TexasCHLforum.com

Amazing report, note who asked for the report, the Anti-gun number 1.

GAO-12-717 is also in the linked page:

http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/artic ... rapdnsep12" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Disappointed with the % of CHL's in TX (3%) compared to other states. Even Massachusetts has 5.1%. Utah shows as top with 19.3%, but that number is distorted due to the large amount of out of state licenses that Utah issues. Even South Dakota has 10.6%.

Maybe we need to start a CHL recruitment effort in TX. I suspect the low % of CHL's in TX is partially due to the relative high cost ($140 + cost of class) compared to other states.

From the OPs link:

That system should be available by 2014, and will make Sen. Feinstein's concern obsolete.

I would rather make Feinstein obsolete in in the Senate...............

This is source report: http://www.gao.gov/assets/600/592552.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

i8godzilla wrote:From the OPs link:

That system should be available by 2014, and will make Sen. Feinstein's concern obsolete.

I would rather make Feinstein obsolete in in the Senate...............

But even if she were obsolete, there are plenty of fill ins - Chuck Schumer for one. Even Peter King, with whom I agree on many issues, would uphold the Feinstein legacy in her absence, I believe. There is no shortage of Feinstein wanna-bees in both parts of the Federal Legislature.

Like Pelosi, I don't see much hope that the pot heads from CA will vote Feinstein out. I guess we are stuck with them (and several others) as testimony to what happens the irrational thinkers congregate in one spot. Or maybe it is something in the water there.

There will never be a chance that the facts in the GAO report influence their thinking. I seriously doubt than many of the people in the major centers in CA even know about the GAO report let alone understand it.

I hate it when I see what I consider "weasel words" - that is words that they can use to weasel out of stuff - right in the first sentence of such a report.

Such as: " . . . available for sale to, or were possessed by . . ." which, although I haven't read the rest yet, says to me that ALL future references to numbers will be based on that 118M without regard for and implying actual possession.

It's stuff like that that lets the anti-rights groups twist the report in their favor.

And over here they limited the study to nine states, but over there, it's still all states (although maybe we now know where bambam got his figures from when he said he had visited all 55 states) and then there's footnoting stats that are main text a couple of pages later, were they just trying to up the size of the document?

JJVP wrote:Disappointed with the % of CHL's in TX (3%) compared to other states. Even Massachusetts has 5.1%. Utah shows as top with 19.3%, but that number is distorted due to the large amount of out of state licenses that Utah issues. Even South Dakota has 10.6%.

Maybe we need to start a CHL recruitment effort in TX. I suspect the low % of CHL's in TX is partially due to the relative high cost ($140 + cost of class) compared to other states.

I am not so sure the cost is a big factor
mine was 70, I admit its more than i would like. But the 140/70 has to pay for several things
a dps background check, say one person 2hrs, at about $35 for those hrs
building utilities,
actually printing the license $4 in supplies
mail clerk to put in envelope and send it out

if we get a huge upwelling of new chls...then the amortized price per unit would go down. But Austin would never let a cash cow go un-abused

imo 30 or 40 per license is fair.
one thing I like about the process is the dps checks. sure bad guys can get guns all day long. but there are some people that are not bad apples that need this background check. PLUS i know several CHL holders that are not very good with their firearm, so at least a 6 hr "get to know your gun and firearm safety class" should be required.

JJVP wrote:Disappointed with the % of CHL's in TX (3%) compared to other states. Even Massachusetts has 5.1%. Utah shows as top with 19.3%, but that number is distorted due to the large amount of out of state licenses that Utah issues. Even South Dakota has 10.6%.

Maybe we need to start a CHL recruitment effort in TX. I suspect the low % of CHL's in TX is partially due to the relative high cost ($140 + cost of class) compared to other states.

A few points: I'm sure there are more people carrying in Texas than 3%, since this report only looks at in state CHLs.

Massachusetts requires a "permit to carry" to own certain semi automatic weapons......and not all LTCs in Mass actually allow you to carry at all, just own.

I guarantee there aren't more MA residents carrying than Texans. They're just required to get a permission slip to even own certain guns.

74novaman wrote:

JJVP wrote:Disappointed with the % of CHL's in TX (3%) compared to other states. Even Massachusetts has 5.1%. Utah shows as top with 19.3%, but that number is distorted due to the large amount of out of state licenses that Utah issues. Even South Dakota has 10.6%.

Maybe we need to start a CHL recruitment effort in TX. I suspect the low % of CHL's in TX is partially due to the relative high cost ($140 + cost of class) compared to other states.

A few points: I'm sure there are more people carrying in Texas than 3%, since this report only looks at in state CHLs.

That is true. However, not all CHL'ers carry. Some people get their CHL's and carry for a short time or never carry. A lot of lobbyist got their CHL's just so they could get into the Capitol building and never intended on carrying.

But your point is well taken. Is just like there is no way that 19.3 % of Utah residents carry. All the non- resident licenses they issue inflate their number.

Also, the adult population is not adjusted for felons, or any other disqualifying issues. Bottom line, the numbers are at best an approximation and could be off by a few percent.

JJVP wrote:

74novaman wrote:

JJVP wrote:Disappointed with the % of CHL's in TX (3%) compared to other states. Even Massachusetts has 5.1%. Utah shows as top with 19.3%, but that number is distorted due to the large amount of out of state licenses that Utah issues. Even South Dakota has 10.6%.

Maybe we need to start a CHL recruitment effort in TX. I suspect the low % of CHL's in TX is partially due to the relative high cost ($140 + cost of class) compared to other states.

A few points: I'm sure there are more people carrying in Texas than 3%, since this report only looks at in state CHLs.

That is true. However, not all CHL'ers carry. Some people get their CHL's and carry for a short time or never carry. A lot of lobbyist got their CHL's just so they could get into the Capitol building and never intended on carrying.

But your point is well taken. Is just like there is no way that 19.3 % of Utah residents carry. All the non- resident licenses they issue inflate their number.

Also, the adult population is not adjusted for felons, or any other disqualifying issues. Bottom line, the numbers are at best an approximation and could be off by a few percent.

If you look a little further, it has "Appendix VI: Approximate Total Number of Active Permits by Residency"

Utah has 147,000 resident as opposed to 201,000 non-resident permits, which is 57.9% of all permits issued.

So, take the non-resident permits out, and that is I figure roughly 12.25% of the population.

Wonder how many of those actually carry.

JJVP wrote:Disappointed with the % of CHL's in TX (3%) compared to other states. Even Massachusetts has 5.1%. Utah shows as top with 19.3%, but that number is distorted due to the large amount of out of state licenses that Utah issues. Even South Dakota has 10.6%.

Maybe we need to start a CHL recruitment effort in TX. I suspect the low % of CHL's in TX is partially due to the relative high cost ($140 + cost of class) compared to other states.

Maybe the TSRA can help get that cost down somehow?

Even though I don't have mine (yet ), I would volunteer with a recruitment drive.

powerboatr wrote:I am not so sure the cost is a big factor
mine was 70, I admit its more than i would like. But the 140/70 has to pay for several things
a dps background check, say one person 2hrs, at about $35 for those hrs
building utilities,
actually printing the license $4 in supplies
mail clerk to put in envelope and send it out

I know people who do the FBI background checks for county sheriffs in other states. Takes them about 5 minutes max. They'll issue the license within the hour sometimes if the background is clean. That is how you get a state like PA charging $20 for a license.

JJVP wrote:Disappointed with the % of CHL's in TX (3%) compared to other states. Even Massachusetts has 5.1%. Utah shows as top with 19.3%, but that number is distorted due to the large amount of out of state licenses that Utah issues. Even South Dakota has 10.6%.

Maybe we need to start a CHL recruitment effort in TX. I suspect the low % of CHL's in TX is partially due to the relative high cost ($140 + cost of class) compared to other states.

Comparing Mass is a bit misleading as a person cannot own any firearm without a permit, getting a unrestricted license to carry in Mass is a difficult task and is up to the local Chief of Police. I know many people who tried and were turned down, and only ended up with a Firearms ID card. When I live there I actually had one, it was a very long process and took almost a year and many trips to court to finally receive it, needless to say the chief of police in the small town who was forced to issue it to me was not too happy with me...........

My 2 year CCW here cost me about $500. Application fees, the Sheriff's approved 8 hour class, practice with each of the maximum of 3 handguns to be listed on my permit by make, model AND serial number, fingerprints, photos, the actual range test, etc.

I am one of the few. There are somewhat fewer than 2,000 permits in San Diego, last I heard. One has to have a spotless record, and a showing of "good cause," which means whatever the Sheriff wants it to mean. In my case a lawyer and business owner, who has occasionally received death threats was deemed "good cause." I had 3 letters from citizens who admitted knowing me, vouching for my excellent character and reliability, a letter from the Board of Directors of my businesses attesting that my carrying was approved, and a letter from my wife/significant other/"care partner" (this IS California!). I spent many, many hours at the Sheriff's processing office going over forms, verifying checklists, being interviewed to evaluate my soundness, etc.

You can't be too careful with California residents, you know.