TexasCHLforum.com

frankie_the_yankee wrote:Secondly, it's evident on this forum that there are a number of people who believe the CHL requirement to be an "infringement" of their 2nd amendment rights. They may have CHL's themselves, but would prefer the Vermont or Alaska models (i.e. no CHL needed). IOW, "Why do I need a license to exercise a right?"

Yep that is ME!!!

frankie_the_yankee wrote:

Liberty wrote: My main issue with CHL is that when one really needs a gun 60 days is an awful long time to wait. The CHL process can get people killed.

Plan ahead.

Are you suggesting that those who don't have CHLs deserve what the bad guys can dish out?

A couple of other things came to mind: Fewer than 2% of the people who qualify for a CHL in Texas have one. Most states are under 10%. It's not that hard to get, and everyone who wants to carry legally should have one by now. IOW, the CHL requirement is not preventing many people from carrying, maybe just the ones that owe back taxes and child support..

No one knows how many CHL holders carry consistently or don't.

I belong to a private club with more than 1,000 members. Presumably they all own firearms. About 3% shoot regularly, and half of those are rifle shooters.

Based on these observations, I think if became legal to carry a handgun, hardly more people would carry than do now. There might be a few who carried only when they had large amounts of cash and that sort of thing.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:It's not that hard to get, and everyone who wants to carry legally should have one by now. IOW, the CHL requirement is not preventing many people from carrying, maybe just the ones that owe back taxes and child support..

I think the money and the time investment stops a lot of people. The young people i work with often talk about pursuing a CHL, but get discouraged about taking a whole day and spending the aprox $250. causes them to put it off I believe that most of them will eventually get it though

To keep the thread on track, let me restate that my observation was that what was true of permit holders (and what non-gun people should know about them) as stated in the 10 points might not, probably would not be as true about concealed weapon carriers in general assuming that no permit was required.

I would also observe that we all seem to agree that the 10 points are admireable qualities that we are proud to personally reflect and live by.

Hence, the overall "quality" of concealed weapon carriers would be lower with no permits required.

FWIW, I agree with seamus that the number of people who would actually carry regularly with no CHL's required is probably just slightly more than those who legally carry now with CHL's. So the numerical difference would not be great.

But if you consider that it only takes a small number of stupid and/or tragic incidents to have a large political effect and I think that in a state like TX, with large urban regions, (and lots of people who didn't grow up with guns) we are better off with a CHL requirement.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:But if you consider that it only takes a small number of stupid and/or tragic incidents to have a large political effect ... we are better off with a CHL requirement.

I agree with that. The reason that Texas and most other states banned carrying handguns was exactly that small number of incidents. The realistic alternatives are CHL or nothing in this state, at this time.

- Jim

Liberty wrote:I think the money and the time investment stops a lot of people. The young people i work with often talk about pursuing a CHL, but get discouraged about taking a whole day and spending the aprox $250.

Anyone who is above poverty level can get something if they want it. I'll bet they all have nonessential items like iPods.

It's like anything else that people talk about and find reasons not to do. They just don't want it badly enough.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:

frankie_the_yankee wrote:But if you consider that it only takes a small number of stupid and/or tragic incidents to have a large political effect ... we are better off with a CHL requirement.

I agree with that. The reason that Texas and most other states banned carrying handguns was exactly that small number of incidents. The realistic alternatives are CHL or nothing in this state, at this time.

The ban goes back to reconstruction. The ban probably has more to do with the new government not trusting the newly conquered. I don't know though, most of what I've read about it was emotionally tainted, with references to carpetbaggers and damned yankees. I wasn't there.

seamusTX wrote:

Liberty wrote:I think the money and the time investment stops a lot of people. The young people i work with often talk about pursuing a CHL, but get discouraged about taking a whole day and spending the aprox $250.

Anyone who is above poverty level can get something if they want it. I'll bet they all have nonessential items like iPods.

It's like anything else that people talk about and find reasons not to do. They just don't want it badly enough.

no doubt that they could get one if they really wanted to. But the difficulty of getting one surely effects the numbers.

Liberty wrote:

seamusTX wrote:It's not that hard to get, and everyone who wants to carry legally should have one by now. IOW, the CHL requirement is not preventing many people from carrying, maybe just the ones that owe back taxes and child support..

I think the money and the time investment stops a lot of people. The young people i work with often talk about pursuing a CHL, but get discouraged about taking a whole day and spending the aprox $250. causes them to put it off I believe that most of them will eventually get it though

If they are broke enough it only costs $70.

GC §411.194. REDUCTION OF FEES DUE TO INDIGENCY.
(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this subchapter, the
department shall reduce by 50 percent any fee required for the issuance
of an original, duplicate, modified, or renewed license under this
subchapter if the department determines that the applicant is indigent.
(b) The department shall require an applicant requesting a reduction
of a fee to submit proof of indigency with the application materials.
(c) For purposes of this section, an applicant is indigent if the applicant's
income is not more than 100 percent of the applicable income
level established by the federal poverty guidelines.

I nominate the original posting for "sticky" consideration...

We need a second, and a Mod Squad administrative adjustment...

All in favor say aye???

All opposed shhhhhhhh...