Non Resident Permits

[speedsix]

...Fla. will get you WVa...

[tomc]

So will Utah

Also noticed that AZ now issues non-res permits and is good in WV and OH.
See: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=46161

[apostate]

So will Utah

However, Utah now requires Texas residents to have a Texas CHL first (as of May this year.)

[Shinesintx]

So will Utah

However, Utah now requires Texas residents to have a Texas CHL first (as of May this year.)

I wish I knew why Utah did this.

[apostate]

I wish I knew why Utah did this.

Based on comments Valentine made, it was a response to The Nevada Problem.
(or preventing The Texas Problem if you prefer to look at it that way )

Pennsylvania and Washington (State) issue non-resident licenses but require an applicant to go to that state, much like Texas requires applicants to come to Texas for the class.

If you want to carry in WV, it looks like AZ is the most economical @ $60. Florida costs twice as much.

[Jumping Frog]

AZ is the cheapest for the first fifteen years, but then Utah edges them out. Utah only has a $15 charge for renewals but that is offset by the need to pay for Utah-specific training.

[Charles L. Cotton]

So will Utah

However, Utah now requires Texas residents to have a Texas CHL first (as of May this year.)

I wish I knew why Utah did this.

They lost reciprocity with New Mexico, a neighboring state, as well as at least one more state. Changing their law was an attempt to regain reciprocity with those states, as their requirement to have a home state license applies only if that state has reciprocity with Utah. The bottom line is Utah residents were losing the ability to carry in other states because of the irresponsible advertising by certain Utah instructors in other states, including Texas. It's not the existence of the Utah license that was a problem. It was the way it was advertised; i.e. as way to circumvent the requirements for obtaining a license in your home state, whether Texas, New Mexico, or elsewhere.

Chas.

[phrogg]

Reiterating that AZ appears to be the best solution to add a few more states. They do not have a resident vs non-resident permit, they only have one. But they accept non-residents for permitting if you have another license and show proof of training from other states. TX CHL is one of those that they accept. They also accept some NRA and LEO certifications as well.

My packet is in the mail. My intent was just to gain NV but I also get WV and Ohio. Utah does also give you WA though...

The whole reason that NV came up was that I had a meeting to go to in LV. So while I was there I was going to get my NV, OH, and FL permits because they have a couple folks with combined classes. But that trip got cancelled. So I'll get the AZ and FL permits and that will give me the same thing without having to go through another class. Though I actually enjoy the classes . I'll still study the info myself...have the legal stuff from Utah pulled up today as I read through their class and learn what would be taught anyway. But I'm not just an IT geek, I am a legal geek...I enjoy reading and studying law. I'm sure that is considered a disease by many cultures.

[Ameer]

Reiterating that AZ appears to be the best solution to add a few more states. They do not have a resident vs non-resident permit, they only have one. But they accept non-residents for permitting if you have another license and show proof of training from other states. TX CHL is one of those that they accept. They also accept some NRA and LEO certifications as well.

It looks like they accept hunter safety class and some other training if you don't have a CHL from other states.

[The Annoyed Man]

So will Utah

However, Utah now requires Texas residents to have a Texas CHL first (as of May this year.)

It's not just for Texas. Utah requires all non-resident permit holders to have a permit from their state of residence.

Edited to add: Charles, I didn't know this applied only to those states which have reciprocity with Utah. So if I understand it correctly, what you're saying is that if your state does NOT have reciprocity with Utah, then you can obtain a non-resident Utah permit without first having one from your state of residence? Or am I getting this all twisted up in my head?

[Crossfire]

TAM, you are correct. If your home state does NOT have reciprocity with Utah, then you do not have to obtain that license first before getting a Utah permit.

[The Annoyed Man]

Thank you.

[PracticalTactical]

Yup, Utah had to watch out for their own residents (read: voters) ahead of the interests of non-residents.

With reciprocity lost in several states, and several more states that were considering dropping them, they had to do what they had to do. It's nice that they only required a home state permit in states with reciprocity. The requirement was narrowly-tailored to fix the problem at hand and not do any more harm than necessary.

Personally, if you live in TX, I'd say get a TX CHL. Sure, it's legal to get another state's permit or CHL, but I've seen first hand some of the hassles you can get in when a police officer doesn't know carrying on another state's permit is legal for TX residents. Same for New Mexico. DPS doesn't have a legal leg to stand on to require NM residents to get a NM CHL, but they interpret the law creatively to make hassles for those who do otherwise.

Saving $100-200 can start getting pretty expensive if you get yourself arrested, even if the charges are dropped.

[tanker1983]

Texas Resident CHL. Forida non-resident and Arizona non-resident. I am covered in all of the states I evr want to go to.