TexasCHLforum.com

cbr600 wrote:

KFP wrote:

cbr600 wrote:I was hoping someone who knows the answer would respond. My request was no different than somebody asking if a specific business is posted with a 30.06 sign, or if it's legal to have a concealed handgun in a car on a college campus, or any number of other requests for information.

public vs. private

Again, I wasn't asking someone to post private information.

I was asking if anyone knew which, if any, public officials have announced they want to change the Texas laws on reciprocity. It's true I could call legislators to ask for myself - same as someone can drive to a business and see for themselves whether it has a 30.06 sign, instead of posting the question here.

Bart wrote:Thanks for the explanation. Since there's no new information, I'm voting against all incumbents tomorrow, based on 2009.

Bart wrote:If they believe it's a problem, they should be open and honest, instead of deceiving voters. Looking at it objectively, it's no different than the situation for Texas House District 45.

cbr600 wrote:Which legislators have said they want to change the Texas laws on reciprocity?
Pro or con, I think this is something voters deserve to know.

Thanks!

Hoi Polloi wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:People who are not eligible to get a Texas CHL can get a Utah CFP. Certain instructors are advertising "Don't pay your child support? No problem! Don't pay your taxes? No problem!" It's not a matter of people "getting their feelings hurt;" it's a matter of instructors flaunting the Utah CFP and thumbing their noses at Texas law.

Chas.

Then the law can be amended to say, in whatever the appropriate legalese is, that we only accept non-resident reciprocity for Texas residents who are eligible to receive Texas CHLs. It doesn't have to affect everyone. Then the burden is on the Utah instructors to verify that the TX residents taking their classes are eligible for Texas CHLs. Seems easy enough.

Hoi Polloi wrote:But why do they have to pay child support in order to carry a concealed weapon? If it is that big of a deal, make it a criminal matter which would disqualify them.

cbr600 wrote:Let's also take away their right to vote, go to church, etc. Otherwise, it seems obviously nothing more than antigun hysteria.

Hoi Polloi wrote:I don't see what the problem is.

Who here had to take an extensive course on the use of deadly force, justification, de-escalation, etc before being allowed to drive a deadly object? Who had a legal requirement of undergoing a psych eval, blood test, and training course on domestic violence, bankruptcies and foreclosures, and the intricacies of common law property rights before they were awarded a marriage license in Texas? Who had to take a class and pass a test on the case history of the first amendment, libel, slander, etc before being allowed to have a letter published to the editor?

Why is it a problem that there are people who are not getting state-specific and state-mandated training on specific laws? Are we seeing many cases of Utah CFP holders being arrested for something that is legal in Utah but not legal here that would point to an education problem affecting the public? No. We're seeing some people with their feelings hurt that others are touting cheaper, easier, faster in our free market economy and trying to use our laws to shut the competition down.

We're talking about a constitutional right here, which means strict scrutiny must be applied before it can be infringed.
-compelling governmental interest
-narrowly tailored law
-the least restrictive means for achieving the interest

So what's the compelling government interest? Keeping firearms out of the hands of known criminals.
Is the law narrowly tailored? Probably so.
Is it the least restrictive means of doing so? No. How does a 10-15 hour class, plus written test, plus shooting test, plus monetary fees come close to being the least restrictive way of doing a background check? It reminds me of a poll test and poll tax. Since when do you have to be able to read and write, pay fees, and have large amounts of knowledge and time to devote to a topic in order to use a basic, constitutional right?

tacticool wrote:

KFP wrote:In other words, it appears that in a four hour course NO Texas law would be covered - assuming that the instructor is abiding by the rules.

So they get the same amount of training in Texas law as a NYPD patrolman or ATF agent who can carry in Texas.

Texgun wrote:[quote="Charles L. Cotton""]This is precisely why the "Utah problem" is going to be a problem in the 2011 Texas Legislative Session.

Chas.

SWAMPRNR wrote:So what about the ones that that have all legal rights to own arms but Texas refuses to give permits? Non resident permits are the only legal way to carry in Texas because of these legal problems with the state some people have.

baldeagle wrote:We now have 12 pages of this baloney back and forth. The point that many seem to be missing is that all of our opinions about this are irrelevant. The behavior of some Utah instructors has raised the ire of a powerful political person in Texas. That may lead to restrictions that do not presently exist. If it does, it will be a shame that the actions of a few have punished all Texans who desire to carry.

Cobra Medic wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Cobra Medic wrote:

fishcharmer wrote:I personally think it would behoove Texas to cut to the chase and have instructors teach what should be known in regard to the law, legalities and responsibilities and then have some sort of assessment whether it be an actual test

I think DPS should do the CHL test on computer, with the questions randomly pulled from a larger pool of possible questions, like the written test for driving.

Why? What would be gained with this procedure?

Chas.

It helps keep the test honest. For example, when I took the class at Top Gun, the instructor told us "the answer to question 15 is B" or whatever the actual question number and answer was. I'm sure none of the instructors on the board do anything like that, but it's not unusual to hear similar stories when I talk to other people who took one day CHL classes.

fishcharmer wrote:Long-time lurker here. I'm not sure what the big deal is about the Utah CHL. I recently obtained my Utah CHL (CWP). I originally took my Texas CHL course in February '09, wife got laid off right after and writing a check to Texas for my CHL just wasn't in our restricted budget. She got her job back but by the time we had the spare money to write that check to Texas it had already been a year since I took the Texas course and I would have had to re-take it again. I had a perfect score on the range qualification in my Texas course. I heard about the Utah license and it made financial sense to me to obtain it. I don't believe that folks specifically go out of their way to get the Utah CHL because it does not require range qualification or a test. The Texas course I took was stuffed with a bunch of "filler" material, funny YouTube videos (FBI guy shoots self in foot, "Gun Free Zone" and many many many more) to make that 10 hour time requirement. I personally think it would behoove Texas to cut to the chase and have instructors teach what should be known in regard to the law, legalities and responsibilities and then have some sort of assessment whether it be an actual test (Texas course) or like the "test" in my Utah class where it was an open discussion powerpoint type of "test" (there were 3 guys in my Utah course). Again, I don't believe that folks would get their CHL only to avoid having any type of training or proficiency with the weapon they plan on carrying. Afterall, legally carrying a firearm is a big responsibility that I don't think anyone takes lightly. I belive the main factor in folks getting their Utah CHL is plain to see. Bottom line, it is less of a monetary commitment and requires less classroom time. Those were my deciding factors anyways. Let the flaming begin.

Cobra Medic wrote:

fishcharmer wrote:I personally think it would behoove Texas to cut to the chase and have instructors teach what should be known in regard to the law, legalities and responsibilities and then have some sort of assessment whether it be an actual test

I think DPS should do the CHL test on computer, with the questions randomly pulled from a larger pool of possible questions, like the written test for driving.

CollinLeon wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:Geeze, I wish they would. Your pollyanna act is getting really tired. Fortunately for you, but unfortunately for me, you're not being censored, unless you call enforcement of rules which you agreed to when you joined the forum "censorship." On the other hand, if you only cynically "agreed" so that your membership registration would go through but you had no intention of abiding by them, then that makes you a deceitful person. I would like to think better of you than that. Can you please address this?

I've had posts censored for apparently saying a simple "LMAO"... Ooops... Looks like this one will get censored also... Oh well... I guess my definition of profanity is a bit different than the censors of this board... Come to think of it, a quick search of the board comes up with 25 instances of someone putting that in a posting. They didn't get censored, but I did...