TexasCHLforum.com

punkndisorderly wrote:Where does substantial compliance enter into this? It is my understanding that, under some circumstances, satisfying the intent of the law or contract is sufficient rather than the letter of the law.

It comes into play as a defense when they get sued for breaching the contract. So if their insurance company sues them for not posting the right sign, they may be able to defend against the suit.

Please tell us how they respond and thanks for pushing on this.

If DPS is intentionally teaching bad law they're no better than the district attorneys who were prosecuting people for having guns in their cars after the legislature changed the law. I'm disappointed but with antigun Republicans like Straus pushing hard to restrict RKBA, I can't say I'm surprised this kind of garbage is spreading.

When WE THE PEOPLE get to vote, we need to remember how Straus and Lucio and others blocked gun rights in Texas.

If the opponents of concealed carry can get that passed, that's proof positive that Texas CHL is a losing proposition.

It's easy enough to get a DL from a pro gun state to match the CHL. And if Texas antigunners have that much power with the Texas legislature, I would be embarassed to carry a Texas ID of any kind.

Thanks for the report. If that's who the state of Texas puts in charge of CHL, that's another reason to encourage friends and coworkers to get their license from a reciprocal state. One that's less expensiv, has fewer hoops to jump through, and maybe has smarter people running the program.