TexasCHLforum.com

Obi-Juan wrote:They have the right to refuse service to customers with a bad attitude.

Because the respondent asked a Utah CFP instructor if those (perfectly valid) questions ever bothered them, that's a bad attitude? Talk about attitude. The CFP instructor could have politely answered, "No, and here's why...." Instead, he got churlish. I question why.

Sometimes, hard questions make people squirm. If they answer the question honestly, maybe they'll satisfy the asker. If they answer it with rudeness without really addressing the question, my automatic response is to wonder if the vendor has a legitimate answer. The vendor had set up shop in a public venue, offering a product which (at this moment in time) happens to be a touch controversial. If he thinks that nobody is going to question him, he's actually being unrealistic.

I once asked the guy from KC Precision ammo (a commercial maker of custom ammo) at the Ft Worth show if he carried product liability insurance. He wasn't offended, and my question wasn't intended to offend. He answered the question, and I was satisfied. If he had chewed me out instead answering the question, I would have naturally assumed that he had no product liability insurance—a bad thing for a commercial ammo maker.

So when the vendor in question here responded the way he did, my natural assumption would be that he's ticked off because he knows he can't really give a good answer, so he took it out on the asker instead of manning up and dealing with the questions. If you want to sell your wares at a public event, it is unrealistic to expect not to be questioned about your products. If that's your expectation, you've got some maturing to do.

trueno wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:Please. I'm a businessman. With all due respect, those instructors in question were not "good businessmen." They were the same kind of parasite as ambulance chasing attorneys. You can call that "good business" if you want. I call it exploiting loopholes in the law to get CHLs for people who mostly, but not all, couldn't qualify for a CHL. I call it sleaze.

"Couldn't qualify" as in how/what way?

t

That's an easy answer....

1. for people who plead poverty as a "disqualification".... which is a myth because if you really are too poor, the state of Texas will cut you a big break on the fees. Some people are just cheapskates.... or there is some other issue they know about, but they don't want to share with anyone or the state.

2. Utah has a different set of regs regarding charges and conviction, if I'm not mistaken. They don't care if you have charges pending. They only care if you've been convicted of those charges. (Crossfire, please correct me if I'm wrong about this.) Texas, on the other hand is interested in whether or not you have been charged with a crime, even if a conviction has not yet followed the charge. This doesn't matter if you have an old arrest and it has been disposed in your favor. It very much DOES matter if you were arrested yesterday for spousal abuse, but you haven't been convicted yet. Texas wants to know what the disposition is, and you don't have a disposition if you're still waiting to find out if you've been convicted or not.

I'm sure there are other reasons, but you'll have to do your own research.

Bart wrote:

seamusTX wrote:(a loophole is an exception in the law that the speaker dislikes)

That's the bottom line. Isn't it.

Some people may be offended that others pay lower taxes because of a "loophole" in the tax laws, and some people may be offended that others paid less for their RKBA license/permit because of a "loophole" in the Texas CHL laws.

The offended people may use ad hominem to insinuate that the people who use loopholes violate the law, when in reality the people who use the loopholes are obeying the law to the letter.

You analogy breaks down, as Charles pointed out, when you try to use the tax laws to offset my point. The "loopholes" are deliberately designed into the tax code and are part of it. So when you take advantage of a tax code "loophole," you are acting within the intent of the legislature that wrote the code. "Cheating" on CHL law by avoiding it and carrying under a nonresident CFP only violates the intent of the legislature that wrote the CHL law. If they wanted you to be able to do that, they would have written into the code. Instead, rather than exploiting a loophole written into the code, you are circumventing the code entirely as if you believe that Texas law does not apply to you, because you're somehow special.

I'm not offended by someone's decision to try and cheat the law - because that's exactly what that is - I just recognize it for what it is, and I call it what it is: morally compromised. Like I said, if you willfully violate this law, what other laws do you willfully violate every day, and how can you claim to be a constitutional absolutist when you don't believe in absolutes?

boba wrote:Rant all you want about Utah instructors who are good businessmen...

Please. I'm a businessman. With all due respect, those instructors in question were not "good businessmen." They were the same kind of parasite as ambulance chasing attorneys. You can call that "good business" if you want. I call it exploiting loopholes in the law to get CHLs for people who mostly, but not all, couldn't qualify for a CHL. I call it sleaze.

I have nothing against the CFP itself, and I have nothing against CHL instructors who also offer the CFP. I have a CFP of my own in addition to my CHL. But I didn't get my CFP so that I could circumvent the laws of the state in which I reside. And that is the bottom line. Whether you carry under authority of a CFP because you cannot qualify for a Texas CHL, or you carry under the authority of a CFP because you qualify but don't want to spend the $140 for a CHL, you are circumventing the laws of the state of Texas, and you are circumventing the intent of the legislature in passing CHL. What other laws are you circumventing in your daily behavior simply because you don't think the laws apply to you?

Now, do I think that the laws of the state of Texas are more onerous than they should be with regard to the right to keep and bear arms? Yes, I do, and among other things I would like to see the fees reduced considerably. But, they ARE the law, and I think that the correct path is to change the laws, not to twist the tail of the legislature that passed the laws. You can argue that the law is unconstitutional, but the legislature's authority to pass laws is entirely constitutional. When they passed CHL, it was with a specific intent. When you try to escape their intent by carrying under the authority of a CFP only, then you have only yourself to blame when the legislature reacts to having their tail twisted by slamming that door on you. That's not "good business." That's just plain dumb.

Now, in this case, it was the Utah legislature that slammed the door, but there is a bill before the Texas legislature which, if it passes, would slam that door shut too; and THAT bill is a direct response to people who twist the legislature's tail by trying to circumvent the legislature's intent. Period. Now, it isn't the CHL instructors who also offer CFP's who are responsible for this situation. It is entirely the fault of unscrupulous CFP instructors who heavily advertised their service as a means of circumventing Texas (Nevada/New Mexico) state law. You can call this a rant, but if you cannot accept that the fault for this situation lies squarely on the shoulders of those unscrupulous instructors, then you are either one of them, or you are in denial.

Furthermore, if you're not willing to work within the legislature's intent with regard to CHL law, then how can you argue in favor of the Founder's intent against someone who persists in misinterpreting the militia clause in the 2nd Amendment? That would be logically inconsistent. After all, if the constitutionally delegated authority to pass laws with a specific intention need not be adhered to, then the Founder's intent in framing the Constitution may be freely disregarded too. That would be the logical extension of your position.

WildBill wrote:

Rebel wrote:Honestly I don't see a problem with Utah doing this, as I have lost 2 States Nevada/New Mexico (being in El Paso that was a big loss) since I have had my CFP that were probably due to all the "cheap CCW" advertisements pushed everywhere.

Utah certainly had the right to pass this law. The problem I have is the reason that they felt they had to pass it. As TAM stated, it was the result of selfish "feckless morons" who were trying to take advantage of the laws to make a quick buck. In the end, these same CFP instructors deprived themselves of making money and "hosed everyone else".

Also, although I don't blame Utah for taking this step, this is a step backward in the fight for unrestricted gun rights. The result lies squarely on those whose selfishness brought it on.

WildBill wrote:I can't say I didn't see it coming. Another instance of a few people spoiling things for the many.

Exactly. Deliberate intemperance is not only a sin, it is incredibly stupid. Now those irresponsible CFP instructors who caused this ruckus through idiotic advertising hype have A) lost their income, and B) hosed everyone else. Feckless morons.