TexasCHLforum.com

bliss79 wrote:So with it being signed, does it go into effect now, or still Sept 1st?

1 Sep

Pariah3j wrote:

bblhd672 wrote:Since this is my first Texas legislative session experience I keep wondering when they are going to stop talking and actually vote in both chambers about all of these proposed bills? Do they waste vast amounts of time and then vote on everything in the last few days?

Yeah... Kinda - least it always seems that way to me. From what I remember in Texas Government class back in the day, the last week or 2 is a flurry of yays and nays on the floor as they speed vote things into law. Granted in most cases I believe they have spent the time in session debating, wheeling-n-dealing, etc on the bill so they already have an idea of how to vote when it comes up.

The talking is the real work. The voting is the result of the talking.

Most of the talking happens off the floor between legislators and groups of legislators in formal and informal non-public meetings, on the phone, whatever. Also committee meetings. On the last few days you will see whoever is holding the chair position sounding like an auctioneer as he announces bills for their third reading and has a quick vote on them -- these are bills that everyone knows they are not going to argue about (from all the previous talking), they're just going to get passed, so they put them on a special calendar and run through them all at once.

The ones like you see in the movies, where long debates over various amendments happen, are very few because there is simply not enough time in the whole legislative season to do that for each bill. These are bills with lots of support on both sides, for and agin, to the level that the Speaker of the House or the President of the Senate doesn't think he can get away with killing them in a committee (if he opposes) or run them through the consent calendar (if he likes them). The budget is always in this category, and last time Campus Carry and Open Carry were too.

Going from memory, there are something like 10,000 bills filed each session, of which maybe a few hundred advance beyond that point. Only a relative handful get full-fledged debate on the floor of the Senate and/or House.

infoman wrote: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.

safety1 wrote:I like the elimination of fees, it's a step in the right direction.

Concerns - Would this create longer wait times for renewals and first time apps?
I recall in the past when things got "busy" at DPS, they would bring in more workers for processing.
If it becomes a budgeted licensing program item, would this curtail the ability to bring workers in during heavy processing times?.

I might be wrong, but I believe that the DPS licensing program already operates off budget funds and licensing fees go straight to the general fund, not to the DPS.

RHenriksen wrote:

ELB wrote:I just read the text for SB 16, and it appears to me it removes the fee for LTC initial and renewal, and instructors, but not for the capitol access pass that was created to allow people to get a background check and use the LTC lane at the state capitol without getting a full-blown LTC.

When was the capitol access pass created? I missed that one. I imagine it included a background check, but not the classroom and range and written test of the LTC?

I'm too lazy to go check, but I'll bet it was the first legislative session after the legislatures set up the LTC Lane.

I just read the text for SB 16, and it appears to me it removes the fee for LTC initial and renewal, and instructors, but not for the capitol access pass that was created to allow people to get a background check and use the LTC lane at the state capitol without getting a full-blown LTC.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:...
I was using the term "boss" tongue-in-cheek. ....

Chas.

Me too! But I still hope he is ready to push the most important bill...

Well I hope the "boss" reserved a low bill number for wiping out the licensed carry no-go zones...