TexasCHLforum.com

bblhd672 wrote:

tx85 wrote:Moments ago:
Senate concurs in House amendment(s)

On to the governor's desk!

This is a huge benefit for Texans. I expect to see the LTC community in Texas increase dramatically.

Chas.

seph wrote:It was passed in the House, but was amended in the house. So the Senate has to vote on the ammended version.

Correct.

Chas.

bblhd672 wrote:When will Senate act upon SB16 and send to governor for signing?

Soon.

Chas.

Remember folks, LEO organizations, most of which are nothing but a labor union, opposed gun-owners, but the line officers strongly support us. Consider TMPA (Texas Municipal Police Association) with its Executive Director on the Board of anti-gun Texas Gun Sense. This amendment helps the guys and gals on the street.

Chas.

Alf wrote:I prefer educated people to ignorant people but that doesn't mean I want to pay higher taxes so Yankees can attend UT without paying tuition.

Secondary education isn't a public safety issue. LTC background checks are for public safety issues, so the public should cover the costs.

I understand your point about non-residents and it wouldn't give me any heartburn if it becomes necessary to charge a fee. The fee could and should be minimal, perhaps just enough to cover the FBI fingerprint check ($23.50). However, if we drop the requirement for FBI fingerprints, then the cost of processing a background check is the cost to type a name into one DPS computer that checks, NCIC, TCIC, NICS and one other database. Now that's a big IF, because the opposition to deleting the fingerprint requirement is strong. It's frustrating because we don't get any additional information from an FBI fingerprint check that DPS doesn't get through their own computer check.

Chas.

infoman wrote:One last question? Assuming this bill passes, it will create a giant volume increase & likewise hudge backlog in processing. If the costs are all waived, who's paying for all the DPS costs to function a massive increase in an already swamped department? would taxes be effected in any way? Just trying to get a good understanding. I guess I'm wondering where will the funds come from?

I suspect SB16's passage would increase applications, but I doubt it would be a huge increase. It might be for a short while, but I seriously doubt there are many people who forego an LTC because of the state fee. I've never had anyone tell me they have not gotten a license due to the State fee. I have had a few people tell me that the total cost of buying a gun, learning to shoot (ammo cost), taking a class and paying the state fee was cost-prohibited. Obviously, these folks don't currently have a suitable handgun.

DPS needs a funding increase now and they will need even more if SB16 passes in its as-filed form. That will come from the state's general fund and there's no way it would require a tax increase. The fiscal note on this Bill is going to cause sticker shock, but in terms of the total state budget, it will not be as big/bad as it looks at first blush.

Chas.

infoman wrote:So just a couple questions? On the proposed SB16, the one that does away with the fees. Will everything be totally free? New app fees, renewal fees, fingerprints, LTC new classes? Will instructors still charge for the courses? Thanks.

As filed, SB16 does away with all state fees for an LTC. That includes new licenses, renewals, lost/changed licenses, etc. It has no effect on fees for classes. That would be unconstitutional.

Chas.

Scott Farkus wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I understand your point, but we are dealing with a constitutional right. If the Legislature feels that the licensing law should exist for public safety reasons, then the cost should be born by the general public. The cost of voter registration is born by the public and voting is also a constitutional right.

Chas.

Agreed, and I'm not arguing for or against constitutional carry because I understand the political realities, but isn't that very close to an argument for constitutional carry?

No. There's nothing more fundamental to our form of government than the right to vote. There's no fee to vote, but one must register to vote and a background check is done before issuing the voter registration card and putting you on the eligible voter role. (Convicted felons cannot vote.) I think this should be the procedure for getting an LTC.

People have taken to the term "constitutional carry" for political reasons, but the SCOTUS has stated in Heller that licensing is constitutional. Yes, it was dicta, but I don't see a future court striking down all licensing statutes.

My opinion on the state shouldering the cost of the background check, issuing the license, etc. is not limited to LTCs. I think the cost of any procedural requirement placed on citizens should be paid by the state, when the motive for the procedure is public safety. If the population as a whole benefits, then the population should bear the cost.

Chas.

ELB wrote:

safety1 wrote:I like the elimination of fees, it's a step in the right direction.

Concerns - Would this create longer wait times for renewals and first time apps?
I recall in the past when things got "busy" at DPS, they would bring in more workers for processing.
If it becomes a budgeted licensing program item, would this curtail the ability to bring workers in during heavy processing times?.

I might be wrong, but I believe that the DPS licensing program already operates off budget funds and licensing fees go straight to the general fund, not to the DPS.

Correct.

Chas.

ELB wrote:Well I hope the "boss" reserved a low bill number for wiping out the licensed carry no-go zones...

I was using the term "boss" tongue-in-cheek. A number has not been reserved for an off-limits bill.

Chas.

RoyGBiv wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

SewTexas wrote:I thought that something said that the ltc's had to support the department? if that's the case then it can't be fee free? this doesn't make sense...understand, I'll go for anything that means I'm not giving the govn't more of my $. I'm just not understanding how this can't work withing what I understand the law to be.

There's no legal or constitutional requirement that the LTC program be self-supporting. That has been the Legislature's requirement since 1993 (HB1776). It's still going to be a hard sell since the fiscal note on the Bill is going to be a shocker. Nevertheless, it's the right thing to do.

Chas.

I like the sentiment of zero fees, but if I had limited capital to spend, this isn't even 1% as useful as eliminating/reducing gun free zones.

I wholeheartedly agree, but the Lt. Gov. wants this badly. When the "boss" wants something that sets the stage.

Chas.

SewTexas wrote:I thought that something said that the ltc's had to support the department? if that's the case then it can't be fee free? this doesn't make sense...understand, I'll go for anything that means I'm not giving the govn't more of my $. I'm just not understanding how this can't work withing what I understand the law to be.

There's no legal or constitutional requirement that the LTC program be self-supporting. That has been the Legislature's requirement since 1993 (HB1776). It's still going to be a hard sell since the fiscal note on the Bill is going to be a shocker. Nevertheless, it's the right thing to do.

Chas.

Jusme wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

BeanCounter wrote:

Jusme wrote: Why not an across the board reduction that actually saves people money?

I agree. why not reduce LTC fees 50% across the board for the various classes of license applicants.

If THEY want to promote “secure storage devices" why not allow a sales tax exemption for gun safes, etc?

SB16 will do away with the fee entirely, unless the bill has been amended prior to filing. The Lt. Gov. really wants this done!

Chas.

Sorry I only read part of the,way through it.
I understood the reduction to be continent upon purchasing a storage unit for the gun. I need to slow down a little bit.

HB111 will be a discount only if you buy a storage device. SB16 repeals the fee, but the bill is not yet available on the Leg. website.

Chas.

rotor wrote:If you eliminate the fee then tax dollars from other programs have to pay for the processing of the LTC. I am not going to argue whether LTC should be eliminated but the person applying for one should be at a minimum paying for it.

I understand your point, but we are dealing with a constitutional right. If the Legislature feels that the licensing law should exist for public safety reasons, then the cost should be born by the general public. The cost of voter registration is born by the public and voting is also a constitutional right.

Chas.

BeanCounter wrote:

Jusme wrote: Why not an across the board reduction that actually saves people money?

I agree. why not reduce LTC fees 50% across the board for the various classes of license applicants.

If THEY want to promote “secure storage devices" why not allow a sales tax exemption for gun safes, etc?

SB16 will do away with the fee entirely, unless the bill has been amended prior to filing. The Lt. Gov. really wants this done!

Chas.