TexasCHLforum.com

Griz44 wrote: Most I have discussed this with cite the 4 hour class and no shooting as the primary reasoning. Three that have attended my class (with a Utah license) stated they had never fired a handgun. They had joined me at a safety class prior to enrolling in the CHL class. A few cite previous legal troubles. Not a single one has mentioned the cost as a primary reason.

I just love that you talk about the lax requirements of Utah...the horror, the horror. And yet you want unlicensed, constitutional carry? With no class at all? No shooting? The mental gymnastics your brain must do to support both HB356 and constitutional carry must be Olympian in scale.

You also neglected to address the rest of my point: Even if cost ISNT an issue...if we have a problem with the way Utah gives licenses, simply drop reciprocity with Utah. How is this bill a better idea than that? (Unless you're a Texas CHL instructor, in which case I can see how mandating a Texas CHL is worth a lot of money to you).

I'd also love to see a cited case of someone who was a lazy, no good cheating on their home state cause they didn't like the requirements Utah license holder failing to be just as respectful of Texas law as someone who was forced to sit through another 4 hours of class. It doesn't happen.

Griz44 wrote: Many of the arguments I see here have reasonable merit, that still does not explain why a Texan with a clean record would not go get a Texas license. As mentioned above, if you are in hot water and they take your license for legal cause, maybe you should not be carrying.

There is no reason they shouldn't...other than the fact that it is their choice whether they want to or not. To take your argument to a rediculous extreme: If we don't want people getting the Utah license because that's money the state of Texas wants to receive, why don't we make all those who want to carry buy an STI pistol to carry? After all, there's no reason our Texas money should be going to Brazil (Taurus), Austria (Glock), Florida (KelTec), etc....

And most of the reasons for getting a Utah over Texas license seem to cite the fiscal burden over all others. If we're worried about the Utah licensing being too lax, we should simply be eliminating reciprocity with Utah, not mandating Texas CHLs period.

If we're all working towards constitutional carry, why take a step backwards in a process thats working? How many Texans carrying under a Utah CHL have gone bonkers and shot people or broken the law because they didn't get their training in the Texas course and send their money to Austin?

In the end, this bill seems to be backed for financial reasons by some CHL instructors and drafted by someone who would rather we didn't have the CHL program at all. How is this a step in a positive direction?

Griz44 wrote: On this we are in total agreement. If one of our law makers were to introduce a bill to totally remove all restrictions and all current laws concerning carry in any fashion, ie Constitutional carry in the purest sense of the meaning, I would support that 100%.

So you support no training for carry...but taking a class from Utah or Florida is unacceptable to carry?

One final thought:

I guess I should just assume that anyone who's supporting this is anti constitutional carry.

After all, if a Utah class isn't good enough, then no class obviously isn't acceptable.

I really wanted to put something snarky about being an anti, but that seemed a little to OCDO style for me.

I would love to see someone reconcile supporting constitutional carry with a pro HB356 stance though. I don't see how you can, personally.

JvT wrote: To support anything gun related from Lon Burnam is foolish.

I agree. The man hasn't met an anti gun bill he didn't like.

This is the same guy that doesn't think 18 year olds should be able to by semi auto rifles. Why anything he writes would be construed as something pro gun individuals should support is way beyond me.