TexasCHLforum.com

HB750 wrote:(2)AA"License holder" means a person to whom a license to carry a concealed handgun has been issued under this subchapter, including a nonresident license issued under Section 411.173(a). The term does not include a person to whom a license to carry a concealed handgun has been issued by another state, regardless of whether a license issued by that state is recognized pursuant to an agreement negotiated by the governor under Section411.173(b).

That says to me that anyone with an out-of-state CHL (for example, a parent from Oklahoma visiting his kid at Texas Tech) would be excluded from the provisions of this bill. In other words, they would still be prohibited from exercising Campus Carry. Am I reading that correctly?

This seems like a terrible idea! First off, it's confusing and sets a dangerous precedent as it creates two sets of rules. Some rules apply to Texas CHL's, and others apply to out-of-state CHL's. Reciprocity would no longer be an across-the-board affair. Out-of-staters would then have to figure out which areaa are covered by reciprocity, and which aren't. Secondly, it needlessly excludes an entire class of responsible, licensed adults. If we trust out-of-state licensees to carry in the mall, movie theater, etc., why is our trust diminished when they enter a university?

I realize there aren't that many out-of-state CHL'ers in Texas, but their numbers are significantly multiplied on our campuses. Consider all the people who would be disenfranchised by this clause: students who still maintain their residence (and license) in their home state, out-of-state parents who are here to visit their kids, families from out of state who've come to visit or preview a university, visiting lecturers and professors, and so on.

Yeah, I agree it sets a bad precedent. I wonder if it is part of the backlash against the instructors pushing out-of-state licenses vs a TX CHL, or if there is some other reason.

There are already multiple standards. Even if we limit the discussion to schools, the Federal rights-free school zone has an exemption for someone with a local CHL bot not an out-of-state CHL. (local/out-of-state relative to the school)

Yes, HB750 does limit campus carry to Texas CHL's including non-resident Texas CHL's. I bet TexasCHLforum Members can guess why this provision was added to this session's bill.

I agree that the distinction is unnecessary in operational terms, but the bill isn't going to pass without the provision. Thanks again to the three Utah CFP Instructors who are responsible for raising the issue of out-of-state licenses. The Texas-CHL-only provision was not in last session's bills; it's here now because of the furor the Utah Instructors set off in Austin.

The best we can do now for our non-resident parents who want to visit their kids on Texas college campus is invite them to get a non-resident Texas CHL.

Chas.

tacticool wrote:There are already multiple standards.

Yeah, except that there aren't...

tacticool wrote:Even if we limit the discussion to schools, the Federal rights-free school zone has an exemption for someone with a local CHL bot not an out-of-state CHL. (local/out-of-state relative to the school)

That act only pertains to K-12 schools whereas HB750 applies to colleges, so the two issues have nothing to do with each other.

I understand that some people are upset about the Utah licensing issue, but that's really none of the legislature's business. The legislature assigned that authority to the Governor under Section 411.173(b). If there's really a problem with Utah licenses, then Perry can reverse our reciprocity agreement with them. The legislature needs to stay out of this issue. But I guess you do what you gotta do to play the game and pass the bill...

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Yes, HB750 does limit campus carry to Texas CHL's including non-resident Texas CHL's. I bet TexasCHLforum Members can guess why this provision was added to this session's bill.

I agree that the distinction is unnecessary in operational terms, but the bill isn't going to pass without the provision. Thanks again to the three Utah CFP Instructors who are responsible for raising the issue of out-of-state licenses. The Texas-CHL-only provision was not in last session's bills; it's here now because of the furor the Utah Instructors set off in Austin.

The best we can do now for our non-resident parents who want to visit their kids on Texas college campus is invite them to get a non-resident Texas CHL.

Chas.

Since I haven't taken the Texas CHL course since late 1998, I might not be current, but as I remember If you were from another state that Texas recognizes, you are NOT eligible for a Texas Non-Resident CHL.

OldCurlyWolf wrote:Since I haven't taken the Texas CHL course since late 1998, I might not be current, but as I remember If you were from another state that Texas recognizes, you are NOT eligible for a Texas Non-Resident CHL.

Texas has reciprocity with North Carolina - and we had reciprocity when I got my Texas CHL as a North Carolina resident in 2007.

Funny how Lon Burnham got what he wanted in HB 750 and he still voted against constitutional rights on college campuses.

cbr600 wrote:Funny how Lon Burnham got what he wanted in HB 750 and he still voted against constitutional rights on college campuses.

You can't make the haters happy no matter how much you bend over. Probably nobody else changed their vote either. Might as well go for it without tryin to make the haters happy.

Bullwhip wrote:

cbr600 wrote:Funny how Lon Burnham got what he wanted in HB 750 and he still voted against constitutional rights on college campuses.

You can't make the haters happy no matter how much you bend over. Probably nobody else changed their vote either. Might as well go for it without tryin to make the haters happy.

Actually from watching the entire hearing, it appears Lon Burnham did not want it to pass because college administrators who "obviously" know best didn't want it to pass. That is what I took from his multiple comments of "So to your knowledge does any upper level college administrator support this bill?" to multiple witnesses.

TrueFlog wrote:I understand that some people are upset about the Utah licensing issue, but that's really none of the legislature's business. The legislature assigned that authority to the Governor under Section 411.173(b). If there's really a problem with Utah licenses, then Perry can reverse our reciprocity agreement with them. The legislature needs to stay out of this issue.

The legislature made the law and the legislature has the power to make new law. That is their business.

I used to be against restrictions on Utah licenses but then I read the arguments here by people with a Texas CHL.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Yes, HB750 does limit campus carry to Texas CHL's including non-resident Texas CHL's. I bet TexasCHLforum Members can guess why this provision was added to this session's bill.

I urge all gun owners and concerned citizens to support HB 356 to move toward a similar standard statewide. Colleges are a good start but we should 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 in Texas.

Burn wrote: ... parks where children are playing ...

This statement alone makes me against the bill. It is a typical hogwash statement.

WildBill wrote:

Burn wrote: ... parks where children are playing ...

This statement alone makes me against the bill. It is a typical hogwash statement.

You have the right to be wrong and the First Amendment right to show it openly without a license.

Burn wrote:

WildBill wrote:

Burn wrote: ... parks where children are playing ...

This statement alone makes me against the bill. It is a typical hogwash statement.

You have the right to be wrong and the First Amendment right to show it openly without a license.

And so do you. Who are you and what do you want? You obviously joined the forum for the sole purpose of supporting this bill rather than contributing to a dialog.

Burn wrote:

WildBill wrote:

Burn wrote: ... parks where children are playing ...

This statement alone makes me against the bill. It is a typical hogwash statement.

You have the right to be wrong and the First Amendment right to show it openly without a license.

Now you've gone to far troll. Don't do it again or you're gone. Read the forum rules before posting again Anthony.

Chas.