TexasCHLforum.com

boomerang wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:That is a legitimate philosophical point and I tend to lean that way myself because of my respect for the military. However, I struggle with prejudicing 300,000 Texans to give special treatment to 36. And we definitely are talking about extending special treatment to people between 18 and 20 years old. Unless they have licenses from other states, there is the potential that 300,000 Texans will be unarmed and defenseless in at least three states, so roughly 36 people can have a Texas CHL between one and three years earlier. It's ironic that we grant special privileges to a class of people solely because they have volunteered for the job of protecting us, and in so doing increase the danger to the very people they have sworn to protect.

I agree. It also makes me less likely to renew my Texas CHL. Why shouldn't I get an out of state license instead that's honored where I travel? Many of them are less of a hassle and less expensive than the Texas CHL. Why spend the time and money for a renewal class, pay $70 to DPS for a renewal, submit half a dozen finger print cards, and wait months if I don't get any real benefit? That doesn't even count the risk of being arbitrarily disarmed.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Liberty wrote:I am well aware I am in Nevada today and unarmed. Darned I need to get that Utah permit!!!

Come see me and I'll take care of that just for you!

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:That is a legitimate philosophical point and I tend to lean that way myself because of my respect for the military. However, I struggle with prejudicing 300,000 Texans to give special treatment to 36. And we definitely are talking about extending special treatment to people between 18 and 20 years old. Unless they have licenses from other states, then there is the potential that 300,000 Texans will be unarmed and defenseless in at least three states, so roughly 36 people can have a Texas CHL between one and three years earlier. It's ironic that we grant special privileges to a class of people solely because they have volunteered for the job of protecting us, and in so doing increase the danger to the very people they have sworn to protect.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

TxDrifter wrote:If the problem is the age issue, why didn't one of the people upstairs deciding these things get the idea we could have reciprocity as long as you are 21 are over, similar to the resident restriction on others?

I believe a few states have done this. This was my concern when the age limit for Texas CHLs was reduced to 18 for the military. For the DPS year 9/1/07 - 8/31/08, there were only 36 CHLs issued to people under age 21. However, 300,000 CHLs don't have reciprocity with at least Ohio and Washington, and possibly more if/when they take another look at Texas' CHL eligibility requirements. When considering changes to any law, it's critical to evaluate the potential consequences.

Chas.