ACTION NEEDED: Hearing on Anti-gun HB356

[Griz44]

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?

Please be careful where you go with accusations. I do not know you, and you do not know me. I will answer your question, just as I answered your question about my own possible conflict of interest, which I never received a response from. Absolutely not. I will not, and have not ever sold my integrity for any reason. I do not know the man, have never met the man, have never spoken to him or any of his supporters or ever received any correspondence from him. When I made my first post on this topic, I could not have named the author. Conflict of interest is not a game I have ever played. I can't say that for several of the Utah CHL instructors I have spoken with. There was a definite financial conflict there, since 2 of them I spoke with earn 100% of their income from CHL classes. 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. As for supporting Constitutional carry, you bet. No rules, no problem. Even Constitutional carry has its boundaries though, like felons who cannot own or even be around firearms. But we do have rules and laws. Make those rules and laws beneficial for those who live and work here, and that for me, means not shipping our money to Utah in an effort to cheat the system. Maybe the wording of the bill needs to be refined. I am not a lawyer, and don't like the ones I've had dealings with. I do read and pay attention to comments here, and I can see that some of the verbiage probably needs tweaking. For those who are really Americans, you realize that political discussion is an essential element of the Democratic process. Discussion enlightens us and makes us better informed voters. Every statement I make, I attempt to explain the reasoning behind it. Many of the arguments I get back are simple emotional responses. There are also many among the conservative group that play follow the leader and don't ask why. Don't be "That Guy". I do not push any agendas in my classes. I teach the authorized materials, the current laws only, with no personal opinions interjected. I hold them to the authorized proficiency. I do ask my students to please take a look at the TSRA website, show them the link, and explain to them the role the TSRA has had in originating and advancing the CHL program. I do ask them to help support our cause by joining or making a donation.

[Griz44]

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.

If I did get such a call, I would post their name on my own website and caution folks to stay away from them, as this shows a definite lack of integrity. IMHO, pushing any political agenda in class is a big no-go. That is what we as conservatives complain so much about with our state funded colleges, professors who push agendas in class.

[Charles L. Cotton]

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?

Please be careful where you go with accusations. I do not know you, and you do not know me.

I made no accusation, I asked a question. Leave your attitude at the door.

Chas.

[Griz44]

Are you one of them?

Sounded like a direct first person accusation to me.

You need to be careful with your veiled threat

No intention or verbiage that could be construed a threat, I don't think or act that way. If you took it that way, I apologize.

Attitude checked, opinions - well never..... (one of two OK?)

I would still like to meet you, Jim says you are a very interesting person with some very interesting opinions.

[Sniper John]

Presenting anti constitutional firearm related agenda here, would be no different that presenting it to your class IMO.
Anyone that takes the time to look at the history of the man behind this bill could easily see the agenda behind the bill. There is good reason that the Texas Rifle Association and the Texas Firearms Coalition are openly against it. I have done my research and came to the conclusion that If you support it, you are either the enemy or you are drinking the man's juice and being fooled. It is possible with some instructors that support this bill, it is a business move to them and they truly have no concern for our "right". It is along similar lines of an 03 FFL that refuses to recognise an 03 collectors FFL or that support the so called "gun show loophole" simply because he believes allowing such direct transfers to individuals hurts his business. I would love to see someone put together a published list of the state instructors that are openly supporting HB356 as well as those secretly playing both sides with the phone calls.

[74novaman]

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?

[Sniper John]

Exactly, Lon Burnam is playing those some CHL instructors like a puppet for his anti gun agenda. Even if the bill fades away, he has still successfully caused friction and split some in the CHL community when we should be rallied together. Very sad IMHO. One might call him a legistative troll.

[SWAMPRNR]

I have been watching this bill because i do carry on a out of state permit due to the fact Texas considers Defered Adjudication a conviction only for chl purposes.I currently have permits from five different states and and have passed there background checks. Makes no sense why i can get a permit from those states but not this one.Like a lot of people I ended up with a defered adjudication because of bad legal advise 16 years ago that resulted in a couple months probation. If i had know it would count as a conviction i would have fought it to the end.I have no problem spending money for a Texas permit but have been told multiple times by the DPS that i do not qualify.I guess if the bill does pass i can move to a different state.

[ELB]

... I can't say that for several of the Utah CHL instructors I have spoken with. There was a definite financial conflict there, since 2 of them I spoke with earn 100% of their income from CHL classes.

This is no more a conflict of interest than you, a Texas CHL-only instructor, supporting a bill that will drive more students to Texas CHL-only instructors. So yes, you have a conflict of interest as well, by your own logic, if you make any profit at all on your instruction.

..., that still does not explain why a Texan with a clean record would not go get a Texas license..

I think it has been explained quite clearly, but let's try again. Texas charges more than it needs to for a license to do what should not be taxed or licensed at all. Also, SWMPRNR provided an excellent reason as well.

People move toward places that do not over tax them, which is a big reason why Texas in general, and its state government in particular, is doing better economically than, say, California. It is the reason that so many retired New Yorkers and Californians (and nowadays, many others as well) move to Florida or other southern states -- the taxes are lower. However, Texas is overtaxing in at least one particular area, i.e. CHLs, and people move (their money) away from that. It is as simple as that.

Guys making a buck off of teaching Utah classes is no more unclean than guys making a buck off of teaching Texas CHL. There is nothing holy about the taxing power of the state of Texas, and the 2A should certainly not be a cash cow for its treasury.

The legislature created this problem with the fees it established, and in typical legislative fashion, someone decides that the fix should be to curtail the taxpayer's choices with more laws, rather than dumping the bad bad law. This not a natural market -- it is a necessary, for the moment, evil. It is akin to the tax preparation business -- it is ridiculous that there exists a major industry solely because the national tax laws and IRS regulations are so complicated that they scare and overwhelm people who decided they have to have a professional do their taxes (and I am not talking about people with complicated businesses and investments either).

The CHL fees may have been a necessary compromise in the beginning to get the CHL program off the ground, but not any more -- no more than being required to display the CHL to a peace officer, or restricting CHLs from campus or church or wherever.

I read your arguments, and they don't cut the mustard. There is no good pro-2A or pro-Texas reason to support Burnham's bill. Only "pro-let's-regulate-CHLs-even-more" reasons.

[Griz44]

And most of the reasons for getting a Utah over Texas license seem to cite the fiscal burden over all others.

Considering the cost of a firearm, holster and ammunition for practice and carry, the whole fiscal argument just doesn't hold water.
Discussion with those who cite fiscal reasons for this decision usually reveal expenditures on beer, cigs, boats, hunting leases, eating out, etc...... to be far more costly than a license and a class. Especially when considering the cost of the Utah class and license as a delta compared to a Texas platform. The added cost is pretty slim. 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.

Deferred adjudication for a felony has a 10 year waiting period from date of conviction. It is not considered a conviction.

[Sniper John]

so Griz44. Sounds like you also believe Utah residents with a Utah CHL should not be recognised in Texas?

[jmra]

Hey Griz, you could always offer your services for free. That way you could support the bill without anyone suggesting that you have a conflict of interest.

[74novaman]

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.

[EconDoc]

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.

[sjfcontrol]

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.

However, Alaska (at least), offers a Concealed permit for those that want one for Reciprocity purposes. So Alaskans, as I read it, would still need an Alaska permit to validate a Utah license.