Utah CHL Instructor Story on WFAA

[cbunt1]

My thoughts on this are, at best, incomplete. But I'll put them out here for consumption and/or criticism anyway--perhaps I can finish thinking through this issue with the help of others...

I see the Resident/Non-resident reciprocity much as I see a driver's license.

Contrary to popular belief, a (non-commercial) driver's license issued in one state is NOT a blanket "All over the U.S." license. It is a state-issued license that is honored by a reciprocity agreement.

The differences in driver's (or operators) license standards between the various states was the very reason the Commercial Drivers License program was created in the early 90's. In short, a Commercial Drivers License (CDL) is also a state-issued license, governed by the individual state, HOWEVER, the standards for a CDL are different than for a common Operator's License (non-commercial license -- e.g. a trucker vs. a passenger car operator).

CDL standards are governed by the Federal Motor Carrier Saftey Regulations, Part 49 (FMCSR), and in order for my Texas CDL to be honored by the other states, Texas' standards for issuance must meet AT LEAST the FMCSR standards.

Among those standards are the requirement that I only carry one drivers' license, issued by my home state, meet the criteria for driving the class of vehicles I am licensed for (up to and including very specific requirements for the road test...a certain number of left turns, right turns, stops, starts, shifting of gears, etc. Beleive it or not, when I got my Class-A CDL I was required to parallel park an 18-wheeler!).

For a standard Operator's license, the requirements are still different between various states. Although most states have adopted generally the same road-testing and written testing regulations, they are different between the states.

Now...that being said, while operating a commercial vehicle, under CDL standards, I was subject to the same laws and standards as any other driver in the state in which I was operating...with some additional caveats, and stricter regulations. For example, I was subject to hours of service rules, a log-book, and such that a non-commercial operator (including RV operators--essentially the same vehicles in many cases) are not subject to.

I can remember having a problem renting a car in some state (really don't remember where) in about '96 on a Texas driver's license--due to the lack of license reciprocity. When I presented my COMMERCIAL Driver's License, however, the problem went away.

So. With that clearly in my head, but probably not clearly stated, here's where I go with it.

Utah has a no-shoot option. Florida will accept my "proof of competency with a firearm" in the form of a Texas Hunter's Saftey card (which I earned when I was about 15). And so on. We're in about the same position with Concealed Handgun Licenses (Pistol permits, weapons permits, etc.) that we were with "Commercial Drivers Licenses" or "Chauffeur's Licenses" or "Class-A,B,C" licenses as we were 20-30 years ago.

No matter how much we think we want a "Federally issued/governed" CDL program, I don't think we do. As a matter of states rights and state-control, we want reciprocity instead. Although the net result is the same, the "longarm" factor is much different. Do you REALLY want the I.R.S. (or worse, the BATFE) to issue your CHL? (That's likely where the program would land...certainly somewhere within the Treasury Department...)

What we need is for states who wish to have reciprocity (Texas, Vermont, Alaska, Missouri, Oklahoma, and several others that honor "all permits" come to mind) to come together on a Reciprocity standard, and then individually tailor their licensing requirements to meet this standard.

Under such a model, states that wish to issue "easier" licenses could continue to do so, but with the caveat that it is not a reciprocal license. This is much like the Texas CDL program which issues an "Interstate Commerce (non-restricted) or "Intra-State Commerce Only" license for those who meet the general TEXAS CDL requirements, but not necessarily the Federal "Reciprocity Eligible" requirements (This is used so Texas can issue a CDL in any class to 18-20 year olds, while the Full Interstate CDL requirement is 21 years of age).

I'm not usually a fan of the DMV/DOT, but I have to admit, the CDL program (after some adjustments and growing pains) is one thing they got right.

Sorry for the long post. Lots of (still not complete) thoughts here. What do you think? Am I on to something, or just way off base? :)

[jeeperbryan]

So what about the ones that that have all legal rights to own arms but Texas refuses to give permits? Non resident permits are the only legal way to carry in Texas because of these legal problems with the state some people have.If one state will give you a permit why wouldn't your home state since they all do a back ground check? They need to come out with a permit good in all states to end all these problems

Because there's obviously a reason that Texas refused to give the permit.

[bayouhazard]

I think a Utah license is good enough to carry in Texas or it's not. It makes no difference where you call home.

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.

Can someone explain this logic to me.

Suppose Joseph Smith is a Utah resident with a Utah license. He comes to Houston for a 6 month contract job for an energy company. Most of us are ok with Joe carrying in Texas.

Six months pass. The company likes him and makes a permanent offer. If he accepts and relocates to Texas, some of you now want to infringe his right to keep and bear arms unless he gets a Texas CHL.

I don't understand. What changed that makes him less qualified now than when he carried all those months under reciprocity?

[jeeperbryan]

I think a Utah license is good enough to carry in Texas or it's not. It makes no difference where you call home.

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.

Can someone explain this logic to me.

Suppose Joseph Smith is a Utah resident with a Utah license. He comes to Houston for a 6 month contract job for an energy company. Most of us are ok with Joe carrying in Texas.

Six months pass. The company likes him and makes a permanent offer. If he accepts and relocates to Texas, some of you now want to infringe his right to keep and bear arms unless he gets a Texas CHL.

I don't understand. What changed that makes him less qualified now than when he carried all those months under reciprocity?

Once he becomes a resident I would expect that he obtain a TX CHL. Of course there should be a reasonable grace period so that his right to carry is not infringed. Same process as drivers licenses. We'll recognize your out of state driver's license for a period of time after becoming a resident. But you do have to get a TX license eventually.

[cbunt1]

I don't understand. What changed that makes him less qualified now than when he carried all those months under reciprocity?

Nothing makes Mr. Smith "less qualified", per se. any more than he is now "less qualified" to operate a motor vehicle, however, at the point he changes his residency, he will have to obtain a Texas Driver's License, register his vehicles with Texas plates, and (should, as a matter of consistency) obtain a Texas CHL.

I'm of course, speaking in the proverbial (my ideal) world of CHL reciprocity being similar to Driver's license reciprocity.

(Edited for clarification)

[Charles L. Cotton]

I'd like to thank this instructor from the bottom of my heart for helping to promote the welfare of Texas gun owners. Thanks also for giving that insightful interview that most certainly will win friends and influence people in Austin.

The quick fix to this problem is for Utah not to allow their course to be taught outside of Utah.

Chas.

[bayouhazard]

Once he becomes a resident I would expect that he obtain a TX CHL. Of course there should be a reasonable grace period so that his right to carry is not infringed. Same process as drivers licenses. We'll recognize your out of state driver's license for a period of time after becoming a resident. But you do have to get a TX license eventually.

Same process as a DL would mean no class, no hassle.

Pay $20 - $30 and walk out with a temporary license that's immediately valid.

[cbunt1]

Once he becomes a resident I would expect that he obtain a TX CHL. Of course there should be a reasonable grace period so that his right to carry is not infringed. Same process as drivers licenses. We'll recognize your out of state driver's license for a period of time after becoming a resident. But you do have to get a TX license eventually.

Same process as a DL would mean no class, no hassle.

Pay $20 - $30 and walk out with a temporary license that's immediately valid.

I'm all for that, and 100% agree. However, not all out of state licenses are recognized as a "transfer" by Texas (or at least they weren't last time I looked into it). Commercial licenses, yes, Operator's licenses, not always.

But the principle remains the same, and is (in my mind) a valid one. (Edit) The adoption of a self-regulated set of standards by the various reciprocity states would enable this to work. (/edit)

[jeeperbryan]

Once he becomes a resident I would expect that he obtain a TX CHL. Of course there should be a reasonable grace period so that his right to carry is not infringed. Same process as drivers licenses. We'll recognize your out of state driver's license for a period of time after becoming a resident. But you do have to get a TX license eventually.

Same process as a DL would mean no class, no hassle.

Pay $20 - $30 and walk out with a temporary license that's immediately valid.

So what's your point? You had to stand in line at the DMV, pay your money, and wait on your license. You'll have to go to a CHL class, pay your money, and wait on your license. This doesn't infringe on anyone's rights.

[SWAMPRNR]

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.

[gringop]

Does the Utah class teach Texas laws on use of force?
Does the Utah class teach Texas laws on defense of a third party?
Does the Utah class teach Texas law on carry in a vehicle without a CHL? Threat of deadly force against an attacker? 30.06 and 51% signs? Prohibited weapons? Deadly force to protect a third person's property?

The State Legislature and DPS developed and implemented the whole CHL process 15 years ago to ensure that Texas CHL holders proved that they knew the laws and how to handle and shoot a pistol. They set up provisions for reciprocity with other states so out of state visitors could protect themselves when in Texas. They didn't set up reciprocity so cheapskate Texans who can't pass a multiple choice test and shoot 50 rounds at a B-27 could carry.

New Mexico just canceled their reciprocity with Utah because the Utah requirements are so weak, I would love to see Texas do the same thing.

Gringop

[Bart]

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.

If Texas cops want to carry off duty in Texas they should get a Texas CHL and follow the CHL carry rules.

If federal cops want to carry at all in Texas they should get a Texas CHL or go to jail.

If retired cops want to carry in Texas they should get a Texas CHL too.

Fair is fair. Ensure that proper training and certification has taken place for ALL without trampling on the rights of those of us who can qualify for a Texas CHL.

[baldeagle]

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.

[Hoosier Daddy]

Thanks for the extra motivation to keep my Indiana DL and avoid all the Texas CHL nonsense and xenophobia.

[aggie06]

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.

Does the Utah class teach Texas laws on use of force?
Does the Utah class teach Texas laws on defense of a third party?
Does the Utah class teach Texas law on carry in a vehicle without a CHL? Threat of deadly force against an attacker? 30.06 and 51% signs? Prohibited weapons? Deadly force to protect a third person's property?

The State Legislature and DPS developed and implemented the whole CHL process 15 years ago to ensure that Texas CHL holders proved that they knew the laws and how to handle and shoot a pistol. They set up provisions for reciprocity with other states so out of state visitors could protect themselves when in Texas. They didn't set up reciprocity so cheapskate Texans who can't pass a multiple choice test and shoot 50 rounds at a B-27 could carry.

New Mexico just canceled their reciprocity with Utah because the Utah requirements are so weak, I would love to see Texas do the same thing.

Gringop

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.

In addition, all of us make sure we figure out where we're allowed to carry in states we visit 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.