TexasCHLforum.com

Hoppes wrote:I suppose you knew that the Tiahrt (There is that hard to spell name again) Amendment passed right?

Yes, thanks. I get those e-mails from the NRA.

- Jim

Hoppes wrote:They were tying the Tiahrt Amendment story to the American Hunters and Shooters Association and Ray Schoenke, the President of that organziation. Schoenke has noted connections to many gun control groups. Quinn was complaining about the deceptive name of the organization. It sounds like it is a pro hunting and shooting organization, when in reality, it is a front for a gun control organization funded by many of the same folks funding the Brady Campaign.

Right. The NRA is all over it.

- Jim

Sorry about the misspelling. It's not exactly as easy to remember as Smith.

- Jim

badkarma56 wrote:SeamusTX, you made a very compelling point about the budgetary limits placed on the activities of the federal government. I only hope that those guys are still "playing by the rules," know what I mean?

I do not trust any level of government 100%. The administration had some scary people in it in 2001, and some are still there. There is a personality type that thinks security is more important than legality or freedom.

However, when they do try to do things in secret, they often screw up and get caught. The federal government has independent inspectors general who can report irregularities to Congress or even initiate criminal charges. Also, whistleblowers sometimes come forward.

The fact that all these safeguards are triggered from time to time gives me some confidence that things are generally on the level.

I also look at the people who are opponents of the administration. If the administration wanted to get rid of them, they could be caught with drugs or child pornography, or commit "suicide" or have traffic "accidents." That doesn't happen.

- Jim

Let me try to allay your fears.

The federal government must pay for whatever it does. The money must be a line-item in the federal budget. Congress is very specific about much of it.

There is some opportunity for fudging -- using funds appropriated for one purpose for another. However, it is borderline or outright illegal to do so.

There are constant battles in Congress about this kind of data-mining. The NRA is currently fighting to keep something called the Tiahart amendment, which prevents public access to firearms sales data collected by the BATFE.

The state of Texas came up with a system for administering CHLs that is independent of other systems. They did not consider the challenge of getting prints from other states or the military. The legislator did not consider it (as far as I know) or allocate the money to do so.

Our system is more restrictive than some states, and far more permissive than others. That's just the way it is.

P.S.: If the federal government had this kind of data-mining, they could identify illegal aliens working on false Social Security numbers. The can't at present.

- Jim

nitrogen wrote:Is there any reason we aren't on a computer system for this?

Cost, most likely. The technology is available and I've heard of people using it for CHL fingerprints.

badkarma56 wrote:... I've personally been fingerprinted at least five times in my life ... including this most recent set for the CHL application. Surely, there's got to already be a "classifiable" set of my prints previously stored in some government database with either the Feds or Texas or both!!

Personally, I don't want that kind of cross-referencing to take place. It has potential for abuse.

- Jim