TexasCHLforum.com

Burn wrote: When reciprocity was created, Texas did not issue nonresident licenses like we do now. In the current system, a nonresident who meets all the same requirements as a Texas resident, except for residence, can get a nonresident Texas CHL.

If you want to ask your legislator to introduce a bill next session to revoke reciprocity for tourists, that is your right. However, that's not what HB 356 does. HB 356 would only force Texas residents to comply with Texas law.

Burn wrote:The CHL law has many requirements in place that limit eligibility for a Texas CHL. The Texas Legislature put those requirements in place intentionally. They were no accident. I don't think I would be going out on a limb if I said the reason the Texas Legislature created those elibibility requirements is they didn't want to allow Texans to carry guns unless they are eligible, i.e. they satisfy all the requirements for a Texas CHL.

HB 356 was introduced this session to ensure Texas residents are properly trained and can pass the criminal background check, before they're allowed to carry guns in churches, shopping malls, parks where children are playing, and other public places. It's a common sense law that closes an unintended loophole, and it deserves support from gun owners and concerned citizens alike.

EconDoc wrote:HB354 is about to become moot anyway. The Utah legislature has passed legislation that requires non-residents to have their home state's CHL if offered, before they can apply for the Utah permit. It is awaiting the governor's signature in Utah. The reason was that Nevada and New Mexico had cancelled reciprocity with Utah over the issue of residents of those states getting Utah permits in preference to their own. Even with a Texas CHL, the Utah is worth getting for recprocity reasons. The reason for the "if offered" language is for persons in states like Vermont, Alaska, and Arizona that do not require a permit for concealed carry.

Keith B wrote:

Griz44 wrote:Thank you for the reminder.

I will send out my faxes (again) in the morning supporting this piece of PRO-TEXAS legislation.
Not one single person has been able to substantiate the claim of anti-gun on this bill.
What is in the verbage that got it this label?
All I see is a PRO-TEXAS statement. And yes, I have read this very short bill multiple times.
Nothing in the bill restricts a Texans right to carry.
Nothing in this bill restricts an out of state CHL licensed visitor from carrying.
Nothing in this bill prevents a Texan from acquiring an out of state license to complement the Texas license.
This bill does one thing only - requires a Texan to have a license in his/her own state.
This is no different than requiring a Texas resident to acquire a Texas drivers license after establishing residence in Texas.
Everything in this bill protects the Texas CHL system from actually becoming the joke that it was well on it's way to being.
This bill is not targeted at Utah, although Utah is the reason the ball on this started rolling in the first place.
Passing this bill will help protect Texas from future Utah-like watering down of the current Texas CHL program.
Even Utah had enough common sense to do something about it. Many other states have already passed legislation like this.

Actually, it DOES impact others. Let's say someone lives in a MAY ISSUE state and their county sheriff will not issue them a permit because he only believes LEO's should carry. Now their only option is to get a non-resident license from another state like Florida or Pennsylvania.

Today, we honor that license and will allow them to carry. If this bill passes, they can no longer carry in Texas. What if they have children that live in Texas and want to come visit? They now have to go unarmed. We also will lose revenue from people who might have taken their vacation here, but now will not because they can't carry. There are tons of other negatives too.

So, you can spout all the rhetoric you want about it being a PRO Texas bill, but you are wrong totally wrong