TexasCHLforum.com

RHENRIKSEN wrote:I'd also be interested in picking up the Utah CHL (and I *do* already have my Texas CHL). Hope Charles' announcement gets posted in the Texas CHL board so I won't miss it - I rarely check 100% of the boards on the forum. Missed the annual PSC event registration because of that :-(

Did you see THIS THREAD? Your wish is my command.

jester wrote:I thought they were in the car if you ran their plates.

Not necessarily. The LEO can order you out of the car, and then run your plates. So if you are minus permitted authority to carry, you can carry concealed on your person while in the vehicle, but when the officer tells you to exit the vehicle, you would have to disarm and conceal from plain view before exiting the vehicle... ...which opens up a whole 'nuther tactical can of worms. And it gets worse if you are dragged out of the car before you can disarm.

Purplehood wrote:Isn't the issuance of a non-resident UT CFP based on the premise that you a hold a TX CHL? If so, wouldn't suspending the one invalidate the other until resolved?

I just checked Crossfire's Website, and here are the CFP eligibility requirements:

To be eligible for a Utah Concealed Firearm Permit, you:

• Must be at least 21
• Must be fully qualified under federal and state laws to purchase and possess a firearm
• Must not have been convicted of a felony
• Must not have been convicted of a crime of domestic violence
• Must not have been adjudicated by any state or federal court as mentally incompetent
• Must not currently be subject to a Protective Order
• Must not have been convicted of a Class A misdemeanor in the past 5 years
• Must not have been convicted of a Class B or Class C misdemeanor in the past 3 years
• Must not have been convicted of a DUI OFFENSE in the past 6 years

If you have questions about your eligibility status, you can contact a Utah BCI investigator at 1-801-957-8620 before sending in your application.

It doesn't say, outright anyway, that you have to hold a valid CHL (or resident license of another state) to obtain or keep a Utah CFP. I just checked the Utah Dept. of Public Safety website, and I am unable to find any mention of a requirement for non-resident applicants that they hold a current license in another state.

Salty1 wrote:I think the relevance is that if people "shortcut" the Texas CHL license for one issued in Utah they are not taught the Texas requirements as well as prohibited places. I feel that many of them will not do the research on their own to find out the differences in the Texas State Laws.... To each their own, everybody has their reasons for what they do....

I'm not really arguing your point. I'm just point out that CFP holders are subject to the same regs as the rest of us.

Purplehood wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote: The reasons I got one in the first place are two-fold: one is that you pick up reciprocity with OH, WV, & WA; and in the unlikely even that my CHL were temporarily suspended pending a shooting investigation, I would still (hopefully) be able to carry under the authority of the CFP. I figure that, God forbid, I should have to shoot someone, there would be some risk of retaliation on the part of the shootee's compadres, and that would be when I would least want to be disarmed. On the other hand, the Texas CHL gives you SC and KS, which you can't get with the non-resident CFP.

Isn't the issuance of a non-resident UT CFP based on the premise that you a hold a TX CHL? If so, wouldn't suspending the one invalidate the other until resolved?

If I were an LEO and I ran your plates and it came back with a Suspension, I would probably totally discount the UT CFP.

Just my thoughts on the subject.

Hence the red (hopefully)

Salty1 wrote:Should one of these people get arrested for carrying in a prohibited location the first thing we will read is that a "CHL" person was arrested for ......... this will not look favorably on any of us.

I tend to agree with your sentiment, but I believe that the above quoted is not necessarily relevant, as anyone carrying in Texas under the authority of a CFP is subject to Texas CHL law — the same as if I were carrying under authority of my Texas CHL in Utah, I would be subject to Utah CFP law.

I have a Utah CFP, and I think there are legitimate reasons for having one, but I got mine a year after I got my Texas CHL. I waited because I wanted the renewal periods for each to overlap, not coincide, just in case an unforeseen complication made the renewal plastic for one or the other arrive after the old one expired.

The reasons I got one in the first place are two-fold: one is that you pick up reciprocity with OH, WV, & WA; and in the unlikely even that my CHL were temporarily suspended pending a shooting investigation, I would still (hopefully) be able to carry under the authority of the CFP. I figure that, God forbid, I should have to shoot someone, there would be some risk of retaliation on the part of the shootee's compadres, and that would be when I would least want to be disarmed. On the other hand, the Texas CHL gives you SC and KS, which you can't get with the non-resident CFP.

All of that said, I not only have personally steered people away from a Utah CFP as an alternative to a Texas CHL, I've told at least one vendor at the Fort Worth gun show that I thought they were doing concealed carry in Texas a disservice by marketing the CFP as an alternative. Also, I noted that one such vendor at last weekend's show was giving misleading information. That vendor told a friend of mine — while I was several aisles over and missed the conversation or I would have nipped that one in the bud — that you get more state reciprocity with a CFP than with a CHL, neglecting to add that you get more state reciprocity if you have both. They were using what looked like ripped off copies of the reciprocity maps from handgunlaw.us to make their case.

I set him straight. With a NON-resident Utah CFP, you have reciprocity with 28 states (updated 5/23/10), Texas included. With a resident Texas CHL, you have reciprocity with 31 states, Utah included (updated 5/7/10). So that kind of advertising is misleading at best.