TexasCHLforum.com

Coogan wrote:Does the elimination of the TR-100 mean that you no longer need to shoot 50 rounds to qualify for a CHL?

No, the shooting portion of the class remains. The TR-100 is the statutorily required training certificate that has been a pain since day one. The statute requires certificates with unique serial numbers and authorized DPS to charge instructors $5 for each. DPS hates them and so do instructors. DPS has to estimate demand, then order these 4-part NCR forms. They then have to inventory them and log them out by serial number to each instructor that orders them. Then, when a CHL applicant turns in their application packet, DPS has to check the serial number on the TR-100 to make sure it was logged out to that instructor.

If DPS under estimates the demand for TR-100s, then there is a delay getting them to instructors. Often, this forces them to cancel or delay classes until the TR-100s arrive. Since DPS can only charge $5 per TR-100, it doesn't begin to cover the costs DPS incurs buying them, paying for shipping to DPS, logging them into the system, then shipping them to instructors. It's a terrible system that is mandated by the statute; that is mandated until Sept. 1st.

The change also does away with DPS having to send application packets. This too created delays for instructors. All application materials will be available on the Internet for instructors and applicants to download.

These is very significant changes.

Chas.

boomerang wrote:

jlangton wrote:That's one step in the right direction.....
JL

Taking only one step makes it even more attractive to get a Utah or Florida gun license instead of Texas. They won't set off alarms when someone runs your Texas DL. So there's actually an advantage to letting my Texas CHL expire. Above and beyond the time and money saved.

As soon as the wrong people in the Texas Senate or Texas House learn that Texas residents are choosing to get out-of-state licenses in stead of a Texas CHL, then we will do the same thing Colorado did. The law will be changed to require a Texas resident to have a Texas CHL. That would be a real shame for Texans who have to get another state's license because they have past due child support, or a deferred adjudication that disqualifies them in Texas, but not any other state in the U.S.

Chas.

nitrogen wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote: 2. You still have a duty to display your CHL when asked for ID by a LEO, but the penalty for failing to do so was repealed. (Remember, this doesn't go into effect until Sept. 1, 2009, nor am I suggesting that you ignore this duty.)

What does this mean exactly?
does it mean there's no legal penalty (i.e. no longer a misdemeanor) or an administrative one (suspension of CHL)

Correct; no suspension, no Class B Misdemeanor.

Chas.

Here is the "final word" (I hope) on the conflict between the mark-up copy of the bill and the bill Comparison Chart, both of which came from the conference committee on HR2730.

1. A final determination of delinquent state taxes and fees will still disqualify someone for a CHL.
2. You still have a duty to display your CHL when asked for ID by a LEO, but the penalty for failing to do so was repealed. (Remember, this doesn't go into effect until Sept. 1, 2009, nor am I suggesting that you ignore this duty.)

I'll try to get the Bill Status Report updated today or tomorrow. Some of my clients are being unreasonable and want me to get back to practicing law.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Note my edit to the original post. I'm trying to resolve the conflict.

Chas.

Here is an update on HB2730. As I noted, there is a conflict between between the "mark-up" copy of the bill and the comparison chart generated as a result of the conference committee agreement. The only two conflicts of any import deal with the eligibility requirement of "no delinquent taxes/fees" and the duty to display your CHL when asked for ID by a LEO. Unfortunately, regardless which document is accurate, we will lose one of these provisions.

According to the "mark-up" copy, there is no change to the duty to display a CHL, but the taxes/fees eligibility requirement is gone. In the comparison chart, the "school loans" requirement was deleted, but the "no delinquent taxes/fees" requirement remains. The comparison chart also shows that the duty to display a CHL remains, but the penalty (suspension/Class B misdemeanor) is repealed. In short, the duty to display would remain, but there would be no penalty for not doing so.

I'm trying to find out which document is correct.

Chas.

Note my edit to the original post. I'm trying to resolve the conflict.

Chas.

boomerang wrote:Thanks Charles!

I remember the house version removed the penalty for not displaying a CHL. Did the final version?

No, that was stripped in the conference committee.

Chas.

HB2730 is the DPS sunset bill that just passed this evening. The bill is over 300 pages long and covers a multitude of subjects and laws. When it was clear some of our lower profile bills were not going to pass, it was decided to try to add their provisions to HB2730. We even included some provisions from my DPS streamlining bill that wasn't even introduced.

Here is a short summary of the changes related to CHLs:

• No more TR-100s! (Instructors will love this, but it will also help CHLs);
  Instructors will only have to go to Austin to renew their certification every four years, and they can renew on the Internet in between;
  All application materials will be available on the Internet;
  Delinquent school loans are no longer disqualifying for a CHL;
  Any conviction that was set aside, voided, or any any manner invalidated will no longer be a "conviction" for CHL purposes;
  In order to be disqualifying for CHL purposes, a "conviction" must be classified as a felony both at the time it was committed and at the time of application for a CHL;
  The duty to display your CHL when asked for ID remains, but the penalty for not doing so is repealed.

These items are not front page news, but they are significant to CHLs and instructors.

Alice Tripp and our very good friends in Austin worked hard to make this happen, as did many of their staff.

Chas.

Edited to reflect changes in the published bill.