Utah Problem - SOLVED

[seamusTX]

Can we get some jet coolant here?

When the Texas CHL law was codified in 1995, only one other state had a modern shall-issue CHL law. That was Florida.

Apparently, it did not occur to anyone in the Texas legislature at the time that a Texas resident could obtain a non-resident license from another state and avoid getting a Texas CHL.

Regardless of the intentions of the legislators, it is perfectly legal to do so, and a non-resident license is valid except for some narrow exceptions such as NICS bypass and the "gun-free school zone" law.

- Jim

[Barbi Q]

Regardless of the intentions of the legislators, it is perfectly legal to do so, and a non-resident license is valid except for some narrow exceptions such as NICS bypass and the "gun-free school zone" law.

We can play Amazing Kreskin all day but the law is the law. I don't think a DA or judge is going to give me a break if I violate the letter of the law because I KNOW what the legislators REALLY MEANT when they wrote the law. By the same token, if I follow the letter of the law, I don't have to feel guilty about not being able to read minds.

[WildBill]

Regardless of the intentions of the legislators, it is perfectly legal to do so, and a non-resident license is valid except for some narrow exceptions such as NICS bypass and the "gun-free school zone" law.

We can play Amazing Kreskin all day but the law is the law. I don't think a DA or judge is going to give me a break if I violate the letter of the law because I KNOW what the legislators REALLY MEANT when they wrote the law. By the same token, if I follow the letter of the law, I don't have to feel guilty about not being able to read minds.

You are taking his statement out of context. SeamusTx is not suggesting that anybody should get any kind of break for violating the law.

[seamusTX]

In case there's any uncertainty, I was saying it is currently legal for a Texas resident to carry on a non-resident license from another state, even if the Texas resident would not qualify for a Texas CHL (for example, because of delinquent child support or a recent disorderly-conduct charge).

Probably the legislature in 1995 did not intend that to be possible, but the law is what it is until changed or until some court clarifies or overrules it (not that I expect either to happen in the foreseeable future).

I never heard of anyone in Texas being prosecuted for carrying on an out-of-state license. At worst they got the hairy eyeball.

(I'm not at all certain that all police officers even know how to check the validity of an out-of-state license or whether Texas has reciprocity with that state.)

- Jim

[ELB]

I do not think limiting the abilities of someone to carry on a CHL or a CFP or whathaveyou from any state can be considered a good thing. The whole CHL idea itself should be dispensed with; it is tolerable only in that it represents a step forward from where we used to be. It is not a desireable endstate. Any adult of the US who does not have a feloniously violent criminal history or is not certifiably looney should be able to defend himself with whatever he chooses tote along.

The laws of the US, the state of Texas, or whoever, are not Holy Writ handed down like the Ten Commandments. They are a hodge podge of thought, thoughtlessness, compromise, and balancing among various power centers. Someone may start out with the holiest of intents, but the law that is produced is still a man-made sausage. This is one reason why trying to go by "legislative intent" is not only hard, but a positively bad idea. It makes the text of the law irrelevant, and subjects the alleged violator to the whims of whoever gets chosen to decide "intent." "The legislature" is not a single entity; even people who vote for the same Act can do so for different reasons. Judging laws according what you think the legislature meant is in fact lawless -- it turns the law into whatever you think it means.

When someone is trying to exercise their fundamental human right to self-defense to fullest extent he can legally, and in fact meets the strictures of an often convoluted, and contradictory law, to call that "morally compromised" is outrageous. If the law is really allowing a bad thing, (and in this case, it is not), then change it, but do not insult and smear those who are in fact obeying the law.

The most straightforward solution to the "problem" would be for Texas to reduce the CHL fee to reasonable level. (That is, until we can dispense with the program altogether).

This is the root of the problem, not "loopholes." I understand politically why feathers get ruffled when money heads out of state, but really that is an ego-based response -- "hey, those guys are flouting our authority/taking our money!" Phooey. That money does not belong to the state of Texas, it belongs to the guy buying the licence. The real answer to is look at the root of the problem and realize the State is taxing a fundamental right at a burdensome level, then reduce (or eliminate) it.

When you tax something too highly, or tax something that should not have been taxed at all, you drive business and tax payers out of state. Texas is generally in much better shape than the states that are taxing the bejabbers out of people, because it has generally not used its taxing power excessively- with the exception of Amazon.com and Texas CHL holders. And note in Amazon's case the Governor is calling on the legislature to fix it -- by reigning in the Comptroller's attempt to tax them. Would be nice if he did that for Texas CHL holders as well, since what is being taxed is far more a fundamental human right than online sales.

[seamusTX]

The laws of the US, the state of Texas, or whoever, are not Holy Writ handed down like the Ten Commandments. They are a hodge podge of thought, thoughtlessness, compromise, and balancing among various power centers. Someone may start out with the holiest of intents, but the law that is produced is still a man-made sausage. This is one reason why trying to go by "legislative intent" is not only hard, but a positively bad idea. It makes the text of the law irrelevant, and subjects the alleged violator to the whims of whoever gets chosen to decide "intent."

I think you are contradicting yourself within one paragraph.

Laws admittedly are imperfect. I will give a clear example:

According to the literal text of the Texas statutes (PC 46.02) it is legal to have a handgun, "illegal" knife, or club in your home, place of business, or motor vehicle.

However, there is no legal way to transport such an item from the place of purchase to a place where you can legally possess it (keep in mind this law was originally codified before motor vehicles were invented).

Decades ago, some people were prosecuted for possession of handguns in places other than their home or business (not having CHL or MPA as options at the time). Appeals courts ruled that because it is legal to have an item in a certain place, it must be legal to get the item to that place. Otherwise the text of the law would be absurd.

Legislatures are aware of this problem, and for that reason they archive their debates and other background material ancillary to the actual text of the bill that eventually becomes law.

I am not saying that if the legislature did not intend Texans to be able to carry in Texas on a non-resident license from another state, therefore Texans should not be allowed to do so. The present law is clear. If the legislature wants to change the law, they must pass a bill (and possibly override a veto, BTW.)

- Jim

[Burn]

The new Utah law will prevent the Utah problem from increasing but doesn't solve it. At least not for 4 or 5 more years. It also doesn't stop similar problems with other states. That's why I urge you to support HB 356 and solve the problem this year and for good.

[WildBill]

The new Utah law will prevent the Utah problem from increasing but doesn't solve it. At least not for 4 or 5 more years. It also doesn't stop similar problems with other states. That's why I urge you to support HB 356 and solve the problem this year and for good.

I still don't understand the problem that you want to solve. In your view what is "the Utah Problem?"

[trueno]

The whole CHL idea itself should be dispensed with; it is tolerable only in that it represents a step forward from where we used to be. It is not a desireable endstate. Any adult of the US who does not have a feloniously violent criminal history or is not certifiably looney should be able to defend himself with whatever he chooses tote along.

That would be fine by me, works very well in Vermont.

t

[trueno]

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.

"Couldn't qualify" as in how/what way?

t

[hirundo82]

When the Texas CHL law was codified in 1995, only one other state had a modern shall-issue CHL law. That was Florida.

Apparently, it did not occur to anyone in the Texas legislature at the time that a Texas resident could obtain a non-resident license from another state and avoid getting a Texas CHL.

Texas was actually pretty late in the game when it came to passing shall-issue laws. Cool map showing timeline.

[The Annoyed Man]

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.

"Couldn't qualify" as in how/what way?

t

That's an easy answer....

1. for people who plead poverty as a "disqualification".... which is a myth because if you really are too poor, the state of Texas will cut you a big break on the fees. Some people are just cheapskates.... or there is some other issue they know about, but they don't want to share with anyone or the state.

2. Utah has a different set of regs regarding charges and conviction, if I'm not mistaken. They don't care if you have charges pending. They only care if you've been convicted of those charges. (Crossfire, please correct me if I'm wrong about this.) Texas, on the other hand is interested in whether or not you have been charged with a crime, even if a conviction has not yet followed the charge. This doesn't matter if you have an old arrest and it has been disposed in your favor. It very much DOES matter if you were arrested yesterday for spousal abuse, but you haven't been convicted yet. Texas wants to know what the disposition is, and you don't have a disposition if you're still waiting to find out if you've been convicted or not.

I'm sure there are other reasons, but you'll have to do your own research.

[seamusTX]

Texas was actually pretty late in the game when it came to passing shall-issue laws. Cool map showing timeline.

That is a cool map.

I don't want to argue about their definition of "shall issue," but some of those states back then and even today can make it difficult to get their equivalent of a CHL. Local law enforcement had or has discretion, which they do not have in Texas.

I didn't live in Texas in 1995, and I remember the hysterical "blood in the streets" treatment by the national media.

Anyway, the idea of Texas residents getting non-resident CHLs from other states did not seem to be a consideration at the time. If I am wrong, there are members of this forum who probably still remember the debates in detail.

In addition to what TAM said about people not qualified for a Texas CHL getting a Utah CFP, unpaid state taxes and debts are disqualifications in Texas. Also some convictions for alcohol or drug abuse or deferred adjudications are disqualifications for a longer period in Texas than Utah.

- Jim

[Bart]

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.

"Couldn't qualify" as in how/what way?

t

http://texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php? ... 7&p=528604" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Bart]

Some people are just cheapskates.... or there is some other issue they know about, but they don't want to share with anyone or the state.

Yeah! Same as all those people who price shop for clothing and big screen televisions and automobiles.

People who shop at gun shows? CHEAPSKATES!