Whether it was intended or not, that's certainly the effect. I read some about the DC case, and I read that when some of these similar laws were passed there, racism was an intent. The costs were intended to keep poor black people from owning handguns. I agree. I'm fairly well off, but cost is still an issue. There are plenty of other costs associated with training and equipping yourself to carry a gun. I didn't need another $250+ in mandatory training and registration fees. I know a lot of people can't afford that. It wasn't a pleasant experience for me either! I sure could have used that money elsewhere. I could have bought a couple of real nice holsters for that!mr.72 wrote:The restrictions and costs of obtaining a CHL in TX are very clearly intended as a deterrent or impediment to normal citizens to get a CHL. Of course the whole idea of requiring a license to begin with is 100% counter to the idea of the "right" to bear arms.
This has got to change. Not only is it an unreasonable and I believe unconstitutional cause for denying a CHL, it's also really slowing down the application process and running up the cost for the whole program.Often times things like student loans, property taxes, and child support are issues either subject to dispute or available for resolution other than "full and final payment". So clearly the intent of the law is to use the CHL as leverage to force people to pay these debts and give up their other options or rights to dispute or resolution beyond full payment.
Be careful about throwing around that unconstitutional buzz word. Them's fighting words for all our gun supporters who take pride in the righteous exclusiveness of their CHL badge and their do-gooder certainty that these laws are keeping all the "wrong people" from carrying a gun.Quite simply I think the costs alone (both in time and fees), plus the cost of immediately resolving pending debts excludes a great number of people from obtaining a CHL and this is just as unconstitutional as a poll tax.
