TexasCHLforum.com

The Annoyed Man

03Lightningrocks wrote:How Ironic. So the State of texas suspends your CHL and you fellers are saying you can say BAH!!!! I will just carry concealed under my Utah license? LOL.... so if this were the case, why would the State bother to suspend your license in the first place.....meaning.... what would be the purpose in it? If the State says your license is suspended, for what ever reason, are they not telling you that they don't want you carrying concealed?

Keith is right in that the odds of getting caught are small, but that is really not the point here. TAM is right in that I carry concealed under the belief that concealed is concealed. but i sure as heck am not going to recommend this coarse of action to others as if it is somehow protected or a good idea. TAM.... since we are discussing past posts and I will freely admit to carrying at all times while out. Are you not the guy who recomends erring on the safe side. Now your saying if you get your right to carry concealed revoked by Texas, you are going to carry in Texas anyway.... and then try to use the ole Utah permit as your out? Interesting set of values, to say the least. Maybe misread your post.

Try this one.... why would the State of Texas revoke or suspend your CHL other than for the purpose of forbidding you the right to carry concealed in Texas?

Do the laws not say we have to follow the laws of the State we are in for non-resident carry?

So how does having an out of state permit negate your being forbidden to carry concealed in the State of texas?

yep.....getting caught would be unlikely. But if you ended up in a second self defense shooting while under suspension, and then whipped out the Utah permit as an "in your face", i would hate to see the legal bills for that one.

I believe anyone reading this thread that has a situation develop of this nature should seek the advice of their trusted attorney....

Hey, you know what? I actually agree that the judge may not take kindly to it. But try this one on for size.... I don't care. Why? Because if I am actually involved in a second legitimate self-defense shooting while my CHL is under suspension, then I needed that gun, didn't I? And I'm not some kind of Palladin. I avoid trouble at all costs. But sometimes, trouble finds you. And in that event, I would rather be prepared than dead.

If I shoot some gansta crip (or aryan nation, or mexican mafia, or what have you) in self-defense, my CHL is suspended, and his homies come hunting for me and find me, and I am suddenly now in dire need of a gun and don't have one, then I'm going to be dead. I would rather be alive and judged by 12 than dead and carried by six, regardless of what the law says. Wouldn't you? At that point, my need to survive trumps whether or not a judge might be irritated with me.

Now, I submit that said judge is going to not take it lightly the second time around - regardless of whether or not I have a CFP from Utah. However, I believe that an attempt to mount a legal defense by claiming authority to carry under my CFP is a better defense than no defense at all. But also, as I am now repeating for the 3rd time or so in this thread, I would follow the advice of my lawyer at that time. Why, because just as IANAL, YANAL either. And more importantly, YANML.

The Annoyed Man

03Lightningrocks wrote:I am a strong dose of reality that hopefully will keep someone here from doing something real darned stupid concerning concealed carry.

You are a strong does of your reality, and I said I would take my lawyer's advice at that time and place over whatever advice I'm given in the here and now in the anonymity of the Internet. I just explained in my previous post what my default position is. That's all it is. I also explained that I would take my lawyer's advice. It's not that hard to understand.

You're the one who has poo-pooed other posters in other threads for being timid about when and where they will carry.

The Annoyed Man

03Lightningrocks wrote:
TXlaw1 wrote:
Keith wrote:I have both and highly recommend too get both. The reason is if you are ever involved in a defensive shooting you are going to temp lose your license until the courts fig out what happened. In the meen time how are you defending yourself or your family when you are out and about in public. If I lost my Texas due to the above I could still carry legally in Texas as the police wouldnt have taken my Utah license they wouldnt even know about it. I put the Utah in the gun safe its there only for such a day that I hope never happens.
Now that's an interesting comment, Keith, that changes the perspective and possible focus of this thread. Having both could be a good strategy in the situation you describe. I'd like to hear comments by others who have both licenses. Does anyone (or anyone you might know) have any experience using this dual-license strategy?
I am not sure that this is true. The part about loosing your right to carry conceal. Why would the law require I discontinue the right to have a CHL after a legit self defense shooting? Second.... if the law does require temporary loss of your right to carry concealed in Texas, trying to circunmvent that law by using a Utah CFP is sure to make the Judge mad enough to throw the book at you.

I have to just shake my head at some of the stuff i read in here. Folks!!!!!! If something legal says you can't carry concealed in Texas.... no other State can over ride that something while in texas! Even while carrying under Utah CFP in Texas, laws of Texas apply.

I have both, and here is my interpretation, based on a possible scenario of having my Texas CHL temporarily suspended pending the outcome of a self-defense shooting investigation for a shooting which occurred in Texas:

The shooting occurred in Texas, and therefore is not under Utah jurisdiction, and therefore Utah is not going to suspend my CFP pending the outcome of the investigation, so my CFP is still valid, while my CHL is temporarily invalid.
The CFP is issued by Utah, and Texas has no jurisdiction over whether or not Utah issues, or continues to recognize, my CFP. Only Utah has jurisdiction over that.
Thus, while Texas may very well suspend my CHL privileges under CHL law, it has no jurisdiction over my CFP, which was issued by another sovereign state. While most reputable CHL instructors will not teach the CFP class to someone who does not hold a CHL first, there is no requirement under Utah CFP law that a non-resident CFP holder must first have a permit from their state of residence to obtain the non-resident CFP.

I fully admit that this may be wishful thinking on my part, but I would hope that it would pass a legal review if it ever came to pass. The reason it is a concern is that, depending on who I shot, and whether or not I actually killed that person, that is the time that I would most be worried about reprisals from the BG's family or friends. In any case, I wouldn't be carrying into the courtroom anyway, CFP or not, so I don't know how the judge might reasonably be expected to know that I'm carrying a firearm when I'm outside the courtroom.

03Lightningrocks wrote:There are a few legitimate reasons to have a non-resident Utah CFP(beyond cool factor). Getting two additional states added to the list of places you can carry is one i can think of. Can't afford a texas is another I can come up with. Nice to have the expire dates offset so while waiting on the texas renewal would be another. Circumventing Texas Law is not a good reason!!!!

I have been involved in two self defense shootings. One of them the cops didn't even take the gun I used. The other got real expensive and they took the gun. Neither forbid me the right to own a firearm. If either had done this, i know for a fact i would have gotten thrown in jail if carrying concealed and used the stupid excuse of having a permit from some other state. LOL.

You actually pick up three states, not two. Not a big deal, but I just thought I would let you know. Those states are Washington, Ohio, and West Virginia. I have my expiration dates for my CHL and CFP offset by approximately 1 year, for the reasons you state. I don't have my CFP for the purpose of circumventing CHL law by using the CFP as a alternative (rather than an adjunct) to my CHL; but as I explained above, I would hope that my CFP would continue to be in play if my CHL were temporarily suspended pending the results of an investigation.

And as I've stated previously, both in this thread (IIRC) and other threads, I would consult my attorney at that time rather than take as gospel those hypothetical arguments offered online today. And 03Lightningrocks, it's not because I don't believe that your real life experiences are valid today, but because things are changing, mostly for the better recently, and whatever strictures applied when you had to deal with that may no longer apply down the road if/when (God forbid) it should ever happen to me.

The Annoyed Man

Significant Otter wrote:
The Annoyed Man wrote:Since the Utah only instructors are not, AFAIK, required to follow any Texas guidelines in their teaching. You may just be digging yourself a legal hole for the state of Texas to bury you in if, God forbid, you should ever have to actually use your weapon, and you wind up using outside of the guidelines of Texas law because you were never properly instructed.
On the other hand, there seem to be a lot of people who take the Texas class from an official instructor and don't know the Texas law any better than someone who took the Utah class and skimmed the LS16 document from Texas DPS.

That's true, there are. When I took my class, I conscientiously read through the material, took notes in class, and studied the handbook... ...and I still learned most of what I know since I joined this forum 2-1/2 years ago. It can be an overwhelming amount of information, and, it can be confusing. How many of us, for instance, were confused at first about whether or not CHL was permitted inside a house of worship? I was. It takes some time to truly assimilate and memorize all the variables of the law. But, with a licensed CHL instructor, you at least get someone who is to A) required make a good faith attempt to teach it all to you; B) required to teach it to you in the order and manner prescribed by the state; and C) required to make certain that you are at least minimally proficient - and safe - with a firearm. You may not be getting any of that from a CFP only instructor. Maybe, but probably not.

How many of the CFP only instructors spend any time on the required conflict resolution and deescalation section? That is important stuff. One of the most damaging things that can happen to the RKBA in Texas would be to have a bunch of hotheads running around who resort to guns first and words last to settle their differences. At least a CHL course makes some concession to teaching a proper way to resolve conflict. CFP, to the best of my knowledge, doesn't require that.

The Annoyed Man

Cooper wrote:Thanks guys ,for all yor replys ! Im going to go through an instructor I know, and sold a Martin guitar to years ago , that I , at the time didnt know was an instuctor. His name is Larry Bartek, who is a plano police officer and SWAT member. and one heck of a guy. He also teaches 15 miles from my house.
Im only going for my TX CHL . As most of you have said , "Thats what I should have " .

Thanks again , Coop

I know Larry Bartek. A friend of mine either just took, or is about to take his class. They were partners on a deer lease together. In fact, I spent one very cold January morning in one of Bartek's blinds as a guest of my friend. I met Bartek once at a DPC meet. He seems like a pretty decent guy. I didn't know I had guitar-playing in common with him though.

The Annoyed Man

Here is Crossfire's website: http://crossfire-training.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

She is being modest. Not only does she charge less, but her class standards are very high. My wife took her CHL with them, and when I renew, it will be with them.

If you take a strictly Utah CFP course from one of these unethical (in my opinion) providers, they may not give you the instruction you STILL need to be in compliance with TEXAS law. Having a Utah CFP does not exempt you from Texas CHL law. You would still have to know and follow Texas law - just as you would have to know and follow Utah law if you were carrying in Utah under your Texas CHL with Utah reciprocity.

Since the Utah only instructors are not, AFAIK, required to follow any Texas guidelines in their teaching. You may just be digging yourself a legal hole for the state of Texas to bury you in if, God forbid, you should ever have to actually use your weapon, and you wind up using outside of the guidelines of Texas law because you were never properly instructed.

The people who teach Utah CFP courses as a way to circumvent Texas CHL law are doing a disservice to the state, and to those of us who have bothered to do things by the book - even if we thought it was too expensive, or too easy or not easy enough to get, etc., etc. Those folks are snakes, and I can't stand 'em.

TexasCHLforum.com

Search found 6 matches

Re: Utah or Texas ? Or.....Both ?

Re: Utah or Texas ? Or.....Both ?

Re: Utah or Texas ? Or.....Both ?

Re: Utah or Texas ? Or.....Both ?

Re: Utah or Texas ? Or.....Both ?

Re: Utah or Texas ? Or.....Both ?