TexasCHLforum.com

Utah took care of it. No more non-resident permits for those who do not hold a resident permit from their own state. SB 36 has passed.

Effective May 10, 2011, New Non-Resident Utah CFP applicants will have to include a copy of their current resident permit to qualify for a Utah CFP.

Effective Jan 1, 2012, Non-Resident RENEWAL applicants will also have to submit a copy of their current resident permit.

What about residents of states that do not offer a CHL (or equivalent) at all, such as Vermont, Illinois, or Wisconsin?

Residents of these states sometimes get a non-resident permit so that they can carry while traveling. As you know, three or so rather easy-to-get permits cover about half the states, (aside from those like Texas that have a traveling exception).

- Jim

Sorry, I should have mentioned it only applies to states that have reciprocity with Utah. They also increased the fee for non-residents, by $5

Here is the full scoop, if you want to read it all: http://le.utah.gov/~2011/htmdoc/sbillhtm/sb0036s01.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

How will that effect those who have CFP, but not a Texas CHL now? Will they be able carry until their CFP expires?

Unless Texas does something else, my take is that your current Utah permit will be valid until it expires. And then, when you renew, if it is after Jan 1, 2012, you will not be able to renew without also having a permit from your resident state.

I can't say I didn't see it coming. Another instance of a few people spoiling things for the many.

WildBill wrote:I can't say I didn't see it coming. Another instance of a few people spoiling things for the many.

Exactly. Deliberate intemperance is not only a sin, it is incredibly stupid. Now those irresponsible CFP instructors who caused this ruckus through idiotic advertising hype have A) lost their income, and B) hosed everyone else. Feckless morons.

I've had my Utah CFP since 2008, I took the class while I was out in California as a "protest" to California gun laws, not as a cheaper alternative to getting a Texas CHL, but since I had a Utah I had put getting my CHL on the back burner, till last year when I finally decided I needed a proper CHL. Besides who wouldn't want one to bypass the NICS anyways, not that the NICS is a process, as it has never taken over 1-2 minutes for me at least, but it's nice not to even have to deal with that anymore.

Honestly I don't see a problem with Utah doing this, as I have lost 2 States Nevada/New Mexico(being in El Paso that was a big loss) since I have had my CFP that were probably due to all the "cheap CCW" advertisements pushed everywhere.

Rebel wrote:Honestly I don't see a problem with Utah doing this, as I have lost 2 States Nevada/New Mexico (being in El Paso that was a big loss) since I have had my CFP that were probably due to all the "cheap CCW" advertisements pushed everywhere.

Utah certainly had the right to pass this law. The problem I have is the reason that they felt they had to pass it. As TAM stated, it was the result of selfish "feckless morons" who were trying to take advantage of the laws to make a quick buck. In the end, these same CFP instructors deprived themselves of making money and "hosed everyone else".

WildBill wrote:

Rebel wrote:Honestly I don't see a problem with Utah doing this, as I have lost 2 States Nevada/New Mexico (being in El Paso that was a big loss) since I have had my CFP that were probably due to all the "cheap CCW" advertisements pushed everywhere.

Utah certainly had the right to pass this law. The problem I have is the reason that they felt they had to pass it. As TAM stated, it was the result of selfish "feckless morons" who were trying to take advantage of the laws to make a quick buck. In the end, these same CFP instructors deprived themselves of making money and "hosed everyone else".

It is a shame that they had to make this happen due to CFP instructors who were "feckless morons", but if not they were probably going to lose more States. I mean that's a non issue for the most part for me know since I have my CHL, but it's still a shame to see it happen. I'm just glad they still allow people from non issuing States or "may issue" States to receive one.

WildBill wrote:

Rebel wrote:Honestly I don't see a problem with Utah doing this, as I have lost 2 States Nevada/New Mexico (being in El Paso that was a big loss) since I have had my CFP that were probably due to all the "cheap CCW" advertisements pushed everywhere.

Utah certainly had the right to pass this law. The problem I have is the reason that they felt they had to pass it. As TAM stated, it was the result of selfish "feckless morons" who were trying to take advantage of the laws to make a quick buck. In the end, these same CFP instructors deprived themselves of making money and "hosed everyone else".

Also, although I don't blame Utah for taking this step, this is a step backward in the fight for unrestricted gun rights. The result lies squarely on those whose selfishness brought it on.

Utah passed the law to protect Utah residents from bad legislators in other states who were denying reciprocity to Utah. Rant all you want about Utah instructors who are good businessmen, but this Utah law was passed as a reaction to Utah residents losing reciprocity in Nevada and other states. The Utah legislators were protecting their constituents from the selfish Nevada politicians.

It's not the fault of Utah instructors in Texas or anywhere else, but prepare yourself for a marketing blitz as they ramp up to beat the May deadline.

boba wrote:Utah passed the law to protect Utah residents from bad legislators in other states who were denying reciprocity to Utah. Rant all you want about Utah instructors who are good businessmen, but this Utah law was passed as a reaction to Utah residents losing reciprocity in Nevada and other states. The Utah legislators were protecting their constituents from the selfish Nevada politicians.

It's not the fault of Utah instructors in Texas or anywhere else, but prepare yourself for a marketing blitz as they ramp up to beat the May deadline.

Are you a Utah instructor?

They were dropping reciprocity because Utah instructors advertise everywhere as the cheaper easier CCW alternative, and I mean everywhere in all States. I got mine in California several years ago, the guy who gave our class holds a few a month and there were easily over 40 people in our class. He just went up and down the Coast holding classes, and to be honest the class was lacking to say it nicely.

So yes States such as Nevada and New Mexico saw that they were losing out on revenue, because the Utah CCW was cheaper,shorter,requires no live firing, and no instate instruction requirements. I wouldn't be surprised to see a few other states not recognize Utah, even Texas, if they hadn't have passed this.

Did this pass as a law? or just through the Senate.
I googled the bill but All that I could find is that around the first of the month that the senate passed it.

I assume that it will likely go through the house and governor process pretty smoothly. but am curious whether this is actually done!
Update:
I found my answer.
SB 36 is sent back to the Senate concourance committee. It has been approved with some apparent tweeking.
It is not yet law, although its likely to be very soon They move fast in Utah,
http://le.utah.gov/~2011/status/sbillsta/sb0036s01.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

boba wrote:Rant all you want about Utah instructors who are good businessmen...

Please. I'm a businessman. With all due respect, those instructors in question were not "good businessmen." They were the same kind of parasite as ambulance chasing attorneys. You can call that "good business" if you want. I call it exploiting loopholes in the law to get CHLs for people who mostly, but not all, couldn't qualify for a CHL. I call it sleaze.

I have nothing against the CFP itself, and I have nothing against CHL instructors who also offer the CFP. I have a CFP of my own in addition to my CHL. But I didn't get my CFP so that I could circumvent the laws of the state in which I reside. And that is the bottom line. Whether you carry under authority of a CFP because you cannot qualify for a Texas CHL, or you carry under the authority of a CFP because you qualify but don't want to spend the $140 for a CHL, you are circumventing the laws of the state of Texas, and you are circumventing the intent of the legislature in passing CHL. What other laws are you circumventing in your daily behavior simply because you don't think the laws apply to you?

Now, do I think that the laws of the state of Texas are more onerous than they should be with regard to the right to keep and bear arms? Yes, I do, and among other things I would like to see the fees reduced considerably. But, they ARE the law, and I think that the correct path is to change the laws, not to twist the tail of the legislature that passed the laws. You can argue that the law is unconstitutional, but the legislature's authority to pass laws is entirely constitutional. When they passed CHL, it was with a specific intent. When you try to escape their intent by carrying under the authority of a CFP only, then you have only yourself to blame when the legislature reacts to having their tail twisted by slamming that door on you. That's not "good business." That's just plain dumb.

Now, in this case, it was the Utah legislature that slammed the door, but there is a bill before the Texas legislature which, if it passes, would slam that door shut too; and THAT bill is a direct response to people who twist the legislature's tail by trying to circumvent the legislature's intent. Period. Now, it isn't the CHL instructors who also offer CFP's who are responsible for this situation. It is entirely the fault of unscrupulous CFP instructors who heavily advertised their service as a means of circumventing Texas (Nevada/New Mexico) state law. You can call this a rant, but if you cannot accept that the fault for this situation lies squarely on the shoulders of those unscrupulous instructors, then you are either one of them, or you are in denial.

Furthermore, if you're not willing to work within the legislature's intent with regard to CHL law, then how can you argue in favor of the Founder's intent against someone who persists in misinterpreting the militia clause in the 2nd Amendment? That would be logically inconsistent. After all, if the constitutionally delegated authority to pass laws with a specific intention need not be adhered to, then the Founder's intent in framing the Constitution may be freely disregarded too. That would be the logical extension of your position.