Utah CHL Instructor Story on WFAA

[Charles L. Cotton]

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.

This is precisely why the "Utah problem" is going to be a problem in the 2011 Texas Legislative Session.

Chas.

[tallmike]

I have a Utah and a Texas permit. I have had the Utah for quite a few years, and Texas for the last 4 years that I have lived in this state. Utah is inexpensive and easy, both to get and to keep, so I intend to keep it forever as a fallback.

I also have an expired Kentucky and Nevada permit, the last 2 states I lived in before moving here. I keep my Utah permit through it all but in each state I move to, I get their permit as well.

It just makes sense, at least to me, to have a permit from the state I live in even if could use a loophole.

[KFP]

Taken from: http://publicsafety.utah.gov/bci/concealedfirearms.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; Listed under: "Mandatory Minimum Training..."

To properly teach the minimum training standard, in person instruction consisting of a minimum of 4 hours is recommended. This time frame should consist of course related material not to include extra services such as fingerprinting, photos, etc. If a certified instructor chooses to teach multi state permits, the Utah permit must be completed separately. This policy ensures the Utah concealed firearm permit course is taught in its entirety without intermixing different states interpretation of the laws and rules governed within. Please follow these statutory guidelines as you instruct!

In other words, it appears that in a four hour course NO Texas law would be covered - assuming that the instructor is abiding by the rules.

[tacticool]

In other words, it appears that in a four hour course NO Texas law would be covered - assuming that the instructor is abiding by the rules.

So they get the same amount of training in Texas law as a NYPD patrolman or ATF agent who can carry in Texas.

[KFP]

In other words, it appears that in a four hour course NO Texas law would be covered - assuming that the instructor is abiding by the rules.

So they get the same amount of training in Texas law as a NYPD patrolman or ATF agent who can carry in Texas.

Does a NYPD patrolman or ATF agent have the same regulations?

I understand that point that you're making - I'm simply making the point that it is unlikely that those only taking a Utah CFP course will grasp the laws governing them in Texas. If those laws should exist in light of the second amendment is an entirely different topic.

[Texgun]

[quote="Charles L. Cotton""]This is precisely why the "Utah problem" is going to be a problem in the 2011 Texas Legislative Session.

Chas.[/quote]

I sure hope the Legislature addresses the campus carry and workplace storage issues BEFORE they worry about other "problems".

[Crossfire]

This is precisely why the "Utah problem" is going to be a problem in the 2011 Texas Legislative Session.

Chas.

I sure hope the Legislature addresses the campus carry and workplace storage issues BEFORE they worry about other "problems".

No Kidding! Campus Carry needs to be at the top of all our priorities this coming session! The "Utah problem" pales in comparison to students, teachers, and administrators being totally defenseless just because they work at, or attend, a school.

[Charles L. Cotton]

[quote="Charles L. Cotton""]This is precisely why the "Utah problem" is going to be a problem in the 2011 Texas Legislative Session.

Chas.

I sure hope the Legislature addresses the campus carry and workplace storage issues BEFORE they worry about other "problems".[/quote]

I do too.

Chas.

[Charles L. Cotton]

In other words, it appears that in a four hour course NO Texas law would be covered - assuming that the instructor is abiding by the rules.

So they get the same amount of training in Texas law as a NYPD patrolman or ATF agent who can carry in Texas.

Texas can't control federal law, but the Legislature certainly can pass legislation that requires a Texas resident to carry only on a Texas CHL.

Chas.

[Hoi Polloi]

I don't see what the problem is.

Who here had to take an extensive course on the use of deadly force, justification, de-escalation, etc before being allowed to drive a deadly object? Who had a legal requirement of undergoing a psych eval, blood test, and training course on domestic violence, bankruptcies and foreclosures, and the intricacies of common law property rights before they were awarded a marriage license in Texas? Who had to take a class and pass a test on the case history of the first amendment, libel, slander, etc before being allowed to have a letter published to the editor?

Why is it a problem that there are people who are not getting state-specific and state-mandated training on specific laws? Are we seeing many cases of Utah CFP holders being arrested for something that is legal in Utah but not legal here that would point to an education problem affecting the public? No. We're seeing some people with their feelings hurt that others are touting cheaper, easier, faster in our free market economy and trying to use our laws to shut the competition down.

We're talking about a constitutional right here, which means strict scrutiny must be applied before it can be infringed.
-compelling governmental interest
-narrowly tailored law
-the least restrictive means for achieving the interest

So what's the compelling government interest? Keeping firearms out of the hands of known criminals.
Is the law narrowly tailored? Probably so.
Is it the least restrictive means of doing so? No. How does a 10-15 hour class, plus written test, plus shooting test, plus monetary fees come close to being the least restrictive way of doing a background check? It reminds me of a poll test and poll tax. Since when do you have to be able to read and write, pay fees, and have large amounts of knowledge and time to devote to a topic in order to use a basic, constitutional right?

[Charles L. Cotton]

I don't see what the problem is.

Who here had to take an extensive course on the use of deadly force, justification, de-escalation, etc before being allowed to drive a deadly object? Who had a legal requirement of undergoing a psych eval, blood test, and training course on domestic violence, bankruptcies and foreclosures, and the intricacies of common law property rights before they were awarded a marriage license in Texas? Who had to take a class and pass a test on the case history of the first amendment, libel, slander, etc before being allowed to have a letter published to the editor?

Why is it a problem that there are people who are not getting state-specific and state-mandated training on specific laws? Are we seeing many cases of Utah CFP holders being arrested for something that is legal in Utah but not legal here that would point to an education problem affecting the public? No. We're seeing some people with their feelings hurt that others are touting cheaper, easier, faster in our free market economy and trying to use our laws to shut the competition down.

We're talking about a constitutional right here, which means strict scrutiny must be applied before it can be infringed.
-compelling governmental interest
-narrowly tailored law
-the least restrictive means for achieving the interest

So what's the compelling government interest? Keeping firearms out of the hands of known criminals.
Is the law narrowly tailored? Probably so.
Is it the least restrictive means of doing so? No. How does a 10-15 hour class, plus written test, plus shooting test, plus monetary fees come close to being the least restrictive way of doing a background check? It reminds me of a poll test and poll tax. Since when do you have to be able to read and write, pay fees, and have large amounts of knowledge and time to devote to a topic in order to use a basic, constitutional right?

People who are not eligible to get a Texas CHL can get a Utah CFP. Certain instructors are advertising "Don't pay your child support? No problem! Don't pay your taxes? No problem!" It's not a matter of people "getting their feelings hurt;" it's a matter of instructors flaunting the Utah CFP and thumbing their noses at Texas law.

Chas.

[Hoi Polloi]

People who are not eligible to get a Texas CHL can get a Utah CFP. Certain instructors are advertising "Don't pay your child support? No problem! Don't pay your taxes? No problem!" It's not a matter of people "getting their feelings hurt;" it's a matter of instructors flaunting the Utah CFP and thumbing their noses at Texas law.

Chas.

Then the law can be amended to say, in whatever the appropriate legalese is, that we only accept non-resident reciprocity for Texas residents who are eligible to receive Texas CHLs. It doesn't have to affect everyone. Then the burden is on the Utah instructors to verify that the TX residents taking their classes are eligible for Texas CHLs. Seems easy enough.

But why do they have to pay child support in order to carry a concealed weapon? If it is that big of a deal, make it a criminal matter which would disqualify them. But carrying isn't a privilege that should be used as leverage to get people to do what we want. It's a fundamental right, is it not?

[cbr600]

Let's also take away their right to vote, go to church, etc. Otherwise, it seems obviously nothing more than antigun hysteria.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Let's also take away their right to vote, go to church, etc. Otherwise, it seems obviously nothing more than antigun hysteria.

This isn't OpenCarry.org and it's not going to become it either.

Chas.

[Charles L. Cotton]

People who are not eligible to get a Texas CHL can get a Utah CFP. Certain instructors are advertising "Don't pay your child support? No problem! Don't pay your taxes? No problem!" It's not a matter of people "getting their feelings hurt;" it's a matter of instructors flaunting the Utah CFP and thumbing their noses at Texas law.

Chas.

Then the law can be amended to say, in whatever the appropriate legalese is, that we only accept non-resident reciprocity for Texas residents who are eligible to receive Texas CHLs. It doesn't have to affect everyone. Then the burden is on the Utah instructors to verify that the TX residents taking their classes are eligible for Texas CHLs. Seems easy enough.

That's not possible as it would require a street COP to do a field investigation of every non-resident he/she stops on traffic to see if they are eligible for a Texas CHL.

But why do they have to pay child support in order to carry a concealed weapon? If it is that big of a deal, make it a criminal matter which would disqualify them.

That's not the issue; the issue is irresponsible instructors advertising the Utah CFP as a way to circumvent the eligibility requirements for a Texas resident to get at Texas CHL. My last post left out the other phrase in the advertisements, "Have a felony deferred adjudication, no problem!" It doesn't matter if you like or dislike the Texas eligibility requirements; surely you can see how such advertising would not set well with the legislature.

I don't like the money requirements either and that's why I'm going to take a case to the Texas Supreme Court on that issue. I agree that we need to redefine "conviction" so that it doesn't include any deferred adjudications. This job is made harder by the irresponsible advertising of the Utah CFP. Make no mistake about it; the Utah CFP would never have become an issue but for this advertising.

Chas.