Bill to eliminate Texas reciprocity

[JustMe]

I actually like the idea--if you live in Texas-you need a Texas license. Just last weekend there was a guy teaching a non-resident Florida CCHL class---and his student shot someone---having talked to someone who was in the class, the shooting area was not safe(obviously)-the class was pathetic--they thought they were taking a TX CHL class until he pulled out the FL paperwork--and he TOLD them that their license would still be issued by Texas.

[jmra]

I actually like the idea--if you live in Texas-you need a Texas license. Just last weekend there was a guy teaching a non-resident Florida CCHL class---and his student shot someone---having talked to someone who was in the class, the shooting area was not safe(obviously)-the class was pathetic--they thought they were taking a TX CHL class until he pulled out the FL paperwork--and he TOLD them that their license would still be issued by Texas.

Buyer beware. Seems like they would have done a little research before taking the class.

[Natesac]

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.

This had never really occurred to me, I was kinda back and fourth on this one, now I'm leaning more against.

[Fingerman]

The intent of the bill is requiring those who have established domicile in Texas to obtain a Texas license if they choose to carry. If a student, worker or anyone else who is living in Texas temporarily for work or school they are not establishing residency here. As long as they continue to have a residence in their original state there is no problem.

All I'm reading here is how it may inconvienece a few people who aren't Texas residents. If you are a Texas resident please explain why it's so evil to obtain a Texas CHL.

As previously stated I'm not a fan of neededing a CHL to carry but I am a fan of my neighbor having to follow the same rules I do. Too follow the rules he must know the rules and the best way for him to know them in the instance is carrying the same license I do.

With that said, those who claim you can just turn in your out of state drivers license for a Texas license, you must still pass a test to show basic Texas motorist rules. Why should we not require the same for a CHL?

[stash]

I did not know that you had to take a test when you move to Texas and turn in your out of state DL for a Texas DL.

[OldGrumpy]

The intent of the bill is requiring those who have established domicile in Texas to obtain a Texas license if they choose to carry. If a student, worker or anyone else who is living in Texas temporarily for work or school they are not establishing residency here. As long as they continue to have a residence in their original state there is no problem.

All I'm reading here is how it may inconvienece a few people who aren't Texas residents. If you are a Texas resident please explain why it's so evil to obtain a Texas CHL.

As previously stated I'm not a fan of neededing a CHL to carry but I am a fan of my neighbor having to follow the same rules I do. Too follow the rules he must know the rules and the best way for him to know them in the instance is carrying the same license I do.

With that said, those who claim you can just turn in your out of state drivers license for a Texas license, you must still pass a test to show basic Texas motorist rules. Why should we not require the same for a CHL?

[AKC322]

I did not know that you had to take a test when you move to Texas and turn in your out of state DL for a Texas DL.

You don't. At least I didn't have to when I moved back 10 years ago.

Getting to the main point, though. According to Sen. Hinojosa's statement of intent filed with the bill, it is to ensure that non-Texas licensees demonstrate adequate firearms competency and training, since some states do not have the same requirements as Texas. That's fine as far as it goes, but the effect of the bill would be to invalidate any out-of-state license upon establishing domicile in Texas. Setting aside the question of what it means to establish "domicile," that means starting over from scratch. If Sen. Hinojosa's statement of intent is sincere, starting over from scratch is an unintended consequence of the bill and would strip otherwise lawful permit holders from carrying for months. I wrote my state senator with a proposed amendment to permit out-of-state licensees a period of time during which they could continue to carry on their out-of-state permits while they took the Texas course. Once the course was successfully completed, the out-of-state licensee would take the certificate of successful completion with the valid out-of-state permit to DPS and turn them in for a Texas CHL. I think this is a fair and reasonable compromise.

[jocat54]

The intent of the bill is requiring those who have established domicile in Texas to obtain a Texas license if they choose to carry. If a student, worker or anyone else who is living in Texas temporarily for work or school they are not establishing residency here. As long as they continue to have a residence in their original state there is no problem.

All I'm reading here is how it may inconvienece a few people who aren't Texas residents. If you are a Texas resident please explain why it's so evil to obtain a Texas CHL.

As previously stated I'm not a fan of neededing a CHL to carry but I am a fan of my neighbor having to follow the same rules I do. Too follow the rules he must know the rules and the best way for him to know them in the instance is carrying the same license I do.

With that said, those who claim you can just turn in your out of state drivers license for a Texas license, you must still pass a test to show basic Texas motorist rules. Why should we not require the same for a CHL?

I will tell you my reason.........I live out in the sticks and is very hard to get to a Texas class (closet was about 80 miles) and the cost only goes up when you have to pay for your time and gas to get there and then to be fingerprinted. So all in all my reason was cost and time. I understand some will not think this is a good reason...but it is what it is. Much easier if you live near a bigger city. Plus we run two small businesses and one is vacation rental cabins and weekends are our busy time and hard to get away when your the only one here.
I will keep my Florida license. Now I have taken a Texas class (thanks to instructor giving class in our little town) and all paper work submitted...just waiting now

[Skiprr]

The intent of the bill is requiring those who have established domicile in Texas to obtain a Texas license if they choose to carry. If a student, worker or anyone else who is living in Texas temporarily for work or school they are not establishing residency here. As long as they continue to have a residence in their original state there is no problem.

I believe both the intent and the proof are the questionable issues are here. I understand Charles's clarification for us laypersons of "residence" and "domicile," but I'm not quite certain how they would be applied legally.

If I live in Florida and travel to Texas for a 90-day, contracted work assignment, it's pretty cut-and-dry. I have a contract to show it was temporary.

But what if I take a job with a Texas company and sign a three-year contract? If I'm wealthy enough, can I can keep my residential property in Florida and continue to claim it, as defined by the Texas Transportation Code §522.003(10) (as referenced in SB 481), to be "the person's true, fixed, and permanent home and principal residence and to which the person intends to return whenever absent"? Even if I'm absent for almost all of three years?

Under your definition, that's perfectly fine; I can keep on keepin' on.

But if I'm a working man and have to move my family and belongings to Texas and give up my home in Florida in order to take that three-year contract, I should no longer be able to carry under my Florida license?

And as Charles noted, the same logic applies not only to contract workers or to workers on specific assignment from their companies, but to students and our military as well.

"Temporary," in terms of residence, is defined nowhere that I can find in find in either the Texas Penal Code, Transportation Code, or Government Code. If your feet have touched nothing but Texas soil for 30 contiguous days, are you no longer "temporary"? After 90 days? Three years? Only if you aren't wealthy enough to claim, or have family in, another domicile and can receive mail there?

Even the DPS Driver License division doesn't define what "moving to Texas" means.

Trying to propose a bill like SB 481 without a solid definition of what it means to carry in Texas with an out-of-state license is, frankly, ludicrous. My bet is that this bill was researched, reviewed, and vetted by pre-law volunteers for about two hours, with very little or no external input.

As previously stated I'm not a fan of needing a CHL to carry but I am a fan of my neighbor having to follow the same rules I do. Too follow the rules he must know the rules and the best way for him to know them in the instance is carrying the same license I do.

With that said, those who claim you can just turn in your out of state drivers license for a Texas license, you must still pass a test to show basic Texas motorist rules. Why should we not require the same for a CHL?

The second first: That is incorrect. DPS says: "Individuals who hold a valid, unexpired driver license from another U.S. state or U.S. territory, or from Canada, France, South Korea or Germany (the countries Texas has license reciprocity agreements with), do not have to take the knowledge or driving tests."

Something I didn't know until I looked it up, frankly. If you're licensed in South Korea, come on down and experience the Texas freeways and tollways. Trade your South Korean driver license for a Texas license.

One Indian business visitor I entertained in Houston a couple of years back had only one overwhelming observation: "There is so much concrete!" Traffic congestion he was used to; traffic congestion on a science-fiction scale, he was not.

To the first point: "Too follow the rules he must know the rules and the best way for him to know them in the instance is carrying the same license I do."

I agree with you in principle, but not in application.

Someone way up-topic said that reciprocity was not the issue.

I disagree. It isn't the only issue here, but it's a big one and should be brought forward.

Most Texas reciprocity agreements with other states contain language similar to the following: "The State of Texas shall give full faith and credit to a valid Concealed Handgun Permit issued by the State of _____ ..."

There are no "domicile" definitions, no residency restrictions, no use of the term "temporary"...no locational or temporal restrictions whatsoever. You either have a valid license or you don't.

Go explore the actual documents of our state's reciprocity agreements here: http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/RSD/CHL/legal/reciprocity/. Pick a state, then view the formal reciprocity agreement in PDF format.

If something like SB 481 passes, all the good work for reciprocity achieved by the Governor and his Attorneys General will be undone. Almost every single reciprocity agreement will have to be rewritten, reissued and then, hopefully, the reduced commitment accepted by the governor of the reciprocal state.


I'll end this by saying, for this particular discussion, it would be informative for the readers to know who among the commentators make some/most of their income from teaching Texas CHL courses.

I do not.

[JP171]

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.

ok so my terminology was incorrect on domicile and resident according to texas law I do stand corrected, but the point I was trying to make still stands. As far as those who are stationed out of state, working long term or attending school being required to obtain a non resident license from another state we as Texans can't change the other states law, so we pay and play. I do not agree with licensing to begin with, but we have it we have to deal with it and all that goes along with it. taking classes from other states that don't meet the texas requirements or standards to get out of having a texas chl in my mind is wrong. Charles, the bill is flawed I do agree, why not try to get it fixed, the company that does most state testing for professional licenses is country wide, make it part of the bill to go and test in one of these locations for those who cannot return to texas for a class. I do agree that as it stands we have to be licensed, I think we should have to have a license in our home state to carry in our home state. reciprocity should cover us for the reasonable time it may take to get our license when we return to our home state not as a permanent solution to the inability or expense of the texas CHL

[texanjoker]

I did not know that you had to take a test when you move to Texas and turn in your out of state DL for a Texas DL.

I don't recall taking a test. I did have to turn in my out of state ID to get TX ID.

[Jumping Frog]

I have a Texas license and a non-resident Utah license.

I know of people who had their Texas renewals delayed enough by DPS processing that their Texas license expired and there was a substantial time gap (in one case 4 months) before they received the renewed license. Should that happen to me, my non-resident Utah license is my backup license, allowing me to carry while waiting on Texas.

Under this bill, I am disarmed while waiting for my Texas license.

===================================================================

Personally, I get highly irritated that we can't even have a clear consensus within our own CHL community on this issue.

I look at this as just another play in the anti-gunner's handbook to divide and conquer. This is no different than skeet shooters being OK with so-called "assault weapons" bans, or convincing some portion of gun owners that a "universal background check" is OK if we exempt concealed handgun licensees, or any of the other 10,000 ways they have divided, conquered, and nibbled away at our freedom one small step at a time.

My moral compass is clear and always points north: If a proposed gun-related law increases freedom, removes restrictions, reduces obstacles, eliminates "poison pills" or otherwise advances us on the path back towards "Shall Not Be Infringed", then I support that bill.

Conversely, if a bill introduces new restrictions, reduces freedom or choices, implements obstacles, or otherwise makes it more difficult "Keep And Bear Arms", then I oppose it.

Frankly, I am disgusted every time the 2nd Amendment community loses sight of this and instead argues for pages why increasing restrictions on Texans is "a good thing" or "it makes sense". Geez, people. Please wake up.

[Jaguar]

I have a Texas license and a non-resident Utah license.

I know of people who had their Texas renewals delayed enough by DPS processing that their Texas license expired and there was a substantial time gap (in one case 4 months) before they received the renewed license. Should that happen to me, my non-resident Utah license is my backup license, allowing me to carry while waiting on Texas.

Under this bill, I am disarmed while waiting for my Texas license.

===================================================================

Personally, I get highly irritated that we can't even have a clear consensus within our own CHL community on this issue.

I look at this as just another play in the anti-gunner's handbook to divide and conquer. This is no different than skeet shooters being OK with so-called "assault weapons" bans, or convincing some portion of gun owners that a "universal background check" is OK if we exempt concealed handgun licensees, or any of the other 10,000 ways they have divided, conquered, and nibbled away at our freedom one small step at a time.

My moral compass is clear and always points north: If a proposed gun-related law increases freedom, removes restrictions, reduces obstacles, eliminates "poison pills" or otherwise advances us on the path back towards "Shall Not Be Infringed", then I support that bill.

Conversely, if a bill introduces new restrictions, reduces freedom or choices, implements obstacles, or otherwise makes it more difficult "Keep And Bear Arms", then I oppose it.

Frankly, I am disgusted every time the 2nd Amendment community loses sight of this and instead argues for pages why increasing restrictions on Texans is "a good thing" or "it makes sense". Geez, people. Please wake up.

And as a Skeet shooter who doesn't have a so-called "assault weapon", I would fight against any proposed law/rule/regulation that would inhibit your's or anyone else's freedom to own and shoot one, even with a 1000 round "clip".

[SQLGeek]

I did not know that you had to take a test when you move to Texas and turn in your out of state DL for a Texas DL.

I didn't have to take one in 2009 when I moved here. I just had to submit an application and surrender my license from my previous state.

[Jaguar]

As previously stated I'm not a fan of neededing a CHL to carry but I am a fan of my neighbor having to follow the same rules I do. Too follow the rules he must know the rules and the best way for him to know them in the instance is carrying the same license I do.

What rules do you have to follow that your neighbor doesn't? So you neighbor is carrying on a FL license, can’t you carry on a FL license? If you neighbor violates TX law while carrying on his FL license and you violate the same TX law while carrying on your TX license are the consequences different?

I think you are looking for a problem that doesn’t exist. Yes, the TX license cost more, but it is your choice to take the TX course instead of the FL course. Also, there are perks with the in state license, the GFSZ being the only one I can come up with off the top of my head. Your neighbor doesn’t get protection from that law with his FL license while you do with you TX license.

Finally, if there are perks to the FL license, such as not losing it over a class A misdemeanor charge or similar, why can’t you take the same advantage by getting a FL license. I see no rules for him that you cannot also take advantage of. I personally only have the TX license, my choice, I’ll live with it, and I’ll allow others to live with their choices.