SB 16 - priority bill, reduction of LTC fees

[BeanCounter]

I guess I'm wondering where will the funds come from?

The Texas Comptroller’s office collects about $50 billion annually acording to their website.
https://www.comptroller.texas.gov/transparency/revenue/

The "loss" of LTC fees is the proverbial drip in a very large bucket. I doubt anyone except bean counter types would ever notice.

[ELB]

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?

DPS would be funded the same way they are funded now: the Legislature produces a budget each session (or Special Session) and allocates a certain amount of funds.

They should allocate more funds in the future to anticipate increased applications, and I am sure that will be one of the road blocks the Dems will try to throw up to keep this from passing.

The money comes from the same place it comes from now, the taxpayers. Right now there is a special tax called a "fee" levied on those who apply for a LTC, namely $140 (with various discounts available for veterans and so forth). In the future, the tax money required to fund the LTC program will be spread among all tax payers.

As Mr. Cotton noted, if all the taxpayers choose to regulate a explicit constitutional right (via their legislative representatives), then all the tax payers should pay for this. There is not a tax required to speak or vote or be free from unreasonable intrusions by the police, etc.

That is not to say there are not costs -- you may have to buy a printing press or pay for a website or pay for a business license (tax!) to set up a money-making operation selling news, just as you may have to buy a gun and holster (and pay sales tax!) to exercise your 2A right, but you are not forced to pay for a license simply to speak your mind so neither should you be charged a tax/fee simply to exercise your self-defense rights.

[mr1337]

I guess I'm wondering where will the funds come from?

The Texas Comptroller’s office collects about $50 billion annually acording to their website.
https://www.comptroller.texas.gov/transparency/revenue/

The "loss" of LTC fees is the proverbial drip in a very large bucket. I doubt anyone except bean counter types would ever notice.

You're right. During calendar year 2015, there were 217,588 CHL's issued. There were another 1,081 denied. That's 218,669 total applications. Assuming everyone paid the full $140 (which I know isn't true because of military, peace officer, senior citizen, indigent, etc. discounts), the state would have received UP TO $30,613,660 or in other words, approximately 0.06% of the revenue of the state. Not 6 percent. Not 6 tenths of a percent, but 6 hundredths of a percent based on the $50 billion figure.

[Flightmare]

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?

The fees today do not go to DPS. So I would assume the funding would come from the same source it comes from today.

[Skiprr]

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?

Just my opinion, but--while I imagine there would be an increase in new applications, at least for a while--I honestly don't believe it would be a factor of magnitude increase.

It's hard for me to fathom that the state's standard $140 fee is such a deterrent that it's been a dam holding back hundreds of thousands of new applicants for over 20 years. After all, there are already a number of contingencies in place that reduce the fee substantially for those who meet certain criteria. Any honorably discharged veteran pays only $25 (and active military pay nothing), and people over 60 or those who fall below the federal poverty guidelines pay half, or $70.

I think elimination of the fee would be a great thing, but I just can't imagine the current fee has been the primary factor preventing a ton of people from getting their licenses.

[mr1337]

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?

Just my opinion, but--while I imagine there would be an increase in new applications, at least for a while--I honestly don't believe it would be a factor of magnitude increase.

It's hard for me to fathom that the state's standard $140 fee is such a deterrent that it's been a dam holding back hundreds of thousands of new applicants for over 20 years. After all, there are already a number of contingencies in place that reduce the fee substantially for those who meet certain criteria. Any honorably discharged veteran pays only $25 (and active military pay nothing), and people over 60 or those who fall below the federal poverty guidelines pay half, or $70.

I think elimination of the fee would be a great thing, but I just can't imagine the current fee has been the primary factor preventing a ton of people from getting their licenses.

I disagree. I think the $140 state fee is enough to weed out all but the most dedicated of people. It's not something you "just get into" because it costs so much money. By eliminating the fee, I would imagine we would see more transitions from casual gun owner to LTC carrier because the barrier to entry would be greatly reduced to only the cost of the class. Something like that is very easy to gift to someone who is showing some interest but not enough to write a $140 check to the state on top of a $75-150 class.

Some people will get the LTC "just to have it" or "just in case." And like I said, I think there will be a lot of casual shooters/gun owners and even non-gun owners crossing over.

[edit] I know plenty of people who want to get their LTC but never seem to commit to it. I'm thinking if this goes through, many of them will commit.

[CleverNickname]

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?

How many people do you think are out there who haven't gotten an LTC just because of the cost? There's probably some, but I don't think it would be a massive number. FWIW there's already a rate reduction for the indigent.

[Liberty]

How many people do you think are out there who haven't gotten an LTC just because of the cost? There's probably some, but I don't think it would be a massive number. FWIW there's already a rate reduction for the indigent.

It was reason enough for me to put it off for a few years. It was the combined $100 bucks for the class. and the $140 for the license. The cost was almost as much as my first carry gun.
$70 dollars for my first renewal and a 4-hour class was a little easier. But my last renewal for $25 was a piece of cake

[Charles L. Cotton]

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.

[dlh]

Do not know the exact figures but I have heard the Texas Dept. of Public Safety makes a huge amount of money off the "Surcharge" Program where various scofflaws have to pay to get their driver's licenses back. Not sure if that money goes into the general fund or not.

We need to keep the Texas Department of Public Safety strong so if they need the money I think the legislature should increase their funding.

[Skiprr]

Um...okay. I have been known to kill Topics just because I get on a spree where even TAM wonders if I can really type 130 words per minute, or if I just have way too much time on my hands. Ahem. I've been typing for 40 years.

Please don't let me kill this Topic. Just use that handy scroll bar to your right if of no interest.

I disagree. I think the $140 state fee is enough to weed out all but the most dedicated of people. It's not something you "just get into" because it costs so much money.

We could have a friendly, non-monetary wager if the law passes. Parameters to be named later.

My contention would be that the fingerprinting and detailed background check is the primary reason people potentially interested in a license choose not to pursue it.

Various sources commingle dates and data, and some of the data can't readily be distilled for the purpose of talking about CHL/LTC. But here's a very rough and dirty breakdown of why I'll contend that $140 (or $70)--while a barrier that should be removed and that would be a big win for Texas 2A to do so--probably takes a backseat to background check and actual or perceived possibility of ineligibility, and the requirement to put your name and detailed history in "the system."

Total population of Texas: 27,469,114 (this is the U.S. Census Bureau estimate as of July 1, 2015, http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045215/48; gotta draw a line in the sand somewhere, and this seems about as good as any)

Population of illegal immigrants in Texas: About 1.9 million (source is a 2012 figure from Pew Research, http://www.pewhispanic.org/2013/09/23/3-state-patterns/, with roughly 200,000 added to adjust for the 2012 to 2015 count; probably conservative; and yes, there are definitely more illegal aliens in Texas than there are CHL/LTC holders; pause and consider)

So let's start with a total potentially eligible Texas population of 25,569,114, not including age or other factors.

Population of Texans under 21 years of age: About 8.05 million (same source, but census estimates are for under 18 years, none for under 21; Census.gov estimated the former at 26.3%, so I added a conservative 3% to equal 29.3% to account for 18-, 19-, and 20-year-olds)

=17,519,114

Population of Texans who are either current or ex-felons: About 1.5 million (source is a Princeton research study through 2010, http://paa2011.princeton.edu/papers/111687; I'm extrapolating the count using 8.6% as the national estimate applied to the subtotal of 17.5 million Texas population; some may be illegal immigrants, and Texas has a stiffer incarceration rate than some other states, so I consider this a conservative figure)

=16,019,114

Population of Texans who already have an LTC: About 1.1 million (I believe once we see the calendar year 2016 report from DPS, that number will actually be higher; so again a conservative number)

=14,919,114

Now some numbers that aren't exclusions, but factor in.

Population of Texans over 80 years old: About 770,000 (source is a Texas Police Academy Profile document on aging, https://aoa.acl.gov/AoA_Programs/HPW/Be ... /Texas.pdf, which puts that demographic at 3% of the total population; not that they can't apply for an LTC, but at 81 and over, are unlikely to)

=14,149,114

The math gets fuzzier, but I think still relevant.

Population of adult working-age Texans who have a criminal record, even if not convicted of a serious crime: About 5.84 million (source, Brennan Center for Justice, New York University School of Law https://www.brennancenter.org/blog/just ... e-diplomas, and a 2012 U.S. Department of Justice Survey https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/grants/244563.pdf, extrapolated for the Texas population count of adults; these folks are not necessarily ineligible for an LTC, but may be far less likey to apply due to skeletons in the closet)

=8,309,114

Population of adult working-age Texans who are legally disabled: About 1.15 million (source, U.S. Census Bureau estimate as of July 1, 2015 with its 8.1% figure applied only to the subtotal of 14.15 million)

=7,159,114

Population of Texans who do not have a firearm in the home: About 62%, or 4,438,650 (source, Pew Research 2014 study, http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 ... ouseholds/; let's make the assumption that we'll use the net 7.16 million population count to be conservative, and apply the 62% figure only to that)

=2,720,464

Population of adult working-age Texans at the federal poverty level: About 1,321,149 (U.S. Census Bureau estimate as of July 1, 2015 with its 15.9% figure applied only to the subtotal of 8.3 million)


Of course the data are not accurate: you can drive a truck through some of the gaps.

But if you step back and look at it as a whole, I think we make far too many assumptions based on the total population of Texas and how current licensees make up only 0.3% of it. That's a specious, invalid starting point. We have to first factor in all of the population who are legally ineligible and then, if you're a diligent business person building a marketing plan, also factor in those who are your most likely universe of prospective buyers.

Even if you're extremely generous about people who fear a background check or who don't want (at least right now) to even consider buying a gun, you have to figure that in the 21 years the CHL/LTC program has been in place, we have already tapped around 20% of the existing market. By the numbers, only 15.9% of the remaining available market would be prohibitively constrained by the fee.

So, no: if and when SB16 passes, I do not foresee a tidal wave of new applicants. Just as Obama has been our greatest gun salesman, I think he and Hillary have been our greatest LTC marketeers.

I just don't think the state application fee of $140 or $70 represents a significant economic barrier to a new flood of eligible applicants.


A geekish aside. Pardon me again.

The only expansion to the current LTC universe of prospective buyers comes from people turning 21, people moving to Texas who are legally eligible to apply, and people who rethink their position on guns and decide to buy one.

As a retired business guy, if I were an LTC instructor I would focus on those three market segments, analyze and subdivide them, and put all my marketing effort on those targets, not just generic "we're a good source for LTC training" or "look at our military/police qualifications" messages. That ain't gonna fly in 2017 and beyond.

Many LTC instructors do it only in support of the 2A and the community. But if you do it as an income source, IMHO you gotta start working to create the need, not just satisfy an existing perceived need. It's a common problem in business lifecycle management when entrepreneurs strike when the iron is hot and evident, but have no strategy for the long term. See the umpteen PC "assembler" companies in the late 80s and early 90s that quickly vanished from existence.

In other words, much of the low-hanging fruit has fallen from the tree. A passing of SB16 will give you another marketing message to leverage. Use it wisely.

The guy who already owns a handgun but who just hasn't gotten around to getting his LTC only because of $140...trust me, he ain't in your sustainable business model.

[Liberty]

The obstacles can tend to pile up. The $140 bucks combined with an uncertainty of one's record might make it a gamble for some folks. It's not like the $140 itself is a huge barrier, but it one of a numerous excuses not too.

My wife's drivers license claims she is 2 years older than what she actually is. She is afraid that the 50 year old lie will catch up with her, and the $140 dollar fee is more than she would risk than at a casino.

[mr1337]

The guy who already owns a handgun but who just hasn't gotten around to getting his LTC only because of $140...trust me, he ain't in your sustainable business model.

You'd be surprised on how much people can put off something based on the price. $140 is a pretty big chunk of change for most people. Eliminating the fee will eliminate one big reason that people don't end up getting it.

Of course, those serious about self defense would still get it regardless of price (within reason), but what I'm thinking about are people who are interested in getting started in their personal protection. It tears down a rather large barrier to entry that will make it easier to expand the types of people that apply for their LTC.

[vjallen75]

You'd be surprised on how much people can put off something based on the price. $140 is a pretty big chunk of change for most people. Eliminating the fee will eliminate one big reason that people don't end up getting it.

Of course, those serious about self defense would still get it regardless of price (within reason), but what I'm thinking about are people who are interested in getting started in their personal protection. It tears down a rather large barrier to entry that will make it easier to expand the types of people that apply for their LTC.

I think what he is trying to say is that removing the fees would not cause a steady impact on applications being submitted. I tend to agree with Skiprr on this one, overall. I do think there would be an initial serge of people who have not done an LTC course and submitted to a BG check and fingerprinting. There are a few people I know who haven't done so because of the fees. All in all, if there is a will there is a way. I made sure I found the funds to submit my application while my wife knew she wouldn't carry all the time so she decided against submitting an app. She will eventually but she's not ready to carry, but if the legislature is successful in the removal off fees she would surely at least get the LTC.

[rotor]

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.

I wish my city felt that way when I have to pay them for an annual burglar alarm permit.