TexasCHLforum.com

JJVP wrote:

Jim Beaux wrote:

WildBill wrote:

Jim Beaux wrote:

george wrote:I certainly hope not.

"Shall not be infringed"

Not every person that is behind in payments is "a deadbeat dad".

Hold on WildBill, go wash your eyeballs. I never inferred anything like that. I think the dad's 2nd A SHOULD NOT BE INFRINGED. Regardless of his debt, he should still have the right to self defense. Every person who is behind on payments is NOT a deadbeat dad. I also wish that george could have been a little more restrained with our new board member, gaddang.

Welcome gaddang and explain the origin of your handle.

I agree that everyone who is behind on payments is not a deadbeat dad. However, if I was behind in payments my first priority would be to get back on track rather than spend money on a CHL class, CHL license and gun. Only after I had taken care of my kids would I even consider spending the money for a CHL.

If he goes into a bad part of town for his job and gets killed, then he won't be ABLE to pay back child support.

JJVP wrote: I agree that everyone who is behind on payments is not a deadbeat dad. However, if I was behind in payments my first priority would be to get back on track rather than spend money on a CHL class, CHL license and gun. Only after I had taken care of my kids would I even consider spending the money for a CHL.

My experience supports my opinion.. child support is often not used in supporting the child. Your opinion and experience may differ.

bronco78 wrote:My experience supports my opinion.. child support is often not used in supporting the child. Your opinion and experience may differ.

That is the truth.

When my now brother-in-law (from his second marriage) was 38, he had two children, ages 7 & 9 with his first wife. She, of the same age, took up with an 18 year-old grocery store bag boy.

He reliably paid the child support every month even though he knew for a fact that the money was used to put the bag boy through college while the bag boy lived in the house he had purchased and slept in his former marital bed.

It was a bitter drink, but 20 years later he has a clean conscience.

bronco78 wrote:

JJVP wrote: I agree that everyone who is behind on payments is not a deadbeat dad. However, if I was behind in payments my first priority would be to get back on track rather than spend money on a CHL class, CHL license and gun. Only after I had taken care of my kids would I even consider spending the money for a CHL.

My experience supports my opinion.. child support is often not used in supporting the child. Your opinion and experience may differ.

True, however it still does not relieves your of your obligation. Try using that excuse with a judge.

JJVP wrote:

bronco78 wrote:

JJVP wrote: I agree that everyone who is behind on payments is not a deadbeat dad. However, if I was behind in payments my first priority would be to get back on track rather than spend money on a CHL class, CHL license and gun. Only after I had taken care of my kids would I even consider spending the money for a CHL.

My experience supports my opinion.. child support is often not used in supporting the child. Your opinion and experience may differ.

True, however it still does not relieves your of your obligation. Try using that excuse with a judge.

I posted nothing in reference to the legal obligations one is subjected to by a court.

Nor is owning money to any debtor equal to, being obligated to spending not a dime for anything other then to settle the debt immediately.

Nor does what a biased Judge might decide in a court of law equal to common sense and fair adjudication for the male in a divorce.

And before someone jumps to a WRONG assumption.. No never been divorced, married just once, for the last 23 years.

But I have much second hand experience, more so then most others will ever have. From both the male and female side.

bronco78 wrote:

JJVP wrote: I agree that everyone who is behind on payments is not a deadbeat dad. However, if I was behind in payments my first priority would be to get back on track rather than spend money on a CHL class, CHL license and gun. Only after I had taken care of my kids would I even consider spending the money for a CHL.

My experience supports my opinion.. child support is often not used in supporting the child. Your opinion and experience may differ.

Why is it that there are plenty of "single mothers" who don't have enough money to buy food and clothing for their children, but they always seem to have plenty to buy beer, cigarettes and drugs for themselves and their loser boyfriends?

BOT - I understand from your post that:

gaddang1 wrote:...he owes support in Nevada.

But you also say:

gaddang1 wrote:Look he ain't perfect, but he's payed off half his arreas in one payment, and the other will spread out over two years to cover his current support and arrears. To my knowledge no judge has ruled him in deliquency of support.

Was this a court negotiated settlement, or does he owe support that the State is actively seeking? Could he have an active warrant out of NV?

One's history of delinquent child support payments should not be the sole decision maker for whether one can carry concealed. This is a hot topic. I have friends with perspectives on both sides of this subject. Not all dads past due on child support are deadbeats, not even most of them. I consider a father a deadbeat when he makes every payment on time but shows no interest in his children. There are equally as many deadbeat moms. Those are the mothers who teach their children it's ok to demand more money for support in court just to put the pinch on the father or who use that money for things other than it's intent. That being said no one should assume that they know the whole story. The parties involved typically only provide those details that will persuade their audience to give them sympathy. To answer the OPs question, his brother should contact his attorney or legal professional and confirm he is in good standing and that he meets the eligibility requirements.

OK folks, let's get back on topic of eligibility and get off the issue of whether someone is a deadbeat or not because they are behind on payments. Every situation is different and unless you are personally involved, you don't know the circumstances.

Keith B wrote:OK folks, let's get back on topic of eligibility and get off the issue of whether someone is a deadbeat or not because they are behind on payments. Every situation is different and unless you are personally involved, you don't know the circumstances.

Awe! Come on Keith!!! It was just starting to get good!

Keith B wrote:OK folks, let's get back on topic of eligibility and get off the issue of whether someone is a deadbeat or not because they are behind on payments. Every situation is different and unless you are personally involved, you don't know the circumstances.

I don't think that being behind is support payments should have any bearing on CHL eligibility. A person should have the right to defend themselves regardless of their support payments.

WildBill wrote:

Keith B wrote:OK folks, let's get back on topic of eligibility and get off the issue of whether someone is a deadbeat or not because they are behind on payments. Every situation is different and unless you are personally involved, you don't know the circumstances.

I don't think that being behind is support payments should have any bearing on CHL eligibility. A person should have the right to defend themselves regardless of their support payments.

but will take that one step further. I believe it is criminal that we have to get a "license" to exercise a right already granted us by the constitution!

03Lightningrocks wrote:

WildBill wrote:

Keith B wrote:OK folks, let's get back on topic of eligibility and get off the issue of whether someone is a deadbeat or not because they are behind on payments. Every situation is different and unless you are personally involved, you don't know the circumstances.

I don't think that being behind is support payments should have any bearing on CHL eligibility. A person should have the right to defend themselves regardless of their support payments.

but will take that one step further. I believe it is criminal that we have to get a "license" to exercise a right already granted us by the constitution!

My objection is: "what does one have to do with the other?" If you look at the eligibility requirements, this just seems out of place. My feeling is that someone stuck that into the bill and as a compromise so that it could pass.

For the record, I have never been behind in any support payments, owed back taxes, fines or fees and I paid off my student loan within six months after graduating.

exactly!!!