UPDATE: 1/10/13

[Right2Carry]

You can already get "Veteran" on your drivers license so why does it need to be available on a CHL?

[TexasCajun]

As onerous as our CHL process seems to be (as compared to other states), I say that if you are a Texas resident, then you should have a Texas CHL. But I don't agree with entrenching that sentiment into law. If there were substantial issues with the qualifications for a state issuing non-resident carry licenses, then that could be easitly be handled through reciprocity. In other words, if the AG believes that simply mailing in a fee to get the non-resident license is too lenient, then simply refuse to recognize the non-resident license without affecting the reciprocity of the resident license.

[The Annoyed Man]

I don't like this bill and I don't want it to pass. The fact that Lon Burnam is rated F is the best thing we have going for us. That said, requiring Texans to have a Texas CHL will not impact reciprocity. In fact, a few states have already passed such legislation and more are going to do so as time goes on. We can thank those like the online Virginia instructor/class for this bill being filed again.

The best approach is to remove the incentives to get out of state licenses like reducing the time required for the initial CHL and removing successfully completed deferred adjudications from the definition of "conviction."

Chas.

Isn't this his second attempt to introduce this bill? I seem to remember him doing it last session in response to all those people pushing the Utah CFP as a way to get around the Texas requirements. And also, didn't Utah pass a new law back then preventing the issuance of a non-resident CFP to anyone who does not first have a carry license from their state of residency? I recall Utah being legitimately worried about loss of reciprocity with other states because of non-residents who were using the CFP to get around their own states' requirements.

[The Annoyed Man]

As onerous as our CHL process seems to be (as compared to other states), I say that if you are a Texas resident, then you should have a Texas CHL. But I don't agree with entrenching that sentiment into law. If there were substantial issues with the qualifications for a state issuing non-resident carry licenses, then that could be easitly be handled through reciprocity. In other words, if the AG believes that simply mailing in a fee to get the non-resident license is too lenient, then simply refuse to recognize the non-resident license without affecting the reciprocity of the resident license.

Isn't that the governor's decision, not the AG's?

[TexasCajun]

As onerous as our CHL process seems to be (as compared to other states), I say that if you are a Texas resident, then you should have a Texas CHL. But I don't agree with entrenching that sentiment into law. If there were substantial issues with the qualifications for a state issuing non-resident carry licenses, then that could be easitly be handled through reciprocity. In other words, if the AG believes that simply mailing in a fee to get the non-resident license is too lenient, then simply refuse to recognize the non-resident license without affecting the reciprocity of the resident license.

Isn't that the governor's decision, not the AG's?

I rechecked my info. Turns out the answer is both Yes & No.
http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/RSD/CHL/faqs/index.htm

31. Does Texas recognize all Concealed Handgun Licenses (CHL) issued by other states?
No. Under the statute, Texas may enter into either reciprocity or a unilateral agreement recognizing a concealed handgun license issued by another state. The Texas Attorney General’s office evaluates other state’s CHL programs to determine if it is appropriate for Texas to participate in reciprocity or unilateral agreements. Upon recommendation by the Texas Attorney General, the Governor may sign a reciprocity agreement or issue a unilateral proclamation. Reciprocal agreements and unilateral proclamations can be found on our

[Charles L. Cotton]

I don't like this bill and I don't want it to pass. The fact that Lon Burnam is rated F is the best thing we have going for us. That said, requiring Texans to have a Texas CHL will not impact reciprocity. In fact, a few states have already passed such legislation and more are going to do so as time goes on. We can thank those like the online Virginia instructor/class for this bill being filed again.

The best approach is to remove the incentives to get out of state licenses like reducing the time required for the initial CHL and removing successfully completed deferred adjudications from the definition of "conviction."

Chas.

Isn't this his second attempt to introduce this bill? I seem to remember him doing it last session in response to all those people pushing the Utah CFP as a way to get around the Texas requirements. And also, didn't Utah pass a new law back then preventing the issuance of a non-resident CFP to anyone who does not first have a carry license from their state of residency? I recall Utah being legitimately worried about loss of reciprocity with other states because of non-residents who were using the CFP to get around their own states' requirements.

Correct. He filed it in 2011 and I'm thrilled that he's the sponsor again. Most folks don't want to sign onto a bill sponsored by an F-rated Rep. That's no guarantee it won't pass, but it helps.

Chas.

[Stripes Dude]

The best approach is to remove the incentives to get out of state licenses like reducing the time required for the initial CHL and removing successfully completed deferred adjudications from the definition of "conviction."

Chas.

...cost too. Easy process for other states, quicker turnaround, and costs less in other states.

[JALLEN]

Don't forget the ramifications of the Federal Gun Free Zone Act which allows having a weapon within 1000 feet of a school only to those carrying permits from that state.

I visit Texas with UT/FL permits but cannot carry within 1000 feet of a school, etc. You live in Texas, have UT/FL or other state permits and are in the same fix. With a Texas permit you are exempt.

There may be other ramifications as well.

[Charles L. Cotton]

The best approach is to remove the incentives to get out of state licenses like reducing the time required for the initial CHL and removing successfully completed deferred adjudications from the definition of "conviction."

Chas.

...cost too. Easy process for other states, quicker turnaround, and costs less in other states.

The cost isn't going to be lowered, it won't pass. The actual cost overall isn't bad in view of the many thousands of people who get the 50% reduction. While the initial fee is $140, that's only $28/year and renewals are $70 or $14/year. If you get the discount, then you can cut those numbers to $14 and $7. Those are the arguments we face and you really can't get people excited about saving Texans from $7 to $28 a year.

Processing is now an easy with the online application and affidavits and DPS turnaround times are excellent. That wasn't the case 3 years ago, but now DPS is doing a great job, especially in view of the huge increase in applications. One thing that would help DPS and initial licensees is to repeal the requirement for fingerprints. They cost DPS $23.50 for each CHL (new and renewal) when the FBI accesses the exact same databases that DPS uses.

Chas.

[hpcatx]

Processing is now an easy with the online application and affidavits and DPS turnaround times are excellent. That wasn't the case 3 years ago, but now DPS is doing a great job, especially in view of the huge increase in applications. One thing that would help DPS and initial licensees is to repeal the requirement for fingerprints. They cost DPS $23.50 for each CHL (new and renewal) when the FBI accesses the exact same databases that DPS uses.

I think the Texas processing (online and turnaround time) is great, especially compared to my experience in Louisiana. Even with the finger print requirement, the fact that they're transmitted electronic is also a huge plus. I was expecting the same when I got electronic prints taken for my Louisiana permit, but that only meant the printing was ink-free; the state recommended finger printer still had to print physical cards for me to submit via mail. I was spoiled by the Texas process.

[2firfun50]

HB383 by Burnam: Prohibiting Texas residents from carrying on an out-of-state license

SB164 (Van de Putte): Providing option to have "Veteran" printed on CHL.

Some thoughts I would like to interject into this discussion. According to the DPS website, once one moves to Texas, your previous state of residence driver's license is only good for 90 days. You must then get a Texas license and give up your previous license. Unless you are active duty military or a non resident student, the same rules apply to your vehicle(s). With the vehicle you have to jump thru hoops with insurance, and state inspections. If you can't legally drive on your previous state driver's license after 90 days, why would it be ok to carry on your previous resident state CHL? The driver's license and vehicle registration are already law.

From a LEO standpoint on the side of the road, if your driver's license, vehicle registration, and recognized out of state CHL are all in order, then you should be good to go.

[2firfun50]

I don't like this bill and I don't want it to pass. The fact that Lon Burnam is rated F is the best thing we have going for us. That said, requiring Texans to have a Texas CHL will not impact reciprocity. In fact, a few states have already passed such legislation and more are going to do so as time goes on. We can thank those like the online Virginia instructor/class for this bill being filed again.

The best approach is to remove the incentives to get out of state licenses like reducing the time required for the initial CHL and removing successfully completed deferred adjudications from the definition of "conviction."

Chas.

In addition, make it as easy to transfer your qualifying CHL to a Texas CHL relatively pain free. No 10 hr class, no fingerprints, etc.

[TexasCajun]

I don't like this bill and I don't want it to pass. The fact that Lon Burnam is rated F is the best thing we have going for us. That said, requiring Texans to have a Texas CHL will not impact reciprocity. In fact, a few states have already passed such legislation and more are going to do so as time goes on. We can thank those like the online Virginia instructor/class for this bill being filed again.

The best approach is to remove the incentives to get out of state licenses like reducing the time required for the initial CHL and removing successfully completed deferred adjudications from the definition of "conviction."

Chas.

In addition, make it as easy to transfer your qualifying CHL to a Texas CHL relatively pain free. No 10 hr class, no fingerprints, etc.

With the variation in requirements and laws from state to state, you can't do away with the class for a transplant. And I don't see the DPS only waiving the fingerprints.

[2firfun50]

I don't like this bill and I don't want it to pass. The fact that Lon Burnam is rated F is the best thing we have going for us. That said, requiring Texans to have a Texas CHL will not impact reciprocity. In fact, a few states have already passed such legislation and more are going to do so as time goes on. We can thank those like the online Virginia instructor/class for this bill being filed again.

The best approach is to remove the incentives to get out of state licenses like reducing the time required for the initial CHL and removing successfully completed deferred adjudications from the definition of "conviction."

Chas.

In addition, make it as easy to transfer your qualifying CHL to a Texas CHL relatively pain free. No 10 hr class, no fingerprints, etc.

With the variation in requirements and laws from state to state, you can't do away with the class for a transplant. And I don't see the DPS only waiving the fingerprints.

Good points. To get back on track with the original thoughts, I would really like to see a requirement for Texas residents to have a primary Texas CHL. I'm cool with additional CHLs to pick up more states, but if you are a Texas resident, you need to qualify in Texas.

I always wonder if there is a deeper underlying issue(s) than just cost or time. As Charles said earlier, with the discounts, my state fees for my CHL was less than my yearly truck inspection/registration.

[texasmike]

HB383 by Burnam: Prohibiting Texas residents from carrying on an out-of-state license

SB164 (Van de Putte): Providing option to have "Veteran" printed on CHL.

Some thoughts I would like to interject into this discussion. According to the DPS website, once one moves to Texas, your previous state of residence driver's license is only good for 90 days. You must then get a Texas license and give up your previous license. Unless you are active duty military or a non resident student, the same rules apply to your vehicle(s). With the vehicle you have to jump thru hoops with insurance, and state inspections. If you can't legally drive on your previous state driver's license after 90 days, why would it be ok to carry on your previous resident state CHL? The driver's license and vehicle registration are already law.

From a LEO standpoint on the side of the road, if your driver's license, vehicle registration, and recognized out of state CHL are all in order, then you should be good to go.

The bill doesn't include a 90-day time limit. As it is written, the bill would require someone to obtain a Texas CHL once he is "domiciled" here. It can be really hard to figure out where someone is "domiciled," and this "domicile" test could create problems for out-of-state CHL holders (because it can be unclear whether someone from out of state needs to get a Texas CHL). I'd feel a lot more comfortable if the bill contained your bright-line, 90-day test. In other words, I'd be much more comfortable with a law that required people holding an out-of-state CHL to get a Texas CHL once they've been here for 90 days.