Utah CHL Instructor Story on WFAA

[stevie_d_64]

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.

Dirn Charles, thats the most emoticons I've ever seen you use in a post!!!

BTW, the local excuses for news in this town picked up on it as well...

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010 ... 936414.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[stevie_d_64]

Man...I figured Crossfire would have chimed in by now...They are probably busier than a one-legged man in a posterior kicking contest...

[LarryH]

BTW, the local excuses for news in this town picked up on it as well...

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010 ... 936414.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

stevie, that link took me to North Korea's demand for $65 trillion in reparations for "atrocities", property loss, etc.

[sjfcontrol]

BTW, the local excuses for news in this town picked up on it as well...

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010 ... 936414.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

stevie, that link took me to North Korea's demand for $65 trillion in reparations for "atrocities", property loss, etc.

Yeah, but did you read that story? All I can say to N. Korea is: "Let me know how that works out for 'ya!"

(Moderators: Sorry for the OT post)

[stevie_d_64]

BTW, the local excuses for news in this town picked up on it as well...

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010 ... 936414.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

stevie, that link took me to North Korea's demand for $65 trillion in reparations for "atrocities", property loss, etc.

Don't git me started...I have been nominated to address this issue directly at the U.N., but my official response is something that would violate the ten year old daughter rule of this esteemed forum...

[stevie_d_64]

Back on topic...

I have no reservations about the requirements for the Utah CHP...And our reciprocity agreement with that state needs to be honored and not questioned over such a little thing like range qualification(s)...

One thing I do know...

I believe the range qual for the Texas CHL is what makes the entire process fun...It is that simple...If you can hit the ground if you fall, you'll more than likely qualify for the Texas license...So even before all the debate a couple of years ago about removing the range qual for renewals of the Texas CHL (on certain renewals) I was opposed to it simply because I saw a value in the more experienced shooters that could lend that extra bit of encouragement and poise, because of our backgrounds to the "new" folks coming in going through the whole class...

So, I will never pass up an opportunity to shoot the Texas CHL course of fire, regardless if they say I can renew without it...

I think we as experienced shooters should do it anyway...

[KFP]

Of all of the opinions that I've read, I like Charles the best - Utah should restrict courses to being held in Utah and/or CHL instructors should be responsible. These are the most simplistic, retain reciprocity, while still keeping money in the state. They are also, admittedly, extremely unlikely because they mean less money for those making the concessions.

I don't like the way that I see this whole situation heading...

[Crossfire]

Man...I figured Crossfire would have chimed in by now...They are probably busier than a one-legged man in a posterior kicking contest...

Charles summed up my feelings pretty well. And yes, the phone hasn't stopped ringing, and the email box is full. I'm tired of talking about it.

[Hoi Polloi]

1. Regarding the reciprocity issue, requiring the other state to give reciprocity in order to give it doesn't make much sense. If Texas recognizes other state's licenses and says, "Yeah, that's good enough of a background check for us to say we're OK with people who have your CHL-equivalent licenses to carry while they're in our state, too" why should it matter if the other state says the same in return? This isn't a group hug where we should all walk away feeling warm and fuzzy.

State A issues very few licenses, at the discretion of local officials who aren't inclined to approve requests. When they do approve them, the people must go through a class and submit to a background check and perhaps any other number of requirements. The few who are approved would like to also carry in Texas. We shouldn't let them because their state's voting public is by-and-large gun-phobic and doesn't want reciprocity with those Texas "rednecks" who would shoot at anything that moved in their mind? It doesn't make sense. If we recognize their requirements as being sufficient, we recognize them as sufficient. The inverse does not necessarily hold true that they recognize ours as being sufficient, though, and that shouldn't matter in the least because we aren't making laws for them, we're making them for us.



2. I'm really surprised by how many people here are in favor of nationalized laws covering reciprocity, limiting reciprocity, increasing burdens in Texas in order to get a CHL, and decreasing the means of CHLs being available nationwide.

It's a fundamental right to carry guaranteed to all by our Constitution and/or it's a state's right's issue to regulate it...and we should deal with the inconsistency between states by forcing uniformity either through limiting reciprocity or through a national law. And while we're at it, we should make it harder for our own citizens to get one, too.

The only consistent argument I can see if you do believe either of those things is that a person has a right to carry and (after submitting to a background check to verify he isn't legally excluded could be argued but would not have to be), he should be able to safely carry without any other limitations imposed on him. How do you square these seemingly competing ideas with each other if you are one of the people who is promoting this reasoning?

[baldeagle]

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!)

[VoiceofReason]

So when I’m 96, my hands shake, and I can’t see ten feet with thick glasses, I can get a Utah license and carry in Texas? That’s good to know. Yall be safe now.

[jester]

1. Regarding the reciprocity issue, requiring the other state to give reciprocity in order to give it doesn't make much sense.

That's the meaning of reciprocity.

1 : the quality or state of being reciprocal : mutual dependence, action, or influence
2 : a mutual exchange of privileges; specifically : a recognition by one of two countries or institutions of the validity of licenses or privileges granted by the other

[Hoi Polloi]

1. Regarding the reciprocity issue, requiring the other state to give reciprocity in order to give it doesn't make much sense.

That's the meaning of reciprocity.

1 : the quality or state of being reciprocal : mutual dependence, action, or influence
2 : a mutual exchange of privileges; specifically : a recognition by one of two countries or institutions of the validity of licenses or privileges granted by the other

I agree. I think it is a poor choice of words for describing what is actually happening and what one has control over when establishing it, that being only the forward part of the back-forward meaning of reciprocity.

[srothstein]

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?

[baldeagle]

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.