Political Capital-Prohibited Places vs Constitutional Carry

[mojo84]

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.

[joe817]

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"

[Charles L. Cotton]

There will be a serious push to reduce the license fee in 2017. This is actually coming from some key folks on the Legislature without much prodding. I haven't heard any figures yet, but a majority realize it should be reduced.

As Joe817 noted, there are reductions for indigent folks, but there are others also. Military get the license for free as do people who have been discharged for a year or less. Veterans get the initial and all renewal licenses for $25 while those age 60 yrs and over get a 50% reduction. The revenue generated by licensee fees is well below the $140 initial license fee and it's probably below the $70 renewal fee.

DPS must pay the FBI $23 for every fingerprint background check run on applicants. This is a significant cost to DPS that should be removed in my opinion.

I haven't heard any specific fee mentioned, but I think it will be down to $100 or less, perhaps much less.

Chas.

[TXBO]

For anyone who is a John Lott fan:

http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/upl ... States.pdf


"Number of Permits Issued
Overall, the percent of adults with permits is easily explained by how difficult it is
to get permits, how many years permits have been available, and whether
government officials have discretion in issuing permits.1
Among our findings:
-- Each $10 increase in fees reduces the percent of adults with permits by
about a half a percentage point.
-- Each 10 years that the permit law is in effect increases the percent of
adults with permits by 1.5 percentage points.
-- Giving government officials discretion in who gets permits, reduces the
percent of adults with get permits by more than two-thirds."

[JALLEN]

Veterans get the initial and all renewal licenses for $25 while those age 60 yrs and over get a 50% reduction. The revenue generated by licensee fees is well below the $140 initial license fee and it's probably below the $70 renewal fee.



Chas.

When did the Vet deal change? When I applied 3 years ago, just arrived from CA, I was both a Vet and a senior. I got a 50% discount either way. I remember asking if I could take both, 50% of 100% as a Vet (I was a Vet first), and 50% of 50% as a senior.

No deal, they said.

[bblhd672]

I'd like to see more restrictions placed on public places like hotels to not post 30.06 and 30.07 signs.
A business that "sells" you a place to live for one or more days should not be allowed to endanger your life by restricting your U.S. and Texas Constitutional rights.

While traveling yesterday I overheard a conversation in a gas station about a motel in that small town on Saturday night having six rooms getting the doors kicked in the middle of the night and robbed.

[TXBO]

....
DPS must pay the FBI $23 for every fingerprint background check run on applicants. This is a significant cost to DPS that should be removed in my opinion.
......

It would be very interesting to know how many applicants the fingerprinting has prohibited from getting their license. I bet the number is extremely low. I would think that would be good data to remove the requirement and the cost.

According to Lott's statistics, a $20 decrease in cost would raise the percentage of license holders in Texas by about 1%. With a population of almost 27 Million, an additional 270,000 law abiding citizens would become license holders. That also ignores the bounce for simplifying the process. That's approximately a 25% increase in license holders. I would consider that a major victory.

ETA.... I forgot to factor the additional $10 decrease in customer costs from the fingerprinting. That would be an additional .5% increase so the total increase according to Lott's statistics would be 1.5% of adult population or 405,000 new license holders. That's about a 40% increase.

[bblhd672]

....
DPS must pay the FBI $23 for every fingerprint background check run on applicants. This is a significant cost to DPS that should be removed in my opinion.
......

It would be very interesting to know how many applicants the fingerprinting has prohibited from getting their license. I bet the number is extremely low. I would think that would be good data to remove the requirement and the cost.

According to Lott's statistics, a $20 decrease in cost would raise the percentage of license holders in Texas by about 1%. With a population of almost 27 Million, an additional 270,000 law abiding citizens would become license holders. That also ignores the bounce for simplifying the process. That's approximately a 25% increase in license holders. I would consider that a major victory.

My basic lack of trust in government makes me say that "they" want the fingerprints to further build the data sets by having millions of people's fingerprints that they would not have gotten any other way.

[Jusme]

....
DPS must pay the FBI $23 for every fingerprint background check run on applicants. This is a significant cost to DPS that should be removed in my opinion.
......

It would be very interesting to know how many applicants the fingerprinting has prohibited from getting their license. I bet the number is extremely low. I would think that would be good data to remove the requirement and the cost.

According to Lott's statistics, a $20 decrease in cost would raise the percentage of license holders in Texas by about 1%. With a population of almost 27 Million, an additional 270,000 law abiding citizens would become license holders. That also ignores the bounce for simplifying the process. That's approximately a 25% increase in license holders. I would consider that a major victory.

I doubt that the fingerprinting requirement will ever be removed, especially when we want reciprocity with other states. The FBI love their fingerprint database, and for good reason. I have three separate sets of my prints on file, one when I became a LEO, one when I got my CHL, and one when I got my security clearance.
While the numbers Mr. Lott has put forward may represent an overall, nationwide, cost to permit holder ratio, I don't think that a $20 decrease in cost, will equate to a 270,000 increase in the numbers LTC holders. The numbers are going up at an astonishing rate, now, due to the recent events across the country, and around the world, as people wake up to the failures of the current administration to protect it's citizens, and the fear that if Hitlery is elected, that trend will continue. In short, I think that the political climate has more to do with increasing numbers, than the licensing costs. I think that the cost of firearms is much more prohibitive, for those with a more meager income.
A 10% overall reduction in the cost of firearms would in my opinion have a much greater impact on permit holders. But with demand at an all time high, the odds of that happening are slim for a while.
I do agree that the costs should be reduced, for licensing, simply because the process was never meant to be a profitable endeavor. JMHO

[rotor]

Give me a break. People spend as much on a holster as they do on the cost of a LTC. Anyone that can't afford the fee can't afford the firearm, ammo and training needed to stay proficient with said firearm. I don't buy the argument that cost is a factor.

[v7a]

Texas businesses that ban guns should be liable if unarmed patrons are hurt, Dallas senator says

AUSTIN - Texas businesses that ask customers to disarm themselves will have to pay for injuries incurred in these gun-free zones if Dallas-area Sen. Bob Hall has his way.

Hall wants to propose a new law that will make gun-free businesses liable for "any harm that befalls" patrons "as a result of being deprived of his or her weapon." The law, Hall says, would "encourage Texas businesses to do the right thing and allow their patrons to carry the firearms they have lawfully trained with for self-protection."

"Businesses that establish themselves as 'gun-free' provide a guaranteed path of least resistance for terrorists and psychopathic murderers by ensuring that all of the law-abiding patrons in their establishment, including those licensed to carry a firearm, have surrendered their right of self-defense at the door," Hall, E-Edgewood, said in a Monday email.

Hall's legislation is modeled on a bill considered earlier this year by the state legislature in Tennessee. That bill originally proposed the same civil liability on businesses that ban guns. But later, before it was signed into law, the bill was completely gutted.

Now, the law protects businesses that allow guns from being sued for doing so, unless the business owner acts with "gross negligence or willful or wanton misconduct." It is unclear why the bill was so drastically changed.

[casp625]

When did the Vet deal change? When I applied 3 years ago, just arrived from CA, I was both a Vet and a senior. I got a 50% discount either way. I remember asking if I could take both, 50% of 100% as a Vet (I was a Vet first), and 50% of 50% as a senior.

No deal, they said.

H.B. 233, Sec. 1, eff. September 1, 2007 - all fees reduced by 50% for veterans.

H.B. 485, Sec. 1, eff. September 1, 2013. - reduced original requests and renewals to $25 for veterans.

[Soccerdad1995]

I strongly believe that 30.06 / 30.07 signs should not have force of law for a property owner who has decided to put out an open invite for the general public to visit their property (aka a business owner). I can (barely) buy the argument that my personal prejudices should trump the god given rights of people that have been personally invited into my home, but once I have opened my property to the general public, I should not have the right to use the arrest power of the government to enforce my personal preferences on how they think, speak, dress, or do anything else that is not explicitly illegal in the first place. If I have put out an open invitation and then dislike the fact that someone mentioned their support of Hillary or a dislike of Trump, I can tell them to leave. But I shouldn't be able to just call the police and have them arrested or fined unless they refuse to leave. Same goes for their exercise of other rights, including the RKBA.

BUT, this belief of mine is not even fully supported by those on this forum, not to mention the general public. So I will just deal with it as I am allowed to do under current law. I totally understand that the political process is not ideal, and I fully support the need to prioritize our efforts. I will be extremely happy if we can remove all prohibited (publicly owned) locations this session, even if we make no other progress.

[TXBO]

Give me a break. People spend as much on a holster as they do on the cost of a LTC. Anyone that can't afford the fee can't afford the firearm, ammo and training needed to stay proficient with said firearm. I don't buy the argument that cost is a factor.

LOL! It's not an argument. It's statistical research.

[Jusme]

I strongly believe that 30.06 / 30.07 signs should not have force of law for a property owner who has decided to put out an open invite for the general public to visit their property (aka a business owner). I can (barely) buy the argument that my personal prejudices should trump the god given rights of people that have been personally invited into my home, but once I have opened my property to the general public, I should not have the right to use the arrest power of the government to enforce my personal preferences on how they think, speak, dress, or do anything else that is not explicitly illegal in the first place. If I have put out an open invitation and then dislike the fact that someone mentioned their support of Hillary or a dislike of Trump, I can tell them to leave. But I shouldn't be able to just call the police and have them arrested or fined unless they refuse to leave. Same goes for their exercise of other rights, including the RKBA.

BUT, this belief of mine is not even fully supported by those on this forum, not to mention the general public. So I will just deal with it as I am allowed to do under current law. I totally understand that the political process is not ideal, and I fully support the need to prioritize our efforts. I will be extremely happy if we can remove all prohibited (publicly owned) locations this session, even if we make no other progress.

The only place that I feel should be treated the same as government property, are hospitals, that accept, Medicare (paid for by me) Medicaid (paid for by me) Obamacare (again, paid for by me) Or if they are designated a County hospital that is required to accept patients who have none of the listed ways to pay (once again paid for by me)
I understand your argument for property owners doing business with the public, and in most if not all cases are licensed in some way by the government, not being able to post signs prohibiting LTC holders from bringing their handguns into their business. But,I believe that government should play almost no role in determining how a business owner should conduct his business, in relation to whom he refuses service. Whether it is LTC holders or refusing to bake a cake for a gay couple. That being said, I think that Charles is right in that, we would have almost certainly gotten none of the laws passed regarding LTC, if it weren't for giving in to the demand for business owners, to be allowed to prohibit carrying.JMHO