TexasCHLforum.com

San Diego gets $93 for a two year permit, renewals for two years are $73.50, plus all the other stuff, non-refundable, BTW.

If I weren't one of them I wouldn't be either.

That sounds like certain politicians who shall remain nameless. They're happy with restrictive carry laws for the common people. As long as they get theirs that's what's important.

tbrown wrote:

If I weren't one of them I wouldn't be either.

That sounds like certain politicians who shall remain nameless. They're happy with restrictive carry laws for the common people. As long as they get theirs that's what's important.

It was sarcasm, something I believe you are very familiar with based on your recent posts.

Never heard of it.

tbrown wrote:Never heard of it.

LAYGO wrote:The fee hasn't changed with the lower requirements for class time? I know most of the CHL class costs are less, but the application?

Why would the fee change for the state? Nothing there has changed. Not saying it isn't high, but nothing has changed on their end.

As for classes, you still have to pay for renting a location, maybe lunch if you provide it, etc, so instructor expenses have not changed much if any, so I don't see a reason to lower cost for class either.

Does it really cost the same amount to rent a location for half the time? At the very least, it seems to me that you could rent the location for the same time period as before but run two classes back to back. I can't imagine why anyone would provide lunch as part of such a short class.

3dfxMM wrote:Does it really cost the same amount to rent a location for half the time? At the very least, it seems to me that you could rent the location for the same time period as before but run two classes back to back. I can't imagine why anyone would provide lunch as part of such a short class.

The guys I took my class from didn't provide lunch even when the classes were longer! Those situations are why I walk around with some grub in my cargo pants (granola bar, cliff bar etc...).

If you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it's a complete failure. If you judge gun-friendliness based on application fees, Texas won't rank very high. But if you consider the laws that we have in place, the general public's position with regard to firearms, and the state legislature's attitude toward concerned carry; Texas has it much better than most. Yes, our fees are generally high. But the rest of our situation should more than offset that. In the interest of fairness, constitutional carry should really be ranked on a different list than permit carry.

TexasCajun wrote:If you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it's a complete failure. If you judge gun-friendliness based on application fees, Texas won't rank very high. But if you consider the laws that we have in place, the general public's position with regard to firearms, and the state legislature's attitude toward concerned carry; Texas has it much better than most. Yes, our fees are generally high. But the rest of our situation should more than offset that. In the interest of fairness, constitutional carry should really be ranked on a different list than permit carry.

100% with everything you said!

The way the federal law is written about school zones, etc., lawful carry and constitutional carry are different and have different requirements.

MeMelYup wrote:The way the federal law is written about school zones, etc., lawful carry and constitutional carry are different and have different requirements.

OFF-TOPIC: I know in several other topics on this forum the GFSZ Act has been discussed, and the general conclusion is that without a CHL you are unlikely to be charged and convicted under the GFSZ Act if you had a loaded gun in your vehicle and were just driving through a "school zone". But the more I think about that particular federal law and looking at the sheer number of K-12 schools in my town - over 60% of the area of our town of approx 70,000 people would be considered a school zone. And reading some of the case history where people were even convicted under the GFSZ Act by having a gun in their home makes me wonder how this law has been allowed to stand as constitutional....

Do fish climb trees????

mewalke wrote: And reading some of the case history where people were even convicted under the GFSZ Act by having a gun in their home makes me wonder how this law has been allowed to stand as constitutional....

Seeing as possessing a firearm on private property is not illegal under the GFSZ law, I believe you are mistaken about "case history".

Jumping Frog wrote:

mewalke wrote: And reading some of the case history where people were even convicted under the GFSZ Act by having a gun in their home makes me wonder how this law has been allowed to stand as constitutional....

Seeing as possessing a firearm on private property is not illegal under the GFSZ law, I believe you are mistaken about "case history".

Actually I believe I am correct about the "case history"

http://openjurist.org/480/f3d/597/unite ... ves-castao

Woman had a legally owned AK-47 in her apartment. Upon conduct of a search warrant the officer found the weapon and charged her with unlawful possession of a machine gun and possession of a firearm in a Gun Free School Zone. She was convicted of both charges. Upon appeal the court reversed the unlawful possession of a machine gun, but confirmed the conviction under the GFSZ Act. The only thing that is not clear form the court document is whether the apartment she lived in was publicly owned, as it states it was a "housing project".

Edit: I stand corrected on the machine gun part - the overturned it because the government couldn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she knew it was classified as a machine gun - not because it was legally owned.