Utah Problem - SOLVED

[Crossfire]

Utah has a different set of regs regarding charges and conviction, if I'm not mistaken. They don't care if you have charges pending. They only care if you've been convicted of those charges. (Crossfire, please correct me if I'm wrong about this.) Texas, on the other hand is interested in whether or not you have been charged with a crime, even if a conviction has not yet followed the charge. This doesn't matter if you have an old arrest and it has been disposed in your favor. It very much DOES matter if you were arrested yesterday for spousal abuse, but you haven't been convicted yet. Texas wants to know what the disposition is, and you don't have a disposition if you're still waiting to find out if you've been convicted or not.

I'm sure there are other reasons, but you'll have to do your own research.

It is a common misconception that Utah just goes around handing out CFP's to everyone who applies. That is not the case.
Any pending criminal charge in any jurisdiction will stop them from issuing a license. However, they will not suspend a license, as Texas does, based on pending charges. They will revoke the license if there is a conviction for a disqualifying event.

Utah does not consider sucessful completion of probation or deferred adjudication to be a conviction, as Texas does.

Utah is tougher, though, on certain offenses. A DWI in Texas will disqualify you for 5 years. In Utah it is 6 years. And a past pattern of convictions can make you ineligible forever. As can a sexual offense against a minor, or being a registerable sex offender. FOREVER

It is true that Utah does not care if you owe money to the state of Texas for student loans, state taxes, or child support. (Texas has since dropped the student loan requirement) The Utah CFP has been, in the past, a good alternative for college students and others who were cash strapped, since the application fee was only $65.25, with a $10 renewal. Some Utah instructors, though, have done their best to even that out by charging outrageous fees for the initial class. (I have seen up to a $300 fee for a 4 hour Utah class!)

It is very sad that it has come to this. Personally, I think it is an outrage that we have to pay ANY fee to the state to exercise a right guaranteed by the United States Constitution. But, if we do, it should be only what is required to process a background check, and manufacture the license. I seriously doubt that it costs $140 to do that.

We became Utah instructors while we were putting 3 kids through college at the same time. We could barely keep those kids in housing, books, tuition, and transportation. Each of them worked while going to school, and there was no way any of them could have afforded the $140 license fee at that time. And we certainly did not meet the "poverty" requirement to get the discounted Texas CHL, even though we were living paycheck to tuition payment, eating rice and beans, and driving 10 year old beater mobiles. And most of their friends were in the same situation.

I didn't think that was a good enough reason to deny a responsible person the right of self defense then, and I don't think it is now, either.

[trueno]

Both options are in the IRS Code, so that's not a loophole. You're going to have to try harder to make yet another snide comment. It will probably be your last, by the way.

Chas.

The so-called "loophole in the Texas CHL law" is also an option, at least for now, it's comparable to the "gunshow loophole" so often parroted by anti-2nd types - ie: private sales without NICS.

t

[baldeagle]

Both options are in the IRS Code, so that's not a loophole. You're going to have to try harder to make yet another snide comment. It will probably be your last, by the way.

Chas.

The so-called "loophole in the Texas CHL law" is also an option, at least for now, it's comparable to the "gunshow loophole" so often parroted by anti-2nd types - ie: private sales without NICS.

t

The so-called "gun show loophole" isn't a loophole. The law is specifically written to exempt individuals from compliance with the rules and strictures placed upon FFLs. So the loophole in the Texas CHL law is not comparable to the so-called gun show loophole. The former is codified in the law. The latter is absent from the law. Texas law is completely silent regarding Texas residents obtaining a non-resident license from another state and then using that license to avoid obtaining a Texas CHL. But if people keep pushing the point, the legislature will almost certainly close that loophole by requiring that Texas residents obtain a Texas CHL to carry in Texas.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Both options are in the IRS Code, so that's not a loophole. You're going to have to try harder to make yet another snide comment. It will probably be your last, by the way.

Chas.

The so-called "loophole in the Texas CHL law" is also an option, at least for now, it's comparable to the "gunshow loophole" so often parroted by anti-2nd types - ie: private sales without NICS.
t

You need to reread the post to which I was responding, as well as the definition of "loophole" I quoted. Every "loophole" is an option but not every option is a loophole. The U.S. Congress intended to offer alternative tax deductions so that is not a loophole. Texas residents carrying on other state licenses was never intended when the legislature set up our reciprocity provisions. Thus, Texans carrying on another state's license meets the definition of a loophole.

As I've said many many times, I don't want to see HB356 pass, nor do I want Texas law changed in this respect.

Chas.

[Heritage1]

I go to pretty much every gun show in the Dallas area, always looking for that elusive piece I can’t live without. I've stopped and talked to the Utah and the Florida instructors a couple of times. Every time I have they get an attitude to the point of belligerent and aggressive when I ask about a couple things that have concerned me with the out of state licenses. Now keep in mind that I do not have an out of state license, only a Texas CHL so I don’t know what is taught in the class and what is not. My questions are typically the following:

1.) Doesn’t it bother you that you're giving a license to carry to someone that you don’t even know that they can shoot?
1.a.) In that respect how does the Utah class cover the third person liability laws and civil liability here in Texas?
2.) I'm a Dad that pays child support, don’t you think it’s unfair to neglected kids that someone behind on child support can pay for a gun and out of state CHL but not pay their child support?
2.a.) Same scenario as #2 but in regards to their taxes.

Usually by this point they've started being rude and I give up. I know there are several instructors from other states here on the board and I would genuinely like to know your input on those items.

I personally believe that it should be similar to a driver’s license or car registration. You live here, if you want to carry here you need a CHL from here. You don’t get to drive around on a license or tag from another state, well you can until you get caught.

Having a license from another state after getting your home state one is great to be able to carry in more states, no problem with that. But, it shouldn't be an option to avoid responsibilities and the legal system in the home state.

[Obi-Juan]

I go to pretty much every gun show in the Dallas area, always looking for that elusive piece I can’t live without. I've stopped and talked to the Utah and the Florida instructors a couple of times. Every time I have they get an attitude

Looking at your questions, I think it's your own attitude being reflected back at you.

[jmra]

I go to pretty much every gun show in the Dallas area, always looking for that elusive piece I can’t live without. I've stopped and talked to the Utah and the Florida instructors a couple of times. Every time I have they get an attitude

Looking at your questions, I think it's your own attitude being reflected back at you.

[seamusTX]

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

- Jim

[Obi-Juan]

They have the right to refuse service to customers with a bad attitude.

[seamusTX]

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

[The Annoyed Man]

They have the right to refuse service to customers with a bad attitude.

Because the respondent asked a Utah CFP instructor if those (perfectly valid) questions ever bothered them, that's a bad attitude? Talk about attitude. The CFP instructor could have politely answered, "No, and here's why...." Instead, he got churlish. I question why.

Sometimes, hard questions make people squirm. If they answer the question honestly, maybe they'll satisfy the asker. If they answer it with rudeness without really addressing the question, my automatic response is to wonder if the vendor has a legitimate answer. The vendor had set up shop in a public venue, offering a product which (at this moment in time) happens to be a touch controversial. If he thinks that nobody is going to question him, he's actually being unrealistic.

I once asked the guy from KC Precision ammo (a commercial maker of custom ammo) at the Ft Worth show if he carried product liability insurance. He wasn't offended, and my question wasn't intended to offend. He answered the question, and I was satisfied. If he had chewed me out instead answering the question, I would have naturally assumed that he had no product liability insurance—a bad thing for a commercial ammo maker.

So when the vendor in question here responded the way he did, my natural assumption would be that he's ticked off because he knows he can't really give a good answer, so he took it out on the asker instead of manning up and dealing with the questions. If you want to sell your wares at a public event, it is unrealistic to expect not to be questioned about your products. If that's your expectation, you've got some maturing to do.

[ELB]

Yes, vendors, retailers, shopkeepers certainly have a right to tell a customer to get bent if they wish, especially when it is obvious the "customer" is not really there to buy but to morally harangue and waste the vendor's time with pejoratively phrased questions. (Especially if the "moral" position is off-base). The customer is certainly free to take his business elsewhere.

The root cause of the problem is not Utah or Utah CFP instructors, the root cause is Texas, in particular the legislature, who a) requires a license for a right that is supposed to be protected by the 2nd Amendment, and b) charges an exorbitant fee and sets onerous requirements unrelated to the that right to get it.

The CHL is only tolerable as a significant stepping stone from the total ban lunacy to protecting the right of self-defense as it should be done (i.e. without state permission being required). One of the "flagship" bills for the next legislature (since it is too late for this one) should at least be to ratchet down the fees, and deal with the requirement problems. I doubt we'll be quite ready to eliminate it altogether yet.

[The Mad Moderate]

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" Why does a CHL not fall into that category.

[Katygunnut]

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" Why does a CHL not fall into that category.

I am far from an expert on this, but I do know that professional licenses are state specific. Lawyers and CPA's are licensed to practice in specific states, and the rights conveyed by these licenses are not automatically valid in other states.

[seamusTX]

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