TexasCHLforum.com

Jason K wrote:

Beiruty wrote: No one is stalking what is next and we should push at least 1 or 2 big issues that do matter and make a difference.

How about reducing the fee from $140 to $70 or less? It would be a great way to increase the CHL holder numbers. It would also appeal to voters & politicians of the "lower taxes" platform.

What normally happens, especially at the federal level, when taxes are cut, fees are raised. Yes, lower cost would probably result in higher numbers of CHL. However, the state does not necessarilty consider CHL as a right so you must pay a fee for a service. The service is allowing you a license to exercise what we hold as a right.

Anygunanywhere

Jason K wrote:

Beiruty wrote: No one is stalking what is next and we should push at least 1 or 2 big issues that do matter and make a difference.

How about reducing the fee from $140 to $70 or less? It would be a great way to increase the CHL holder numbers. It would also appeal to voters & politicians of the "lower taxes" platform.

You can always sign up for the military or become a LEO to get it at a lower fee....sorry, I couldn't resist!

My response to the original question is multifaceted:
1. We have to admit that Texas is not as conservative as we want it to be, the nation perceives it to be, or many other states e.g. Oklahoma actually are.

2. There is a cognitive dissonance in a major subset of conservatives (largely, in my experience, in the suburbs) who support the principle of the 2A until it starts to be implemented where they can see it. In other words, they are in favor of "gun rights" philosophically but start backpedaling and grow concerned if anybody they know actually wants to buy or - even more shockingly - carry a gun.

3. The true 2A advocates are split. Some CC-only folks are happy with the status quo and fear a backlash of increased public awareness of citizens with guns. Some prefer CC tactically and therefore oppose OC as a matter of pragmatism. That is to say, the current freedom they enjoy satisfies them and they have no motivation to see somebody else exercise the same right differently.

At the end of the day, the politically motivated 2Aers are a minority. When they're split into factions, they have even less influence. As Chas said, we don't have OC because there's simply not enough people loudly calling for it.

txglock21 wrote:

Jason K wrote:

Beiruty wrote: No one is stalking what is next and we should push at least 1 or 2 big issues that do matter and make a difference.

How about reducing the fee from $140 to $70 or less? It would be a great way to increase the CHL holder numbers. It would also appeal to voters & politicians of the "lower taxes" platform.

You can always sign up for the military or become a LEO to get it at a lower fee....sorry, I couldn't resist!

I'm prior military so my CHL fee comes out to $5 a year. The wife pays full price.

jmra wrote:

txglock21 wrote:

Jason K wrote:

Beiruty wrote: No one is stalking what is next and we should push at least 1 or 2 big issues that do matter and make a difference.

How about reducing the fee from $140 to $70 or less? It would be a great way to increase the CHL holder numbers. It would also appeal to voters & politicians of the "lower taxes" platform.

You can always sign up for the military or become a LEO to get it at a lower fee....sorry, I couldn't resist!

I'm prior military so my CHL fee comes out to $5 a year. The wife pays full price.

Same here.

txglock21 wrote:

jmra wrote:

txglock21 wrote:

Jason K wrote:

Beiruty wrote: No one is stalking what is next and we should push at least 1 or 2 big issues that do matter and make a difference.

How about reducing the fee from $140 to $70 or less? It would be a great way to increase the CHL holder numbers. It would also appeal to voters & politicians of the "lower taxes" platform.

You can always sign up for the military or become a LEO to get it at a lower fee....sorry, I couldn't resist!

I'm prior military so my CHL fee comes out to $5 a year. The wife pays full price.

Same here.

anygunanywhere wrote:

Jason K wrote:

Beiruty wrote: No one is stalking what is next and we should push at least 1 or 2 big issues that do matter and make a difference.

How about reducing the fee from $140 to $70 or less? It would be a great way to increase the CHL holder numbers. It would also appeal to voters & politicians of the "lower taxes" platform.

What normally happens, especially at the federal level, when taxes are cut, fees are raised. Yes, lower cost would probably result in higher numbers of CHL. However, the state does not necessarilty consider CHL as a right so you must pay a fee for a service. The service is allowing you a license to exercise what we hold as a right.

Anygunanywhere

And this illustrates exactly why we need to get the CHL fee lowered. Maybe we can raise the poll taxes to make up the difference.

Any fees higher than $0.00 are unConstitutional!!!

locke_n_load wrote:Any fees higher than $0.00 are unConstitutional!!!

Not according to the people wearing the robes.

jmra wrote:

locke_n_load wrote:Any fees higher than $0.00 are unConstitutional!!!

Not according to the people wearing the robes.

I know I know... maybe one day...

anygunanywhere wrote:What normally happens, especially at the federal level, when taxes are cut, fees are raised. Yes, lower cost would probably result in higher numbers of CHL. However, the state does not necessarilty consider CHL as a right so you must pay a fee for a service. The service is allowing you a license to exercise what we hold as a right.

Whether it is at the state level or at the federal level, the government has an amount that they *think* that they need to operate. They will get that money one way or another. For states that do not have an income tax (like Texas), they get it from property taxes. People don't like to hear that the property tax rate is going up, so the state / county will just *say* that your property is now worth more than it was last year. That makes it so that instead of having a widespread group of people complaining about the increase in the tax rate, you have people either just accepting the government's claim that their property has increased in value or them protesting to the tax office and having to show proof that the value of their property has not increased. Some states have a lower property tax rate, but their housing prices are ridiculously inflated. Some states have a low property tax rate and low housing prices, but they have a state income tax. One way or another, they are going to get your money.

The government does not understand the concept of decreasing their spending. Personally, I think that it should all be tied to a sales tax. If the government improves the economy, people will spend more. If the government tanks the economy, then people will spend less. This gives the government incentive to improve the economy.

By voting for legislators, we are in fact *hiring* people to run the country. Is it unreasonable to expect these people to be fiscally responsible with our money?

The Annoyed Man wrote:Why doesn't Texas have open carry today? Two words: Joe Strauss.

It's the same reason we don't have campus carry.

Based on the likely outcome of the elections this year, we won't get either until 9/1/2017 at the earliest.

Greg Abbot, the Republican primary winner for the Governor's office on the General Election ballot, was on Facebook this morning doing a live question and answer session.

https://www.facebook.com/TexansForAbbot ... 2358975088" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

One of the questions asked was about his position on open carry in Texas. he responded that he supports open carry and will work towards that if he is elected Governor.

I would still carry concealed, but an open carry option would be good for those who choose to carry that way.

Sure hope he wins and becomes Governor of the Lone Star State !

jmra wrote:

locke_n_load wrote:Any fees higher than $0.00 are unConstitutional!!!

Not according to the people wearing the robes.

They're so committed to the precedence of praising the Emperor's New Laws that they can't admit what's obvious to every honest person who reads the Constitution.

The Dude wrote:

jmra wrote:

locke_n_load wrote:Any fees higher than $0.00 are unConstitutional!!!

Not according to the people wearing the robes.

They're so committed to the precedence of praising the Emperor's New Laws that they can't admit what's obvious to every honest person who reads the Constitution.