TexasCHLforum.com

I agree that it's unfortunate, but it is a fact.

It took most of the 20th century to get uniform driver license regulations. With some states not having concealed carry at all, some making it nearly impossible, and others like Texas, Utah, and Florida being somewhat free, it's going to be a looooong time before there is any kind of universal recognition.

- Jim

loadedliberal wrote:Forgive me if I'm wrong or if this has been addressed but I learned in High School Government class that the Constitution states something to the effect of "States must honer other states licenses"

The Constitution says nothing about licenses. The entire concept had not been invented in the 18th century.

What you are thinking of are two clauses.

The first is the Privileges and Immunities clause, Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1, of the original Constitution. It says, "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."

The second is the Equal Protection clause of the 14th amendment. It says, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Exactly what these clauses mean has been litigated and fought over for centuries, one point at a time. It was only last year in McDonald that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the 14th amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms at the state level.

The Supreme Court did not directly rule on licensed concealed carry, firearms registration, "assault weapons" bans, or any other law that continues to be in force in any state. They implied that all sorts of regulations are constitutional and would be upheld by the current court.

Contrary to what is sometimes believed and stated, no court ruling or federal law makes a driver license from one state valid in another. That is a compact between the states that took decades to be worked out.

Also marriages performed in one state are not (at this time) valid in every other state. Some states permit marriage at an age that would be a crime in other states. Some states permit marriages between people who cannot legally marry in other states, if you know what I mean.

Most other types of professional license are not portable. A doctor, nurse, lawyer, plumber, real-estate agent, etc., must obtain a license in each state where he or she wishes to practice.

- Jim

Sure they do. Plenty of defunct businesses treated their potential customers like an annoyance until the customers went elsewhere.

What's that cliché about an armed society being a polite society? I don't think so. Not in this case.

- Jim

That's great. Now potential customers are supposed to have the right attitude so that vendors don't get their feelings hurt.

- Jim

hirundo82 wrote: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

ELB wrote: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

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

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

I agree.

Most laws as they are originally passed are imperfect. Often these so-called loopholes are created (a loophole is an exception in the law that the speaker dislikes). When the legislature becomes aware of actions that are contrary to its intent, they fix the law. Sometimes courts provide clarification.

I personally think the Texas CHL is too expensive and the requirements are too rigorous, but we need to fix that problem in Texas.

I understand the historical reasons that Texas had a weapons ban to begin with, and I understand the political obstacles to expanding the right to keep and bear arms, but I am disappointed with the performance of the current majority. I have pointed out for years that the CHL fee is more than it needs to be to cover the cost of processing applications, and states that have less stringent requirements have no problem with their situation.

- Jim

What about residents of states that do not offer a CHL (or equivalent) at all, such as Vermont, Illinois, or Wisconsin?

Residents of these states sometimes get a non-resident permit so that they can carry while traveling. As you know, three or so rather easy-to-get permits cover about half the states, (aside from those like Texas that have a traveling exception).

- Jim