TexasCHLforum.com

Saw this last night on WFAA http://www.wfaa.com/news/local/No-Shoot ... 16119.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

WFAA wrote: No shooting required: Concealed weapon licenses with a twist

by DAVID SCHECHTER and DEAN TRAVINSKI

WFAA

Posted on June 23, 2010 at 11:18 PM

DENTON — Perhaps the most interesting thing about the concealed handgun class taught by Brad Brasuell of Denton is this: There is no shooting of an actual handgun.

Brasuell doesn't believe in it. And even though it's required by Texas law, he doesn't have to teach it.

"It's a false sense of security, is what it is," he said.

It's an open secret on gun ranges across Texas. You can get a license to carry a concealed weapon without ever having fired a gun.

How can that be?

I do know some Texas based Utah instructors, including one here on the forum, require you to go through the Texas class and shoot just like you would be going for a Texas license. Personally, I think that is the way to go as it is what I did.

Bottom line, the reciprocity with other states and the fact that you can carry on a non-resident license is getting a lot of attention, including at state levels in Austin. If this gets too hot, I wouldn't be surprised to see Texas and other states start moving to the not allowing carry on a non-resident license. Some states, like Colorado, Florida and a couple of others, have already gone to that model.

This is a tough topic. We want to be able to carry in other states with reciprocal agreements so it makes no sense to disallow but why should residents of other states get to carry in Texas with less training than our own residents? I certainly do not want to see a national permit - it is a state rights issue. I certainly don't know the answer here.

What I see in the future (Swami Marquez Says:) Non res CHL will only be valid if the other state has the same level of training required by TX CHL course of instruction.. Reciprocity will be only for those states that have that level of training.

Unfortunately I see it as an all-or-nothing proposition.

-Carrying a weapon (loaded, unloaded, concealed, open-carry, on-campus, off-campus, to work, etc.) is a Constitutional right that should not be infringed.

- OR -

-If we are stuck with permits or licenses or whatever term is used, there should be a minimum National standard for reciprocity.

I think if anything we will see the move to not allow you to carry on a permit unless it is issued from the state you are a resident of. Example, if you are carrying on a Utah permit, then you must be a Utah resident. This will still allow reciprocity, but you have to obtain YOUR state's license. The hardship I can see is two-fold; those that use the Utah or other non-resident permit to get additional rights to carry in states that do not honor Texas CHL's, and those individuals whos state does not offer a concealed handgun license, or they're are hard to get, and have one from a state that offers non-resident permits to be able to carry when they travel to other states.

bronco78 wrote:What I see in the future (Swami Marquez Says:) Non res CHL will only be valid if the other state has the same level of training required by TX CHL course of instruction.. Reciprocity will be only for those states that have that level of training.

That won't work -- that would create a "training level race" (as in "arms race"), with each state claiming other states don't measure-up, changing requirements to measure-up, etc. It would be a mess. (More of a mess than it already is.)

One other thing, I think you will start seeing more states stop issuing non-resident licenses. While it is a big revenue generator, if enough fuss is put up and no states honor them, then the demand will go down anyway.

how about we end all chl,ltcf,ccp etc etc...... and become like vermont and alaska. we are "united states" right?

Even worse, someone with a NY license can carry in Texas but someone with a TX CHL can't carry in New York. We need to fix that.

can2boy wrote:how about we end all chl,ltcf,ccp etc etc...... and become like vermont and alaska. we are "united states" right?

I don't want to turn this thread into a 2A rights thread. I would like to stay on topic of reciprocity and non-resident licenses.

So, what are the typical motivations for a state offering non-resident licenses? I can think of a couple, but not sure if they are the best or only...

1. To allow people who are not residents, but who are temporarily living in the state (student, work assignment) to carry.
2. The state legislature is pro 2A and wants to support the rights individuals who live in states that aren't 2A friendly. (Not sure I actually see this as very likely, but it occurred to me as a possibility. )

Although we might argue that revenue generation is a motivation, I am not sure I see that as the presenting argument.

It IS definitely crazy that Utah ever passed the no shoot program. Bottom line is, like others have said, if we start mucking with the requirements it will become a requirements race which none of us want. Honestly, I think the current shooting requirements for TX CHL are inadequate. Any first time shooter with a decent instructor should be able to pass. Does that mean they are trained and ready to conquer a daily carry lifestyle? Not in my opinion.

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.

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