mojo84 wrote:For some reason this thread has come to a point Obama phones and healthcare come to mind. If someone can't afford it, it should be free or they should get subsidy. If the requirement for a license was removed, then are we obligated to help them get a gun or make it free for those that say they can't afford one? Hey, people do have a right to defend themselves. Where does the entitlement end?
Again, I believe we shouldn't have to have a license to carry but we do. I just don't think basing the argument on affordability will get us there.
Don't forget that DPS reduces fees by 50% to those who cannot afford the full $140.00 fee. So the fee actually becomes $70.00 for qualified applicants:"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.
---
Added by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 165, Sec. 10.01(a), eff. Sept. 1, 1997"