the fee for the five-year CHL that we have now. It pertains only to the proposed lifetime CHL.

Also it is dead in committee.

I agree that the cost of a CHL is higher than it needs to be. DPS spends far less processing CHLs than the state collects on CHL fees. DPS does not get to "keep the change."

I don't know how many people qualify for the indigency rate. The income level necessary to qualify for that is very much poverty level.

I would not look to the courts for a remedy. The courts generally support taxes and fees set by legislatures.

It is completely within the power of the Texas legislature to decrease the current fees. The governor would most likely sign such a bill. Nothing stands in the way of this change.

- Jim

I'm not saying that we should try to change the fees via litigation, in fact no one in their right mind wants to litigate anything they can deal with using other means (excluding lawyers). I'm just saying that if the SAF/NYSRPA lawsuit against NYC goes according to plan then we can almost guarantee that Texas will be sued on that issue. Will such a suit succeed? I don't know, in fact no one knows until the case is over and no more appeals are made/possible.

For an example of how this could happen consider that we could change the minimum age for non-military CHLs legislatively but the NRA has decided it would be better to attempt it via litigation.