This is as good a starting point as any.steveincowtown wrote:This is like saying that we should waive all permitting fees to Electricians because they are Electricians.
0If there was still a course required for renewal I can see waiving the requirements, since clearly they should no the material. Other than than that I disagree with the bill and thinks it creates a special "elite class."
Why shouldn't we waive all permitting fees to Electricians (or CHL Instructors) because they are Electricians (or CHL Instructors)? The argument seems to be "the state screws electricians out of some bucks so let's do the same to CHL instructors."
So the real question is: "Why should CHL Instructors (or CHL'ers in general) pay a fee at all?"
In fact, I think imposing fees on CHL holders and CHL Instructors is far more double-plus ungood than it is for electricians or beauticians or what-have-you, because it is imposing a fee, a burden, on the enumerated right to bear arms. "Constitutional/unlicensed Carry" has been soundly torpedoed for the foreseeable future, so we will be dealing with a licensing scheme for some years. We should remove as many burdens, requirements, state-controlled choke points, and other obstacles as we can within that scheme until we can ditch it altogether.
Lowering the fees for instructors in no way creates an "elite" class, it is not at all like giving DAs or judges special powers to carry that Joe Citizen can't get. Instructors are required by the law, a fee is required by the law, and all the instructors pay it. As long as we have to have CHLs, we should do all we can to reduce the burden on instructors, so there will be more of them to benefit those Texans who want a CHL.