The "Utah Problem" is back in uglier clothing

[RoyGBiv]

Here is a slightly different angle on this issue...

I moved to TX from NC about 8 years ago. I had a NC CCW and at the time there was no reciprocity between NC and TX. Just prior to moving to TX I applied for and received a FL non-resident CHL, which was valid in both NC (where I planned to travel frequently) and TX. One license, covered most of my requirements. I eventually got a TX license last year, primarily because I started traveling frequently to Colorado, which does not recognize any non-resident CHL.

Had there been nationwide reciprocity at the time I moved to TX, I would have gladly applied for a TX license and skipped FL altogether.

What's my point?
Just like drivers licenses, I don't have any serious concerns with having to obtain a CHL from my state of residence. I don't like the expense. I'd prefer not to need a license at all. But in today's reality, I understand the "why's".

If we had nationwide reciprocity, and I only had to maintain one CHL that was valid everywhere in the country, a requirement to obtain a resident CHL when I moved from one state to another would be much more tolerable. Fix the reciprocity problem and adding a "CHL must match DL" requirement becomes less problematic and less expensive.

[PracticalTactical]

I'm going to avoid the philosophical discussion and be completely practical and pragmatic.

If we find ourselves stuck with the bill, some ways the TX CHL requirement bill could be improved by amendment:
-A grace period for new residents (90 days?) to take a Texas CHL course and their out-of-state permit is good past the 90 day mark provided they have a copy of the CHL-100. This way, even if DPS takes forever to issue a permit, they are good in the mean time. Use the issue date of the Texas DL as the start of the 90 day period.
-Military personnel can carry on an out-of-state permit with a military ID (they don't get revenue from active military anyway).
-Out-of-state permits are good with proof of part-time residency in the other state (utility bill, ID card, etc)
-Out-of-state permits are good if your Texas CHL is lost or stolen, and good if your TX permit lapses due to processing time.
-Allow people to carry on non-resident permits if they buy a tax stamp from a local retailer (a lot of people carry on out-of-state permits because they don't want to be on 'the list', but they'd buy something anonymously if they could to be able to carry) This would shut the revenue argument up.
-Allow the above, but the person has to present a CHL-100 to the retailer who sells the tax stamp (only offer this if after alleviating the revenue argument, they whine about training).

Other things that can be offered in lieu of a TX resident TX CHL requirement to appease the legislature (some of these could go good along with the requirement if they pass it):
-Open up more places to licensed carry, but only allow residents to carry in the new places if they get a Texas CHL (and allow non-residents to carry in those places too, to prevent reciprocity problems).
-Create other "exclusive" benefits to Texas CHL holders like a magazine, members only web site, police firearms training and discounts on other state fees like admission to parks, etc. Make it so that somebody would have to be financially stupid to not get the TX CHL.
-Offer a discount on the CHL fees if the person has a CHL from another state
-Offer a shorter class to people with a CHL from another state along with the reduced fee, or only make them take a renewal class.
-Only allow residents to carry on another state's permit if the state meets certain training requirements

[apostate]

The same argument could be made about driver's licenses, yet Texas will recognize other states' licenses only until the person becomes a Texas resident. Then their out-of-state driver's license won't be recognized in Texas. That's a powerful argument for our opponents.

I'm cool with that, as long as a new resident can walk into a DPS office with their valid out-of-state CHL, pay $25, walk out with a valid temporary Texas CHL, and their permanent Texas CHL will come in the mail in a week or two.

If our opponents are going to draw that parallel, let's run with it!

[drjoker]

I understand the problem and would never take nor teach an out of state chl course in lieu of the Texas one. However, the chl fee is another form of taxation and governments should learn to be more cost effective with our tax dollars. Private businesses have to compete for you dollars, why not governments? Why should we accept high taxes and bloated budgets? It is this acceptance of government largesse that has caused our economy to crumble under a mountain of national debt.

[bayouhazard]

In my experience, you have to define the problem to come up with a good solution. It looks like the nonresident licensees aren't the actual problem. The real problem is some people getting thier bradies in a bunch because others are following the letter of the law in a way that doesn't fit the first group's whims.

A legislative solution to this Texas Problem can then be designed to pamper fragile egos and satisfy small minded people. Maybe the solution is to vote against legislators who aren't pro gun.

[seconds]

I too would like to see fees reduced. I dislike what seems to be a diluting of the course and who knows who is actually sitting behind the computer "taking the class". For me, face to face classes help me to help folks do the right thing, answer question about Texas laws (that's really why you are getting the license, though reciprocity is nice) and how things work HERE. Online courses have a place IMHO, but the CHL is not one of them. Feel free to disagree. The Utah license and now the VA non-resident permit do not address Texas isues, other than likely taking 30 seconds to say "when in Texas, know and follow their laws - here is a link." Yeah, that's just great. And I am not slamming any out of state carriers in Texas. I am saying that the Texas CHL has certain requirements and at least some thought was given to why we do it this way.

Here is another observation I feel should be stated, and if I get some blowback on this, so be it. The image this company that Charles has brought to our attention uses stupid Hollywood to make the sale: notice the gun on their webpage http://onlinegunclass.com/. Don't get me wrong, but why does Hollywood, and this VA company use a Desert Eagle to sell? Because its cool, perhaps? And I will admit, I cannot really tell if it is a .50 AE or a .357 mag.

But does that matter? The caliber? The DE is a really nice piece and if I had lotsa money, I might actually want one - the one opportunity I had to shoot one was enjoyable - just a bit of a .50 AE kick. As it stands and I budget minded, no. And honestly, a .50 AE is IMHO way too much for a concealed carry gun. The "blow right through your target" issues are very high, not to mention what a pain to conceal it. Some states will not even allow the carry of a pistol that big. Example is Oklahoma http://www.ok.gov/osbi/documents/SDA_La ... V_2010.pdf - see page 14 - max carry caliber is .45.

Responsible companies should not glamorize CHL and resort to Hollywood sales tactics. Rather, we should speak softly, and carry a big stick. But not that big.

But hey, maybe we need a poll created - if you had your choice of pistol, would it be a .50 AE DE?

Hopefully did not ruffle any feathers too much.

seconds

[Jumping Frog]

An alternate solution I'd love to see to the "Utah" problem would be "Constitutional Carry".

Any citizen who is allowed to possess firearms could legally should be allowed to carry anything, openly or concealed, without require a license or a tax from the state.

Not saying that will pass anytime soon, but I can always have hope for the future. After all, I still believe in "shall not be infringed".

[johnson0317]

My first thought was that "constitutional carry" would make for a much more polite society. My second thought was that, with a lot of open carry, the thugs would have an easier time choosing who to knock down and steal a gun from.

[tommyg]

I have seen advertisements for out of state permits from
Florida, Virginia Utah and a couple of other states. While the permits
are recognized by Texas. They don't give you the school zone exemption.
You don't get the Brady Check By pass. It may not be good in as many places.
The training requirements are often below Texas standards. I know that some
of you will dis-agree with me but I think training is critical and training for an
out of state permit will not make you familiar with Texas laws and customs.
They also make a poor impression on the police if you are stopped.
Go with out of state nonresident license is asking for trouble.

[tacticool]

They also make a poor impression on the police if you are stopped.
Go with out of state nonresident license is asking for trouble.

Can you back that up with some court cases where someone had trouble because they had an out of state license?

If not, how about news articles or first person accounts posted in gun forums. (Posted before today. )

Because there have been posts by people who had zero problems with an out of state CHL during traffic stops.

[wharvey]

My first thought was that "constitutional carry" would make for a much more polite society. My second thought was that, with a lot of open carry, the thugs would have an easier time choosing who to knock down and steal a gun from.

Your second thought sounds an awful lot like the same argument the anti's use for a reason that people shouldn't try to use a gun for self defense. You know, the one where they say that your gun will more likely be used on you because the bad guy will take it away.

As to those that are so wrapped up in not knowing Texas law, while there are variances I think you will find that over all the laws are pretty much the same regardless of the state you are in. Some places you can't carry in restaurants that sell liquor, some you can. A few places you can carry in a bar, most you can't. Some places you can't carry in a bank, some places you can. But over all they really aren't much different. The laws for using lethal force are very much the same in shall issue states. It is to your advantage to know the exact laws of the state you are carrying in but is it necessarily unsafe to not?

Over the years I have carried a fair amount in 4 states, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, and now Texas. Texas carriers are the only ones that can routinely ignore no guns signs. Our sign must meet certain requirements. If I was just visiting and didn't know better I'd never try to carry past a gun buster sign, which we can of course ignore. Same with no firearms permitted signs.

There are also differences in driving laws, but they are minor and not knowing them all doesn't necessarily make you an unsafe driver. I didn't even have to show that I knew the laws when I turned in my Indiana license and got a Texas DL.

For example, can you pass another vehicle when there is a solid yellow line in your lane? Of course not, but are you sure? I don't know if it is still the same but not that long ago it was legal in Vermont. The yellow line, without a sign saying no passing, was just a suggestion. Would not knowing that really make you an unsafe driver in Vermont? Of course not because you'll see the line and not pass, even though you could legally do so.

One should have a license from the state they live but it really isn't the end of the world if they don't. And as someone mentioned, the second amendment makes no mention of "with training". Can you be sure the requirement will be reasonable? An anti gun government could say that you had to be able to run the action pistol plates in 5 seconds at 10 yds to qualify for a license. Most of us can probably do that, but what if they make it 3 seconds? Or 2? Study history and you will find cases where that type of stuff was done when qualifying to vote.

I'll add something that I'm sure will be disagreed with. Why a training requirement at all? There are states that have no training requirement. Pay your fee, pass the background, and your license is mailed to you. Indiana is like that and there were no stories of blood running in the streets due to untrained people carrying guns. Should you get training, most certainly, but requiring it? I have serious doubts because states that do not have training requirements seem to have no more problems then states that do.

[Jumping Frog]

I'll add something that I'm sure will be disagreed with. Why a training requirement at all? There are states that have no training requirement. Pay your fee, pass the background, and your license is mailed to you. Indiana is like that and there were no stories of blood running in the streets due to untrained people carrying guns. Should you get training, most certainly, but requiring it?. . .

I agree with your post.

As far as training is concerned, I view it as just one more example of the difference between accepting personal responsibility versus expecting the nanny-state to do everything.

I'll agree with anyone who says carrying a firearm is a large responsibility, and that a prudent person should make sure they train themselves in gun safety, gun handling, gun laws, etc.

However, the state requiring the training? No thanks.

For those people who say, "well if the person doesn't take any training then they might . . . (complete the sentence with any action)". Yeah, that's true. But in a culture where people still accepted responsibility for their own actions, they are also aware that actions have consequences. Sometimes good, sometimes bad.

If a person didn't get training and thus didn't know that you have to chamber a round with a semi-auto pistol, then they are carrying around a small club and might get killed. Oh well, actions have consequences.

[johnson0317]

My first thought was that "constitutional carry" would make for a much more polite society. My second thought was that, with a lot of open carry, the thugs would have an easier time choosing who to knock down and steal a gun from.

Your second thought sounds an awful lot like the same argument the anti's use for a reason that people shouldn't try to use a gun for self defense. You know, the one where they say that your gun will more likely be used on you because the bad guy will take it away.

Actually, it is common sense passed along by the pro-gun community, including people like Ayoob and Bird. It makes sense that the BG is going to first go for those people who pose an obvious threat, and that would includes LEOs and anyone openly carrying. It is also advisable to not wear the obvious NRA attire, fanny packs, photog jackets, and so on. On the other hand, he might get my open open carry weapon, but he will only get part of my concealed carry one...the subsonic part.

RJ

[fickman]

With respect, in my opinion, these people are law-abiding and doing nothing wrong. That they found a loophole large enough to drive a train through isn't their fault, it's the legislature's. Their impetus in finding a creative solution also comes from the legislature - this isn't the "Utah problem", the "Florida problem", or the "Virginia problem". . . it's the "TEXAS PROBLEM"!

Their actions will certainly have a negative impact on the rest of us, but I choose not to blame them for the repercussions. Let's aim our venom at the ones responsible for the root cause and spend our energy there.

The Texas CHL is too expensive. It's too restrictive. It's too bureaucratic. It's too slow.

The ONLY way to stop people from running these end-arounds is to either fix the root cause or close the loophole. Austin is responsible for creating the marketplace in which these people operate. I hope we can put pressure on people to fix the root causes.

I know Mr. Cotton disagrees with my opinion at least at a tactical level, so I'll respectfully leave it at that and honor his request not to send this thread spiraling into the philosophical debate.

*Edit to add: I am not a CHL instructor in any state. I do not have an out-of-state license, nor do I intend to get one. My wife got her Utah license when she renewed her Texas CHL because processing times for Texas were approaching 6 months at that time. She does not plan to rely on her Utah license for primary concealed carry authorization in Texas.

[Jumping Frog]

Actually, it is common sense passed along by the pro-gun community, including people like Ayoob and Bird. It makes sense that the BG is going to first go for those people who pose an obvious threat, and that would includes LEOs and anyone openly carrying. It is also advisable to not wear the obvious NRA attire, fanny packs, photog jackets, and so on. On the other hand, he might get my open open carry weapon, but he will only get part of my concealed carry one...the subsonic part.[/quote]
I am not going to get into an open carry versus concealed carry digression in this thread, so I ignored your first post on the topic. But since you've now asserted that twice, I'll simply say many reasonable people reach the opposite conclusion. Predators seeks the weakest prey. Over the years, I've read far, far more reports where open carry deterred the crime and only one report where the guy was targeted because he was open carrying. Neither approach is a guarantee against mayhem, since there are always probabilities involved. But I have assessed those odds in depth, as I chose to open carry for years before moving to Texas.