ACTION NEEDED: Hearing on Anti-gun HB356

[74novaman]

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.

[74novaman]

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.

[ELB]

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.
etc...

There is nothing in this bill that supports 2A rights. It is not a pro-gun, or for that matter, a "pro-Texas" bill in any form, unless you think higher taxes is "pro-Texas." It is simply a method to make sure Texans who want CHLs continue to pay higher taxes into the Texas treasury.

Texas significantly taxes law-abiding citizens to exercise their 2A rights. This, the fact that it costs $140 for the basic license and Utah charges considerably less (not "irresponsible instructors"), is the root of the "problem."

If by a "watered down" CHL program you mean one with fewer requirements and lower fees, I'm all for it. The CHL is not a "good" thing in and of itself, it is only "good" in the sense that it was a HUGE step forward from where Texas stood for about 130 years, until the mid 1990s. Any change to the program that expands the ability of Texans to exercise their rights (including using other States' licenses) is good. Any change that restricts Texans from doing so (and forces them to pay more taxes) is bad. This is hands-down a bad bill.

Edited to add: Here is an example of a "good," pro-gun, pro-Texas bill. viewtopic.php?f=110&t=43457" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Griz44]

The CHL is not a "good" thing in and of itself, it is only "good" in the sense that it was a HUGE step forward from where Texas stood for about 130 years, until the mid 1990s.

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%.

[Slowplay]

...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.
...
Nothing in the bill restricts a Texans right to carry.
...
Nothing in this bill prevents a Texan from acquiring an out of state license to complement the Texas license.
...

Wouldn't HB356 also mean your out-of-state license (FL, UT, etc.) doesn't cover you if your Texas CHL renewal isn't processed & received before your current Texas CHL license expires?

I noticed that no one has answered my question. A current Texas CHL license holder that takes a renewal class (from you or any other Texas licensed instructor) WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO CARRY IN TEXAS using their FL CCW license (or other valid license) if they ARE A TEXAN and they don't receive their Texas CHL renewal license from DPS before their current Texas CHL license expires. Am I wrong...and, if not, how is that not restricting a Texan's right to carry?

[74novaman]

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?

[Keith B]

...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.
...
Nothing in the bill restricts a Texans right to carry.
...
Nothing in this bill prevents a Texan from acquiring an out of state license to complement the Texas license.
...

Wouldn't HB356 also mean your out-of-state license (FL, UT, etc.) doesn't cover you if your Texas CHL renewal isn't processed & received before your current Texas CHL license expires?

I noticed that no one has answered my question. A current Texas CHL license holder that takes a renewal class (from you or any other Texas licensed instructor) WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO CARRY IN TEXAS using their FL CCW license (or other valid license) if they ARE A TEXAN and they don't receive their Texas CHL renewal license from DPS before their current Texas CHL license expires. Am I wrong...and, if not, how is that not restricting a Texan's right to carry?

If this passes and you fall under the Texas residency rules (live here more than 6 months), you would not be able to carry on any license in Texas other than a Texas issued CHL.

So in your scenario, if you have a Texas resident and a Florida non-resident, your Florida non-resident would not be valid in Texas period. So when your Texas license expired you would not be able to carry until you got it renewed. Same thing would go for if your Texas license was temporarily suspended pending an investigation or for some other reason.

[blue]

A REALLY Bad bill.
If a person has the renewal in process filed and DPS takes 100+ days, as they have before, then the person IS being denyed their Rights, THRU NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN.

-This is THE reason many have a Utah license, or other non res, to have some coverage when DPS fails the Tx citizen.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Utah has changed its law such that nonresidents can get a Utah license only if they have one from their home state. The "Utah problem" was the motive for filing HB356.

I beg to differ. Lon Burnam being an anti-gun zealot was the motive for filing HB356. The "Utah problem" was only the excuse.

But for the irresponsible advertising by 3 Utah Instructors, Rep. Burnam would never have thought about this issue. It most definitely is the reason he filed it.

Chas.

[Charles L. Cotton]

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.

Rep. Lon Burnam has recruited betweend 2 and 4 Texas CHL Instructors to call their students and ask them to support his anti-gun bill. Are you one of them?

Chas.

[Charles L. Cotton]

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.

I couldn't help but notice your play on words saying the bill required "Texans" to get a Texas CHL. The Bill doesn't say "Texans," it applies to a person who has "a domicile" in Texas. The Bill goes on to adopt the definition of "domicile" found in Tex. Trans. Code §522.003 that reads "Domicile" means the place where a person has the person's true, fixed, and permanent home and principal residence and to which the person intends to return whenever absent." Unfortunately, this definition is too broad it that the courts don't simply accept what the person says about his/her "domicile." They look to extrinsic evidence.

If a person owns a home in Texas and one in Michigan and spends 6 months of each year in each location, do they have a "domicile" in Texas or Michigan? What about a college student whose parents bought a condo rather than pay rent for 4 to 10 years and put the condo in their son's name? Will he have a "domicile" in Texas. These are just two examples and the answers could go either way. Things like having mail delivered in Texas, getting a Texas Drivers License, utilities in a person's name, etc. can be used to establish that a person has "a domicile" in Texas.

While a person might win the fight to determine whether they have a domicile in Texas, they could also lose. If HB356 passes, they could also face prosecution for unlawfully carrying a weapon in violation of TPC §46.02, even though what constitutes a "domicile" is far from clear and they have a Texas CHL that was rendered void by HB356. This is grossly unfair and I the only reason I can see to support HB356 is to make money teaching Texas CHL courses.

But the question about residency/domicile doesn't end with Texas. What if the person living in Texas has a license from their "home" state that doesn't issue nonresident licenses? If he/she is found to have a "domicile" in Texas it could jeopardize their "home" state license and possibly subject them to arrest and prosecution back "home."

Everything about HB356 is anti-gun from an F-Rated long-term anti-gunner.

Chas.

[Charles L. Cotton]

As I mentioned in another post, Rep. Lon Burnum has recruited a small number of Texas CHL Instructors to contact their students and ask them to support his anti-gun HB356. If you happened to get such a call, please consider posting that instructor's name here on TexasCHLforum so the folks generating our 7 to 9 million hits each month will have this information when deciding who to use for CHL training.

I an not suggesting that anyone contact these instructors as they have every right to promote an anti-gun bill if they wish. I just want people to have this information for their own decision making purposes.

Chas.

[Skiprr]

Everything about HB356 is anti-gun from an F-Rated long-term anti-gunner.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Anti-campus-carry John Woods testified for Lon Burnam's HB356. It appears Mr. Woods has expanded his anti-gun activities beyond campus-carry. My bet is he'll become a life-long enemy of the Second Amendment. I sure hope he manages to graduate and get out of Texas soon!

Chas.

[Shoot Straight]

Anti-campus-carry John Woods testified for Lon Burnam's HB356. It appears Mr. Woods has expanded his anti-gun activities beyond campus-carry. My bet is he'll become a life-long enemy of the Second Amendment.

Maybe Colin got him on the payroll.