TexasCHLforum.com

An article from Eugene Volokh http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/2am.pdf points out that excessive fees to exercise a constitutional right are not permitted. Since it costs something like $250 and up to obtain a CHL in Texas, many lower-income people find this too great a burden so do not get licensed. I suspect the demographics of TX CHL holders tend toward middle and upper middle class.
I think that's a pretty good argument for an Arizona-style unlicensed concealed carry. At the very least, the state fees should be dropped, and there should be "..or equivalent experience" substitute for the all-day, $100 class.

There is a special Indigent rate.

It's inevitable that a case will reach the Supreme Court on the issue of licensing and it will likely include the element of government imposed fees. I'm not sure that any fee will be held constitutional.

I can't think of a fee currently imposed solely to exercise a constitutional right. The old "poll tax" was rejected as nothing but a veiled attempt to prevent African Americans from voting. There are business taxes imposed on the media (1st Amendment) but those are business taxes. The FCC charges a license fee for radio and TV stations, but the Court has held that the government can regulate the airwaves since there is only limited frequency spectrum. The FCC cannot regulate the content broadcast on the spectrum it allocates by way of licensing.

If fees are held to be constitutional, I believe the fee will have to be "revenue neutral;" i.e. it will have to be set to cover the cost of processing the license. The question will become "what is the cost of processing the license?" Will it be only the direct cost of the background investigation and manufacturing, or will it include an allocation of the entire cost of the governmental unit that handles the license? This can be very problematic if, unlike the DPS CHL Division, the agency processing the license also does other things.

Even with all of this considered, any fee would have to be reasonable and not an impediment to the exercise of a constitutional right. In Texas, that would be either $140 or $70, not the total cost to get a CHL. I don't see any way costs other than the license fee being an issue to the Court, unless the state mandated the course be taken from one specific company on a "sole source" type contract and that's not going to happen.

License fees most definitely could go away, but it's not a certainty.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:It's inevitable that a case will reach the Supreme Court on the issue of licensing and it will likely include the element of government imposed fees. I'm not sure that any fee will be held constitutional.
...

License fees most definitely could go away, but it's not a certainty.

Chas.

Charles,
If they were to do away with the requirement to have a CHL, they could still charge for the "priveledge" of having one. Doing away with the requirement could be construed as revenue positive :)

Just thinking out loud .. albeit wishfull.

But looking at it from the bottom up, rather than the top down, all of that overhead is the result of state-imposed restrictions and regulations on the right to be armed - infringements, if you will. If the cost of the regulation is so high that it is onerous to a large segment of the citizenry, then it is excessive and should not be passed on directly. Do TV and radio stations directly pay for the total cost of running the FCC?.
The 2nd point regarding training and related compliance costs such as fingerprints and photos. That has settled to about $100, plus 10 hours of your life, which also has a value. Other forms of training or experience should be allowed as equivalent to that training, with perhaps only a test on the laws pertaining to concealed carry. When I sought a racing license, the basic requirement is two weekends of race schools. However, there are a number of alternatives, such as racing experience in other groups, which will waive all or part of the school requirement. In the case of CHL, military training might be such an equivalence, or NRA/TSRA youth programs. As for fingerprints and photos, Pennsylvania has no such requirements.

Liberty wrote: If they were to do away with the requirement to have a CHL, they could still charge for the "privilege" of having one. Doing away with the requirement could be construed as revenue positive :)

Good point. That's what Arizona did, essentially. You can still get one for purposes of reciprocity.
The governor can announce an immediate budget reduction of $XXX,XXXX
That would be a win-win (other than the "blood in the streets" thing )

Rex B wrote:

Liberty wrote: If they were to do away with the requirement to have a CHL, they could still charge for the "privilege" of having one. Doing away with the requirement could be construed as revenue positive :)

Good point. That's what Arizona did, essentially. You can still get one for purposes of reciprocity.
The governor can announce an immediate budget reduction of $XXX,XXXX
That would be a win-win (other than the "blood in the streets" thing )

Yes but I believe it would be a hard sell here in Texas.. Perhaps the ability to salvage some of the fees might make it more worth while.
Benefits for CHL holders still would be.
Protection of the 30.06
School zone clarity
Having a good guy card.
And of course multi state recognition.

Remember that Texas has no State Income tax.

If we start fooling around trying to get rid of certain fees (CHL included) what is the possibility of them enacting a State Income Tax to cover those (and other) losses to the budget?

AEA wrote:Remember that Texas has no State Income tax.

If we start fooling around trying to get rid of certain fees (CHL included) what is the possibility of them enacting a State Income Tax to cover those (and other) losses to the budget?

Then we start talking about how we should be cutting the cost of government. But that's a whole 'nother topic

AEA wrote:Remember that Texas has no State Income tax.

If we start fooling around trying to get rid of certain fees (CHL included) what is the possibility of them enacting a State Income Tax to cover those (and other) losses to the budget?

As much as I despise income taxes .. I depise taxing what is supposed to be an uninfringed right even more .. Let the gun banners pay their fair share.

AEA wrote:Remember that Texas has no State Income tax.

For someone such as myself (who is out of work), I find that as no benefit at this time



I am unable to obtain a Texas carry permit because of fees, so I understand more than some. A Utah permit would be cheaper, and is an option for now.

I almost got one years ago before SC would accept a NC permit, they did honor the Utah non-resident permit.

Grog wrote:

AEA wrote:Remember that Texas has no State Income tax.

For someone such as myself (who is out of work), I find that as no benefit at this time

I am unable to obtain a Texas carry permit because of fees, so I understand more than some. A Utah permit would be cheaper, and is an option for now.

I almost got one years ago before SC would accept a NC permit, they did honor the Utah non-resident permit.

gigag04 wrote:There is a special Indigent rate.

Grog, did you investigate the Indigent rate for Texas CHL?

The Annoyed Man wrote:
Grog, did you investigate the Indigent rate for Texas CHL?

As long as I'm breathing and able to stand, I would never want to refer to myself as "Indigent".

The law says the fee shall cover the actual cost.

tacticool wrote:The law says the fee shall cover the actual cost.

Yet there are several different fees charged, makes ya wonder about that, huh?