Bill to eliminate Texas reciprocity

[Charles L. Cotton]

In all reality, whether you agree with this bill or not, the only people to blame are those blatantly advertising the benefits of exploiting the current loophole. Weekly I hear, read or see some sort of advertisement to induce people into getting a Utah non-resident CHL as opposed to to a Texas CHL.

You are exactly right. We had to oppose this bill in 2011 and now in 2013 because of irresponsible advertising.

Chas.

[nightmare69]

Even though it may be a loophole you cannot blame people who don't want to pay the huge fees, take a full day of class, qualify, wait for months to get a Texas CHL. Some states you walk into DPS get a picture, fingerprints, and a quick background check and walk out with a permit.

[JP171]

I know a lot of people disagree with this law as it is really an infringement, however I believe it is proper in its intent. My opinion on this is that if you live in Texas you should be licensed in Texas. Yes the cost is substantial, and even onerous but the fact is that reciprocity is for accepting the provisions of the other states resident's license not to circumvent the requirements of a Texas resident license. I agree with the sponsor of the bill that some Texans are in fact using the ambiguity of the law to circumvent the reasonable requirement of Texans to be licensed in Texas. In the world of Emergency Medical Services, Air conditioning and Electricians you have the ability to use the reciprocity clause to obtain a Texas License, not to ignore the requirement to obtain a Texas License. The reality is that all EMT's A/C contractors and Electricians cannot perform the duties attendant to the pertinent Job description unless you have a Texas License period, there is no grace period, no allowance for you to practice under your license from another state, there is however a description of the punishment for violation of the requirement. So all of you that justify the act of ignoring, disregarding and outright flaunting of the law, you should be ashamed for using the 6 year old excuse of well its not a big deal and everyone else does it so I can too or in the 6 YO vernacular, "but Johnny does it"

[Skiprr]

I know a lot of people disagree with this law as it is really an infringement, however I believe it is proper in its intent.

I am among those who disagree.

The substantial flaw in your argument is that EMTs, A/C contractors, and Electricians are licensed at the pleasure of a particular state; their specific activities are not protected by the Constitution of the United States of America.

But you knew that was coming, so let's get beyond it and go pragmatic.

If SB 481 passes, let's consider a scenario. You live and work in Florida, but are transferred to an office in Dallas. You buy a new home in Dallas. As of that purchase the new home becomes your established domicile in Texas (and I hate that the bill points to the Transportation Code for definition of that term). Moving into a new home in a new state and starting a new job involves scores of details and complications and hassles and headaches.

Do you want this upstanding Florida concealed handgun licensee to lose all his rights as soon as he moves to Texas? With everything else he has to deal with to have to schedule and take a Texas CHL class, apply online, go to a whatever-they're-called-now fingerprint location, and wait 60 days before he can legally carry again?

Frankly, not very business friendly, and Texas is one of the most business-friendly states in the country. We need to keep it that way.

How would you feel if the scenario were reversed and you faced the same penalty if you had to move to another state? To be stripped of your concealed carry license until you could obtain one from your new state?

Texas--in particular Gov. Perry--has worked with other states to engender concealed-carry reciprocity. This is a give-and-take proposition. Legislative changes can significantly endanger the reciprocity work already done.

I've had a Texas CHL for many years, and I also have a Utah license that staggers my renewal date for my TXCHL...just in case.

[Fingerman]

The flaw with the above argument is that the person chooses to move to Texas for his job. With that decision comes all of the hassles and inconveniences that is his responsibility to consider with this choice. I work with physicians and when a practice recruits a physician from out of state we have to get them Texas Malpractice insurance, Texas Medical license and Texas DPS registered before they can start work. This process takes months to complete. Does that seem very business friendly considering our current doctor shortage that will be getting worse with Obeymecare?

As previously stated, I fundamentally disagree with needing permission to practice my 2a right but in regards to requiring a Texas RESIDENT to obtain a Texas CHL if he CHOOSES to carry, then I have no issue.

[paperchunker]

Arkansas just passed a law requiring recognition of any valid permit and eliminated conditional reciprocity. Should Texas go the other way ?

"Act 1089 establishes that Arkansas must recognize any valid Right-to-Carry permit issued by another state and replaces the current conditional reciprocity standard."

[TexasGal]

My only concern is anyone carrying in Texas that has not had a primer on Texas laws. If you end up on the news here making a bad shoot, it reflects on Texas and the CHL program HERE on the news, not the state you are licensed under. Perhaps an out of state license holder should be required to at least attend a Texas CHL class. Take it easy on the flaming.

Since Texas has reciprocity with 35 other states should we have to take a class over their state laws if we want to carry in their state? Its up to the person to educate their self on the laws before carrying, it should not be mandatory to take a class.

That was not my intent to infer anyone passing through Texas or visiting a friend here should have to take a law class or vice versa. My intent was to point out if this state is your residence so that you carry here regularly, then it is reasonable for you to know the laws. Otherwise, as others have said, you are just doing an endrun around the intent our state has for how it wants CHL's educated.

[tacticool]

In all reality, whether you agree with this bill or not, the only people to blame are those blatantly advertising the benefits of exploiting the current loophole. Weekly I hear, read or see some sort of advertisement to induce people into getting a Utah non-resident CHL as opposed to to a Texas CHL.

You are exactly right. We had to oppose this bill in 2011 and now in 2013 because of irresponsible advertising.

Chas.

Really? So why is the NRA sabotaging us by running an ad for an online CHL class taught by a "Former CIA Officer" in the latest American Rifleman?

[Charles L. Cotton]

In all reality, whether you agree with this bill or not, the only people to blame are those blatantly advertising the benefits of exploiting the current loophole. Weekly I hear, read or see some sort of advertisement to induce people into getting a Utah non-resident CHL as opposed to to a Texas CHL.

You are exactly right. We had to oppose this bill in 2011 and now in 2013 because of irresponsible advertising.

Chas.

Really? So why is the NRA sabotaging us by running an ad for an online CHL class taught by a "Former CIA Officer" in the latest American Rifleman?

Yes, really. The NRA doesn't create any of the ads for other companies advertising. Show me where the NRA has advertised "Don't pay your taxes, don't pay your child support, have a felony deferred adjudication -- NO PROBLEM!" That's the crap that started prior to last session and it is well remembered in Austin.

Chas.

[AKC322]

I think it would be one thing if a non-resident permit holder had a period of time after establishing domicile in Texas to take the course so that they are familiar with Texas law. But this bill makes a non-resident permit holder start over again. I suggested a compromise to my state senator: 90 days to take the course, then turn in the out-of-state license and proof of passing the course in exchange for a new Texas CHL. That would make it closer to the driver's license scenario.

[Panda]

Someone with a valid drivers license from another state can walk into a Texas DPS office and walk out with a temporary Texas license, with the plastic mailed within a few weeks, all for much less than $50 out of pocket.

Unless this bill provides an equally easy and inexpensive path to a Texas CHL for someone licensed in another state, the people using a driver license as an example are being disingenuous at best.

[JP171]

I know a lot of people disagree with this law as it is really an infringement, however I believe it is proper in its intent.

I am among those who disagree.

The substantial flaw in your argument is that EMTs, A/C contractors, and Electricians are licensed at the pleasure of a particular state; their specific activities are not protected by the Constitution of the United States of America.

as of this point the USSC has not agreed with the bold part of this, the court has agreed that we have a right to keep and bear arms but not concealed, so this doesn't wash. I don't actually agree with this mind set but it is as so many say the law of the land as it pertains to CHL

But you knew that was coming, so let's get beyond it and go pragmatic.

yes I knew it was coming and even expected it, but its ok

If SB 481 passes, let's consider a scenario. You live and work in Florida, but are transferred to an office in Dallas. You buy a new home in Dallas. As of that purchase the new home becomes your established domicile in Texas (and I hate that the bill points to the Transportation Code for definition of that term). Moving into a new home in a new state and starting a new job involves scores of details and complications and hassles and headaches.

Actually just owning a home in a state does not make you a resident of that state or country, if you abandon your previous residence then you are a resident of the state in which you now reside, but not a citizen of another country. the hassles and headaches would be there no matter the CHL, so again doesn't wash, try moving to another country where there is no CHL, you made the choice live with it or don't move

if you maintain your permanent residence in Florida this law has no effect upon your license, if you sell your home in FL. and become a TX. Resident/citizen the be upstanding and not do an end run around the law that is codified by the USSC.

Do you want this upstanding Florida concealed handgun licensee to lose all his rights as soon as he moves to Texas? With everything else he has to deal with to have to schedule and take a Texas CHL class, apply online, go to a whatever-they're-called-now fingerprint location, and wait 60 days before he can legally carry again?

he doesn't loose his rights as I said before there is no right to carry a concealed weapon as defined by the USSC, and yes I do want him/her to be required to take a Texas CHL class to learn TEXAS law. I don't think that the intent of the law is to remove the ability to carry the weapon, but to require the person to be licensed in Texas and understand Texas law and convert the now out of state license to a non resident and no longer legal in Texas

Frankly, not very business friendly, and Texas is one of the most business-friendly states in the country. We need to keep it that way.

this law has no effect on the business environment here, business does not require a CHL nor does it specifically preclude having a CHL

[How would you feel if the scenario were reversed and you faced the same penalty if you had to move to another state? To be stripped of your concealed carry license until you could obtain one from your new state?

I would expect that I would have to comply with the laws of the state I was a resident in, be it Texas or not. Not be civilly disobedient because I believed that the constitution had a guarantee in it to carry concealed that it doesn't have, I would feel also that I should be proactive and have the law changed to give a person reasonable time to get a license in the state after moving here before removing the ability to carry

[Texas--in particular Gov. Perry--has worked with other states to engender concealed-carry reciprocity. This is a give-and-take proposition. Legislative changes can significantly endanger the reciprocity work already done.

.

Reciprocity does not mean to continue to use an out of state license, it merely means as you visit a state you may continue to exercise the privilege a carrying your concealed handgun

[I've had a Texas CHL for many years, and I also have a Utah license that staggers my renewal date for my TXCHL...just in case.

glad you do have your Texas CHL, your Utah License should be invalid in Texas as you are a Texas resident, you should be allowed to keep the Utah license and use it anywhere that it is honored other than Texas, like umm Utah. As I understand it and Charles can correct me if I understand wrong, but that was the intent of Non Resident licenses to begin with. Being licensed in a state your not a resident in gives you the ability to continue to carry within that state if they do not have reciprocity with Texas

[OldGrumpy]

My only concern is anyone carrying in Texas that has not had a primer on Texas laws. If you end up on the news here making a bad shoot, it reflects on Texas and the CHL program HERE on the news, not the state you are licensed under. Perhaps an out of state license holder should be required to at least attend a Texas CHL class. Take it easy on the flaming.

Since Texas has reciprocity with 35 other states should we have to take a class over their state laws if we want to carry in their state? Its up to the person to educate their self on the laws before carrying, it should not be mandatory to take a class.

That was not my intent to infer anyone passing through Texas or visiting a friend here should have to take a law class or vice versa. My intent was to point out if this state is your residence so that you carry here regularly, then it is reasonable for you to know the laws. Otherwise, as others have said, you are just doing an endrun around the intent our state has for how it wants CHL's educated.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Actually just owning a home in a state does not make you a resident of that state or country, if you abandon your previous residence then you are a resident of the state in which you now reside, but not a citizen of another country. the hassles and headaches would be there no matter the CHL, so again doesn't wash, try moving to another country where there is no CHL, you made the choice live with it or don't move

if you maintain your permanent residence in Florida this law has no effect upon your license, if you sell your home in FL. and become a TX. Resident/citizen the be upstanding and not do an end run around the law that is codified by the USSC.

You refer to being a "resident," but that is not the operative language in either HB481 or Lon Burnam's HB383. Both Bills apply to a Texas domiciliary and that is far different from a mere resident. Tex. Trans. Code §522.003(10) reads "'Domicile' means the place where a person has the person's true, fixed, and permanent home and principal residence and to which the person intends to return whenever absent." Unlike your example, one could be absent from Texas for many years, yet still be a domiciliary of Texas. Lawyers have a saying to help people understand the difference between a "resident" and a "domiciliary." "Your residence is where your butt is, and your domicile is where your heart is." Your intent controls when dealing with your domicile.

Here are just a few people negatively impacted by these bills: Texas military personnel stationed in other states, students living out of state for years, construction workers and others whose employment require them to live in other states for extended periods of time. If these people live in a state that requires them to get that state's license (either as a requirement or due to a lack of reciprocity with Texas), then these bills would require them to get two licenses -- Texas and the other state. If these people cannot get back to Texas to take the renewal class, then they simply cannot get or renew a Texas CHL.

So neither HB383 nor SB481 solve a problem, but they certainly would create problems for thousands of Texans.

Also, as already noted, this bill is a "fix" desperately seeking a problem when there is none. There is no rash of armed visitors from Utah, Florida, or any other state committing crimes in Texas. The Texas Constitution (Art. I, Sec. 23) grants the Legislature the power to regulate the wearing of arms, but only with an eye toward crime prevention. SB481/HB383 have nothing to do with crime prevention. The authors never mentioned crime prevention as a motive when they were laying out their respective bills. They didn't even claim to be solving a problem. Rather, they just said "it makes sense." Now that sounds familiar!

Chas.

[EEllis]

The authors never mentioned crime prevention as a motive when they were laying out their respective bills. They didn't even claim to be solving a problem. Rather, they just said "it makes sense." Now that sounds familiar!

Chas.

I have to say I was leaning to the other side a bit but I think this has me going the other way now. I mean if you are a resident of Texas you should have a Texas CHL and to get one from another state to get around that, well, it just strikes me as wrong. But I haven't heard of this being a real issue and why make more laws than we need? If it's a revenue issue then say so and break it down for us, if not then explain the benefit to us. Right now it does sound like solving a problem that isn't there.