Man, the thread has gone for 3 more pages. That's what I get for waiting 4 days before logging in again. Oh, well.
"North. In TX, a CCW costs $140 plus training costs, needs a very long training course, fingerprinting, I think a drug test, and can take several months to process. But in PA....."
I would not dispute your expertise on this matter but The texas 1872 anti-handgun law was passed by the reconstruction government at a time when African -americans were temporarily enjoying quite a few rights later jim-crowed out of existance. they were aimed at Texans. A number of souther states did have Concealed handgun licenses usually issued at the discretion of local law enforcement and probably set up just as you describe. They were not expensive but neither were they "shall issue until fairly recently.
Other states, like Texas, Oklahoma, Lousiana, New Mexico(open carry), et al had absolutely NO provisions for defensive handgun carry untill very recently.
I dunno. Unless you have some kind of evidence of the politicians' motives, like memoirs or letters or something, it's pretty hard to speculate why the anti-handgun law was passed. It may have been to stem cowboy violence, or it may have been because handguns, being easily concealed, gave black people potential defense against lynch mobs and whatnot. An angry mob could get by fine with long guns, pitchforks, scythes, and the like, but for a normal guy, toting around a shotgun all day is much more inconvenient than a pistol.
Now. In regard to The Texas Concealed Handgun Act. I am not claiming greater knowledge than yours in regard to the Texas law nor, in any way disputing your expertise on the matter,but it is a near certainty that were I called to testify in court on matters relevant to it, the court would qualify me as an expert witness. I have taught the Concealed Handgun Course since its inception in September of 1995. The baseline fee for a 4 year license is $140. For persons over 60 the fee is $70s, for persons who can demonstrate low income the fee is $70. Renewals are good for 5 years and the maximum fee is $70- $35 for senior citizens and persons who meet the formula for low income. The classes are a minimum of ten hours in length-actual class time and can be accomplished in one long day. The standard, uncomplicated standard for issuance or denial is 60 days with the issuing body able to extend the time for special circumstances. There is no requirement for drug testing. The applicant is presumed eligible for the license unless the state can prove that he is categorically ineligible because of clearly defined reasons. As of December 2006, there are 14,510 persons who identify themselves as African American with concealed handgun licenses in Texas. The percentages of African American license holders has increased since the law went into effect. The percentage of "White" license holders has just dropped from the low 90s to 89%. In Texas, " White" and "Hispanic" are not differentiated for the purpose of state licenses.
The goal is that any ordinarily reasonable and prudent person without civil or criminal disabilities will have the option of getting a concealed handgun license.
I do still think the requirements are unreasonable, compared to certain states in the northeast. Or maybe we're the unreasonable ones, letting anyone carry a gun around without showing proficiency. I have seen some scarily bad gun handling at the range, but that seems to be universal.
But anyway, would it be easier for a very poor person to come up with $70 and 10 hours, or $19 and 10 minutes? Both are doable, but one is definitely easier.
Also, I'd say the increase in African American license holders since the shall-issue law passing is a definite indicator that licenses were being denied on the basis of race, before the law went into effect. It would be interesting to see how common CCWs are at different income levels, in TX compared to PA or NH or something.
Incidentally, following the passage of the Florida and Texas laws, a number of southern states have reformed their long-standing CCW statutes to "shall issue."
Which is good, but I think shall-issue is probably more of a step sideways than a step in the right direction. What they really need to do is get rid of most of the restrictions. Especially that "no licensed carry on private property without the owner's permission" law in whichever Carolina (or was it Georgia?). That one really makes me mad.
But you know politicians. They never remove crappy laws, only add more.
Glad there can be levity here. 
