TexasCHLforum.com

Keith B wrote:You might check out this story http://www.wfaa.com/news/texas-news/Tex ... 02144.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Assuming a Utah license costs an additional $70, WFAA is claiming that there are 21,500 Utah licenses (exclusively - no Texas CHL) issued annually. Does anyone know if that number is even remotely possible? Or is the media simply lying through their teeth as usual?

We now have 12 pages of this baloney back and forth. The point that many seem to be missing is that all of our opinions about this are irrelevant. The behavior of some Utah instructors has raised the ire of a powerful political person in Texas. That may lead to restrictions that do not presently exist. If it does, it will be a shame that the actions of a few have punished all Texans who desire to carry.

CollinLeon wrote:Although I suspect that there might be some people in the world who are altruistic, I have yet to ever meet anyone who is truly that way. People work towards things that they at least believe to be in their self-interest. That doesn't mean that it always is in their self-interest, but at least they thought it was at the time. Sometimes they extrapolate this belief to include their belief in an afterlife that is affected by the actions that they do in this life. Sometimes it is just that they value what others think of them more than what might actually be good for them. I'm a grumpy old man and I say it like I see it. Unfortunately, my views sometimes get censored on this forum since it seems that I'm not politically correct enough for the moderators (aka "censors").

I see this kind of attitude on many internet forums - that moderators are censors. It stems from a misunderstanding of the first amendment. Free speech does not extend to privately owned forums. The owners have every right to not only "censor" your speech but to remove you from the forum entirely. It behooves you (and all of us) then, the "play by the rules" or go somewhere else. You have every right to express your views, no matter how odious, anywhere you like. But private forum owners, just like home owners, have every right to demand that you either shut up or leave.

I'm curious to know what you think Charles' self-interest is in this particular case. He is both a Texas CHL Instructor and a Utah CWP Instructor. His expressed desire is to avoid legislative action that would constrict our rights by asking those who promote the Utah CWP as a substitute to the Texas CHL to stop promoting that way. What does he stand to gain from that?

Cobra Medic wrote:The counter argument is equal protection. Texas should accept Utah licenses or not accept Utah licenses. If John is not not allowed to get a out of state license in lieu of a Texas CHL to carry in Texas, then Mike should not be allowed to get a out of state license in lieu of a Texas CHL to carry in Texas. Discrimination based on John's and Mike's religion or state of residence is bigoted and reprehensible.

I don't think the decision is binary.

Some have suggested the corollary of drivers licenses, which makes a great deal of sense to me (if we are forced to give up some of our present rights.) If you live in Maine, you can drive in Texas with a Maine license for as long as you like, so long as your residence remains in Maine. If you move to Texas, you have six months to obtain a Texas drivers license or you may be subject to fines if caught. If the legislature decides, due to the publicity surrounding the so-called Utah loophole, that they must do something, then I would suggest that this solution is the least abusive of our rights.

sjfcontrol wrote:And I find it interesting that people are considering preventing Texas Residents from carrying on an out-of-state license, that would be valid for the out-of-state residents to use in Texas. So here we would have an activity that is legal for Non-Texas residents to do in Texas, but illegal for Texas residents to do in Texas. That seems perverse to me. (You can do it here only if you're not from here?? -- Very odd!)

In the world of argument, this is what is known as a straw man. No one (AFAIK) has argued that Texas residents should be banned from carrying out of state licenses. The argument is that they should not be allowed to get a out of state license in lieu of a Texas CHL. And the only reason that is even being suggested is because of political realities.

I think the Annoyed Man put it best; out of state licenses should be an enhancement to a person's right to carry not a substitution for or end run around getting a Texas CHL.

Furthermore, you must always keep in mind that many of us are arguing not from our personal beliefs but from the cold stark political realities that we face. There are many many people in America that think you should not be allowed to own weapons at all. Some of them are very politically powerful and influential. Therefore it behooves us to work through the system patiently and continuously to sway public opinion to our side.

What we are discussing here is trying to limit the damage caused by one of our own so that we don't lose even more rights than we already have lost.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I didn't start this issue; TSRA/NRA didn't start this issue. It began as the advertising campaign of one person/range and it is growing like a cancer. I respect my fellow TexasCHLmembers and I respect your opinions on this and other issues. But I suggest that it is time to stop the bantering about the "Utah problem," fun though it may be, and focus our efforts on solving the problem without intervention by the legislature. If we don't, we'll have a fight on our hands in 2011.

Chas.

Any suggestions on how we might do that? What can the average CHL holder or applicant do to advance the cause of self-policing this issue so that the legislature doesn't feel the need to intervene?

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

baldeagle wrote:In 2009 Texas revoked 164 of 402,914 CHL licenses - http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administra ... evoked.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; - http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administra ... tr2009.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
In 2009 Utah revoked 409 of 214,403 CWP licenses - http://publicsafety.utah.gov/bci/documents/2010Q1.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

What that means to you I have no idea.

Now that's interesting. Here is the revocation rate per 100,000:

Texas: 40.79
Utah: 191.00

Chas.

Yes, but what does it mean? That Utah is more aggressive about revoking licenses? Or that Utah is more lax in issuing them and then has to revoke them later? Or that Texas isn't nearly aggressive enough about revoking licenses? Or that Texas does a much better job of training and vetting licensees and therefore has the lower revocation rate?

Beats me. You know what they say about statistics......

Maybe you could get that college student you hired to do the study of crimes committed by CHL licensees to study Utah revocations......

In 2009 Texas revoked 164 of 402,914 CHL licenses - http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administra ... evoked.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; - http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administra ... tr2009.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
In 2009 Utah revoked 409 of 214,403 CWP licenses - http://publicsafety.utah.gov/bci/documents/2010Q1.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

What that means to you I have no idea.

Hoi Polloi wrote:Among those who have their licenses revoked, is there a statistically higher percentage of people who have a non-resident CHL-equivalent license represented? Among those revocations of non-resident CHLs, is Utah statistically overrepresented in comparison to the percentage of overall licenses in use?

I think those numbers would observably show if Utah's non-resident license holders maintain the minimum standards for Texas concealed carry in comparison to those with a TX resident CHL.

Unfortunately, it does not appear that Utah tracks non-resident license holders - http://publicsafety.utah.gov/bci/documents/2010Q1.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

sss wrote:I chose to go with a non-resident Florida CWL instead of the Texas CHL because of the cost ($75 state fee) and because the license is valid for 7 years. As far as I'm concerned, this makes the Florida license much more desirable than the Texas license. I would be very disappointed if the legislature chose to stop honoring non-resident licenses because of an overhyped "loophole" created by the media.

And yet legislatures pass laws every day because of overhyped issues created by the media. Go figure.

You see, we've trained our politicians, by re-electing them repeatedly even after they abuse our rights, that it's OK for them to use overhyped or patently false information to create new laws that consolidate more power in their hands. We cede our liberties almost daily by inaction.

True patriots will dedicate their lives to working hard every day to convince all that they know that every time a legislature passes a law, we lose liberty. We ought, then, to be most jealous of our liberties and loath to cede them to our governments. If more Americans understood that, we'd still be able to choose the toilet we like, buy light bulbs we wanted, smoke in our favorite restaurant and carry a gun wherever we wanted to. For far too long we've looked to government to solve every problem for us, giving up our liberties inch by inexorable inch.

So now we argue about whether or not it's right for the state to allow residents to use non-resident permits to carry within our state, when the real argument should be, what on earth gave our state the idea that they could regulate our right to carry a weapon in the first place?

srothstein wrote:Maybe I missed it, but I think there is a better solution to this problem. We could let the marketplace make the decision for us. That way, if Texas wants its residents to use Texas CHLs instead of other states, it fixes the CHL system to make the Texas CHL more competitive on the market. In other words, lower the price, speed up the process (though they are doing very well right now), cut the number of ways a license gets suspended, allow anyone aho can legally own a gun (and therefore carry it in their car) to get a CHL, etc.

Look at the reasons given for people getting out of state CHLs. Are the reasons they give really good reasons for Texas to stop them from getting a Texas CHL?

Apparently the state of Texas thinks so. And frankly that's all that matters. This is, after all, about politics not the marketplace. If Texans think the CHL laws should be more similar to Utah's, then they need to elect legislators who agree with them or convince the existing legislators to alter the law.

I don't believe this issue is about reciprocity. It's about "abuse" of the system. When I use the term "abuse', I'm referring to the way that legislators look at it, not the way I see it. I believe it's our Constitutional right to carry in any way we see fit, and the states should not be able to interfere with that right. OTOH, I'm a realist. I realize that's not the world that we live in. So the question for me is, what's the way to solve this "problem" with the least intrusion on our rights? I think Charles is correct that Utah should not allow the issuance of a CWP outside their state. But we have no control over what Utah does (nor should we) and we do have our own legislature to worry about. So, to me, the least intrusion on our rights is for the legislature to require that Texas residents own a Texas CHL in order to carry in Texas. That doesn't affect reciprocity, doesn't affect those Texas residents who wish to carry a CWP for reciprocity reasons and doesn't affect out-of-state visitors who have permits from their state.

If the legislature does nothing, I'm fine with that. I think the chances of that become slimmer as the anti-gun crowd ramps up their "anger" (which is always manufactured, in my opinion) about the "abuse" of the system and demands draconian solutions. When you open Pandora's box, you might not like what comes out. It's possible, for example, that the Texas legislature might decide not only to revoke reciprocity with Utah but also to make it a felony offense for a Texas resident to carry without a Texas CHL. I doubt anyone who carries would think of that as a solution to the problem.

Your liberties are never more than one legislative vote away from being restricted, and there are thousands of people in America who think that's just fine, because it's your ox being gored, not theirs (they think!)

aggie06 wrote:Adding more layers of regulation (i.e. when you can or can't get a Utah license) is just asking for more problems. We would all like others to be more proficient with firearms, but forcing Texas residents to jump through more hoops is not the answer.

That wasn't what was suggested. Anyone can get a Utah license any time they want. The suggestion is that Texas require that Texas residents who want to carry have a Texas CHL. Whether they want a Utah CHL as well is their business.

As Charles has pointed out, this issue isn't going to go away simply because we wish it would. Unless we suggest reasonable solutions, the legislature may decide to get really radical and not recognize Utah licenses at all. That certainly would be worse than what's been suggested, don't you think?

aggie06 wrote:Texas deadly force statutes should be known by everyone, not just people with Texas CHLs, but that won't happen either. I certainly don't want my mother (or any other non-CHL) to be forced to take a class on those statutes before she can keep a loaded 1911 in the nightstand or a shotgun in the closet. I'm afraid that expecting Texas laws be taught in order to grant reciprocity would be a slippery slope toward just that, requiring it of anyone keeping a gun for self-defense. I realize that may be seen by some as a "sky is falling" way to look at things, but I think you get my point.

I'm not following you. Your mother doesn't have to have a CHL or know deadly force law to keep a loaded weapon in her home. Reciprocity has to do with CHL holders, not people who only keep guns in their homes.

However, which would you prefer? That Texas residents be required to have a Texas CHL to carry in Texas? Or that Texas withdraw reciprocity with Utah (which effectively accomplishes the same thing but is a much worse solution.) Nevada has already done so. Let's not let Texas follow suit.

aggie06 wrote:In addition, all of us make sure we figure out where we're allowed to carry in states we vi[sit before we attempt it. I would expect that Texas residents getting Utah licenses would do the same thing. I would venture to say that, generally, the primary motivation for Texas residents getting Utah or other states' licenses is not the inability to hit a giant piece of paper from close range or pass a multiple choice test; it is more likely the motivation is either the high cost of the Texas license or the simple fact that a Utah license is recognized in more states.

That may well be, but it's inarguable that some people want a Utah CHL because they can't get a Texas CHL. And I can guarantee you that the politicians will take notice of that fact and introduce legislation to "correct" that problem. The question before us, then, is what's the solution that does the least damage to our rights.

SWAMPRNR wrote:If a person can pass a federal background check and already has permits from other states why should Texas be able to decline to issue.That would be like saying we do not like your driving record so in Texas you will have to walk because we will not issue a license.

Which would be perfectly within the rights of the state to do.

There is a reason we have states rather than a single country. The citizens of each state get to vote to decide who will represent them, and if they don't like the laws being written or passed, they can vote those people out of office. The legislature then decides what laws its citizens need and/or want, writes them and passes them into law. That's why the state of Massachusetts can allow homosexual marriage but the state of Texas can refuse to do so. That's why the state of Illinois can say they could care less about the Constitution and make it extremely difficult to own a gun, but the state of Texas can say they trust their citizens, after the "right" amount of training, to do the right thing while carrying a weapon for personal protection.

If you want homogeneity across the nation then you will have least common denominator laws. Believe me, you don't want that. Right now the esteemed Mayor of New York is trying to get laws passed in New York that will make it harder for you in Texas to get or carry a weapon. He thinks the way he thinks (and the way his citizens think) is "the right way" and Texans are wrong. He really doesn't care that Texans disagree with him. Power grabbers never do care what you want. They simply want to steal your liberty and consolidate their power.

The right way to solve problems like this is not to get federal laws passed, because that opens up the entire process to lobbying and pressure groups that are far removed from the concerns of the citizens of your state. It's to find a solution that honors the rights of each state while infringing on the citizens' rights as little as possible.

In a perfect world we wouldn't have to get permission from anyone to carry a weapon. We don't live in a perfect world.

I think the right answer is for Texas to require that residents must pass the CHL to carry in Texas. Non-residents must possess a CHL from their home state. And those who want to carry multiple CHLs for reasons of greater coverage may do so without penalty. But inside the state of Texas it would be illegal for a resident to carry without a Texas CHL.

That satisfies the state's desire to ensure that proper training and certification has taken place without trampling on the rights of those who can qualify for a Texas CHL.