TexasCHLforum.com

GC §411.194. REDUCTION OF FEES DUE TO INDIGENCY.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this subchapter, the department shall reduce by 50 percent any fee required for the issuance of an original, duplicate, modified, or renewed license under this subchapter if the department determines that the applicant is indigent.
GC §411.195. REDUCTION OF FEES FOR SENIOR CITIZENS.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this subchapter, the department shall reduce by 50 percent any fee required for the issuance of an orig- inal, duplicate, modified, or renewed license under this subchapter if the applicant for the license is 60 years of age or older.
GC §411.1951. WAIVER OR REDUCTION OF FEES FOR MEMBERS OR VETERANS OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of this subchapter, the department shall reduce by 50 percent any fee required for the issuance of an original, duplicate, modified, or renewed license under this subchapter if the applicant for the license is a veteran who, more than 365 days preceding the date of the application, was honorably discharged from the branch of the service in which the person served.
GC §411.1991. ACTIVE PEACE OFFICERS.
(c) An applicant under this section shall pay a fee of $25 for a license issued under this subchapter.
GC §411.201. ACTIVE AND RETIRED JUDICIAL OFFICERS.
(5)a nonrefundable application and license fee set by the department in an amount reasonably designed to cover the administrative costs associated with issuance of a license to carry a concealed handgun under this subchapter; and
(6) if the applicant is a retired judicial officer, a form executed by the applicant that authorizes the department to make an inquiry into any noncriminal history records that are necessary to determine the applicant's eligibility for a license under this subchapter.
(e) On receipt of all the application materials required by this section, the department shall:
(1) if the applicant is an active judicial officer, issue a license to carry a concealed handgun under the authority of this subchapter; or
(2) if the applicant is a retired judicial officer, conduct an appropriate background investigation to determine the applicant's eligibility for the license and, if the applicant is eligible, issue a license to carry a concealed handgun under the authority of this subchapter.
(f) Except as otherwise provided by this subsection, an applicant for a license under this section must satisfy the handgun proficiency requirements of Section 411.188. The classroom instruction part of the proficiency course for an active judicial officer is not subject to a minimum hour requirement. The instruction must include instruction only on:
(1) handgun use, proficiency, and safety; and
(2) proper storage practices for handguns with an emphasis on storage practices that eliminate the possibility of accidental injury to a child.
(g) A license issued under this section expires as provided by Section 411.183 and, except as otherwise provided by this subsection, may be renewed in accordance with Section 411.185 of this subchapter. An active judicial officer is not required to attend the classroom instruction part of the continuing education proficiency course to renew a license.
(h) The department shall issue a license to carry a concealed handgun under the authority of this subchapter to an elected attorney representing the state in the prosecution of felony cases who meets the requirements of this section for an active judicial officer. The department shall waive any fee required for the issuance of an original, duplicate, or renewed license under this subchapter for an applicant who is an attorney elected or employed to represent the state in the prosecution of felony cases.
GC §411.202. LICENSE A BENEFIT. The issuance of a license under this subchapter is a benefit to the license holder for purposes of those sections of the Penal Code to which the definition of “benefit” under Section 1.07, Penal Code, applies.

sjfcontrol wrote:

MeMelYup wrote:

cyphur wrote:

JP171 wrote:so how low would you like it? 40 for 5?

I think $75 for initial applications should do, then $45 for renewels.

Veterans should get it for cost of the card, personally. But $25/$25 sounds good for them(us).

And LEO's, and Teachers, and Judges, and Prosicuting Attorneys, and Balif's

And SENIORS!

And anyone who pays property tax in Texas.

Jumping Frog wrote:

JP171 wrote:If a reduced fee CHL is given to a teacher is has to be considered a benefit same as it is for those of us in the military and does get put on the 1099 form I get from the comptroller every year.

I do agree that the cost is excessive and could be lowered since all DPS does is administrative work with it and does not give the local police/sheriff any of the money for actually researching the background. so 140 divided by 5 is 28 per year, so how low would you like it? 40 for 5? no I am not being disagreeable just looking for a reasonable number as an idea. I pay about 120 a year in license fees just to work so another 28 isn't so bad per year

I paid $20 for my non-resident PA license. My Utah non-resident renewal will be $15. My original Utah and Ohio licenses were about $50.

DPS has continually had a policy of intentional inefficiency both for the purpose of empire building and to justify artificially high fees.

Richard_B wrote:

Jumping Frog wrote:

JP171 wrote:If a reduced fee CHL is given to a teacher is has to be considered a benefit same as it is for those of us in the military and does get put on the 1099 form I get from the comptroller every year.

I do agree that the cost is excessive and could be lowered since all DPS does is administrative work with it and does not give the local police/sheriff any of the money for actually researching the background. so 140 divided by 5 is 28 per year, so how low would you like it? 40 for 5? no I am not being disagreeable just looking for a reasonable number as an idea. I pay about 120 a year in license fees just to work so another 28 isn't so bad per year

I paid $20 for my non-resident PA license. My Utah non-resident renewal will be $15. My original Utah and Ohio licenses were about $50.

DPS has continually had a policy of intentional inefficiency both for the purpose of empire building and to justify artificially high fees.

DPS doesn't get any money from CHL fees.

Chas.

Nobody denies the fees are artificially high. Freedom includes a free market. I now will encourage everyone who asks to get a license from another state until Texas has fees in line with Arizona, Utah, Ohio, etc.

RHenriksen wrote:

JP171 wrote:seniors I can see, most of them live on fixed income, however police officers judges lawyers and the baliff(LEO) should NOT most HPD officers make as much if not more than I do all attorneys make more and baliffs are LEO's too so yep they make more, so no they get no break on the cost. my only benefit to my CHL is that I don't pay for it, just for the class just like my Hunting/Fishing License the state gives it to me free. I do agree that its an expensive thing to get a CHL and should be less expensive but unlike a drivers license there isn't a way to subsidise the CHL thru traffic tickets

Heck, what benefit does a LEO even get from a CHL? They can carry more places than the rest of us

By pass NICS check.

Is it just me, or has there been a steady influx of new folks around here griping about the "high cost" of a Texas CHL?

KC5AV wrote:Is it just me, or has there been a steady influx of new folks around here griping about the "high cost" of a Texas CHL?

Makes you wonder how they can afford a gun or ammo.

Zoo wrote:Nobody denies the fees are artificially high. Freedom includes a free market. I now will encourage everyone who asks to get a license from another state until Texas has fees in line with Arizona, Utah, Ohio, etc.

Be sure to tell them they may be wasting their money if Lon Burnam's bill passes.

Chas.

jmra wrote:

KC5AV wrote:Is it just me, or has there been a steady influx of new folks around here griping about the "high cost" of a Texas CHL?

Makes you wonder how they can afford a gun or ammo.

Or the computer to post that drivel...

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Be sure to tell them they may be wasting their money if Lon Burnam's bill passes.

Chas.

He and his constituency are doing fine wasting our taxpayer money without any help.

pbwalker wrote:

jmra wrote:

KC5AV wrote:Is it just me, or has there been a steady influx of new folks around here griping about the "high cost" of a Texas CHL?

Makes you wonder how they can afford a gun or ammo.

Or the computer to post that drivel...

Or to listen to elitism from others who are supposed to be senior members of a forum. Why try to run folks off, is there too many people on this board? I thought that this is what a forum is for, to express ideas...

They need to lower them for EVERYBODY. I want to get my wife one, but damn, she can already carry in the car, and that is FREE.

DEB wrote:

pbwalker wrote:

jmra wrote:

KC5AV wrote:Is it just me, or has there been a steady influx of new folks around here griping about the "high cost" of a Texas CHL?

Makes you wonder how they can afford a gun or ammo.

Or the computer to post that drivel...

Or to listen to elitism from others who are supposed to be senior members of a forum. Why try to run folks off, is there too many people on this board? I thought that this is what a forum is for, to express ideas...

Elitism?? haha

If you feel that my comment makes people run off, fine. But like you said, this forum was for expressing ideas. I expressed mine. Is there a problem with that?

texanjoker wrote:They need to lower them for EVERYBODY. I want to get my wife one, but darn, she can already carry in the car, and that is FREE.

But she can't carry into restaurants, or the grocery store, or the dry cleaners, . . . . .but hey, $28 bucks a year. I know that's difficult to budget.


It's either important to you, or it's not.