This is no more a conflict of interest than you, a Texas CHL-only instructor, supporting a bill that will drive more students to Texas CHL-only instructors. So yes, you have a conflict of interest as well, by your own logic, if you make any profit at all on your instruction.Griz44 wrote: ... I can't say that for several of the Utah CHL instructors I have spoken with. There was a definite financial conflict there, since 2 of them I spoke with earn 100% of their income from CHL classes.
I think it has been explained quite clearly, but let's try again. Texas charges more than it needs to for a license to do what should not be taxed or licensed at all. Also, SWMPRNR provided an excellent reason as well.Griz44 wrote: ..., that still does not explain why a Texan with a clean record would not go get a Texas license..
People move toward places that do not over tax them, which is a big reason why Texas in general, and its state government in particular, is doing better economically than, say, California. It is the reason that so many retired New Yorkers and Californians (and nowadays, many others as well) move to Florida or other southern states -- the taxes are lower. However, Texas is overtaxing in at least one particular area, i.e. CHLs, and people move (their money) away from that. It is as simple as that.
Guys making a buck off of teaching Utah classes is no more unclean than guys making a buck off of teaching Texas CHL. There is nothing holy about the taxing power of the state of Texas, and the 2A should certainly not be a cash cow for its treasury.
The legislature created this problem with the fees it established, and in typical legislative fashion, someone decides that the fix should be to curtail the taxpayer's choices with more laws, rather than dumping the bad bad law. This not a natural market -- it is a necessary, for the moment, evil. It is akin to the tax preparation business -- it is ridiculous that there exists a major industry solely because the national tax laws and IRS regulations are so complicated that they scare and overwhelm people who decided they have to have a professional do their taxes (and I am not talking about people with complicated businesses and investments either).
The CHL fees may have been a necessary compromise in the beginning to get the CHL program off the ground, but not any more -- no more than being required to display the CHL to a peace officer, or restricting CHLs from campus or church or wherever.
I read your arguments, and they don't cut the mustard. There is no good pro-2A or pro-Texas reason to support Burnham's bill. Only "pro-let's-regulate-CHLs-even-more" reasons.