Right. And the Texas license is quite a bit more complicated than some of the pre-Florida law States. With the program being self supporting to the point of actually raising revenue, we didn't have the flap over unfunded mandates like they did in Missouri. A lot of them have no provision for training or shooting qualification-or a much less stringent procedure. It seems that Texas became something of a model for the states that followed. The training, the child safety law that passed at the same time and a number of the restrictions were all used to make the law more "passable."
There was a provision for studying the feasibility of letting license applicants "test out" of the training requirement. I haven't heard anything about that since Sept. 1995.
Search found 2 matches
- Sun Dec 26, 2004 10:01 am
- Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
- Topic: CHL fees
- Replies: 14
- Views: 5810
- Fri Dec 24, 2004 9:17 am
- Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
- Topic: CHL fees
- Replies: 14
- Views: 5810
"wishes. This is the info I recieved from the DPS. The governor "
This is exactly what I read in the law back in 1995 before it went into effect. The program was designed to be self supporting with any excess revenue being seconded to the general fund. I don't know if it was intended to be a revenue producing programe but the prediction that it would add money to the general fund was clearly there. I didn't seen anything about the governor having direct control of it- only that the excess would go into the state money bin.
With such legislation, part of the bill as introduced includes an economic impact projection. In this case, they guessed that between one and two percent of the (adult?) population would participate.
This is exactly what I read in the law back in 1995 before it went into effect. The program was designed to be self supporting with any excess revenue being seconded to the general fund. I don't know if it was intended to be a revenue producing programe but the prediction that it would add money to the general fund was clearly there. I didn't seen anything about the governor having direct control of it- only that the excess would go into the state money bin.
With such legislation, part of the bill as introduced includes an economic impact projection. In this case, they guessed that between one and two percent of the (adult?) population would participate.