CHL a "Privilege?"

[Charles L. Cotton]

I have read a number of posts that indicate people believe that the Texas Legislature has defined a Texas CHL is a "privilege" as opposed to a constitutional right. I presume they are basing this opinion on Tex. Gov't Code §411.202 that reads, 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.

This is not what §411.202 means. This section merely states that a CHL is a "benefit" for purposes of the Texas Penal Code as defined in Tex. Penal Code §1.07(a)(7) that reads, "Benefit" means anything reasonably regarded as economic gain or advantage, including benefit to any other person in whose welfare the beneficiary is interested. By doing so, any crime that involves receiving or conferring a benefit like selling a CHL-100, or wrongfully denying a CHL-100, etc. applies to a CHL.

So rest easy, the Legislature didn't relegate a CHL to a mere "privilege" as that term seems to be used in a number of threads.

Chas.

[ScottDLS]

I have read a number of posts that indicate people believe that the Texas Legislature has defined a Texas CHL is a "privilege" as opposed to a constitutional right. I presume they are basing this opinion on Tex. Gov't Code §411.202 that reads, 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.

This is not what §411.202 means. This section merely states that a CHL is a "benefit" for purposes of the Texas Penal Code as defined in Tex. Penal Code §1.07(a)(7) that reads, "Benefit" means anything reasonably regarded as economic gain or advantage, including benefit to any other person in whose welfare the beneficiary is interested. By doing so, any crime that involves receiving or conferring a benefit like selling a CHL-100, or wrongfully denying a CHL-100, etc. applies to a CHL.

So rest easy, the Legislature didn't relegate a CHL to a mere "privilege" as that term seems to be used in a number of threads.

Chas.

I always viewed the CHL laws as the Legislature exercising its power under the Texas Constitution to "regulate the wearing of arms". Much better deal than their previous (pre-1996) regulation, which was virtually a "prohibition".

My thought is if CHL was intended to be a privilege in the way that some are proposing it is... then Texas would be may issue and the privilege would be granted (or not) by the issuing official at his pleasure. I would hope that such a regime would be found unconstitutional under Section 23 and Section 3 of our Constitution.

[G.A. Heath]

I personally find the difference between a "privilege" and a "right" to be somewhat simple. If you have to get permission then its a privilege, if you can simply do it then its a right. Too many rights have been transformed into privileges over the course of the years. In places you must get a permit in order to exercise your right to assemble peacefully, that permit can be denied for little or no reason which relegates the freedom of assembly to the status of a privilege. A drivers license is a privilege, a marriage license is a privilege, and in my opinion a concealed handgun license is a privilege. At some point that privilege does get moved up to where it is almost treated as a right once again, such as when that license is granted on a shall-issue basis. The point is that someone who has no CHL but needs to carry a weapon on them in the here and now has to take a class, fill out some paper work, wait for the federal and state governments to process that paper work, deal with chance of fingerprints or photos being rejected, and finally wait on their "Right" to be delivered (or possibly lost) in the mail. As Reverend King once said, "A right delayed is a right denied."

[RPB]

Charles, Thanks for that explanation/clarification/distinction.