TexasCHLforum.com

Burn wrote:

WildBill wrote:

Burn wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:Why does everybody think this Utah law is so great? Recognition of non-res licenses for Texas residents may not have been the direct intent of the Legislature, but it IS the law in Texas.

HB 356 was introduced this session to clarity legislative intent, and ensure Texas residents are properly trained and can pass the criminal background check, before they're allowed to carry guns in churches, shopping malls, parks where children are playing, and other public places. It's a common sense law that closes an unintended loophole, and it deserves support from gun owners and concerned citizens alike.

It does not clarify anything. The legislatures knew very well the intent of the law that they passed.

If they intended the loophole then there's nothing to worry about.

Oh there's nothing to worry about because F-rated Burnam's HB356 isn't going to pass.

Now answer my questions.

Chas.

Burn wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:Why does everybody think this Utah law is so great? Recognition of non-res licenses for Texas residents may not have been the direct intent of the Legislature, but it IS the law in Texas.

You're right. It is the law and that's why we need to fix the law.

Many requirements were put in place that limit eligibility for a Texas CHL. Even the most extreme gun owner has to admit the Texas Legislature put those requirements in place intentionally. They were no accident. I don't think I would be going out on a limb if I said the reason the Texas Legislature created those elibibility requirements is they didn't want to allow Texans to carry guns unless they are eligible, i.e. they satisfy all the requirements for a Texas CHL.

HB 356 was introduced this session to clarity legislative intent, and ensure Texas residents are properly trained and can pass the criminal background check, before they're allowed to carry guns in churches, shopping malls, parks where children are playing, and other public places. It's a common sense law that closes an unintended loophole, and it deserves support from gun owners and concerned citizens alike.

Are you a Texas CHL Instructor? Are you a member of TACCI? Throwing around long-used Brady Campaign slogans isn't going to garner you much support here.

Chas.

SWAMPRNR wrote:The way i see it is i already have permits from 5 other states but can't get a Texas permit.When and if these new laws pass i will have a excuse to move.

I think Utah will pass their bill, but I don't think Burnam's HB356 will pass. I may be wrong about Burnam, but it's hard for anyone to sign on to an F-rated Representative's bill or to vote for it in a record vote. The best scenario would have been that no bill would have been filed (almost impossible), but the next best scenario is that Lon Burnam would file it.

Chas.

greggtex wrote:. . . Hopefully none of the new bills will pass! . . . The only reason it will pass if it does, is money. State is suffering right now and might shut it donw, but that only helps the criminals in my opinion.

I'm not sure if you're talking about money to the State of Texas or Utah, but either way you are mistaken. If the Utah bill passes, and I believe it will, then Utah will loose money. The number of Texas residents with a Utah CFP has been reported by Utah to be 6,000, but that does not tell us how many of those 6,000 Texans also have a Texas CHL. Even if every one of the 6,000 held only a Utah CFP, then the total loss of revenue to Texas is somewhere between $210,000 and $420,000 over 5 years ($42,000 to 84,000 annually) depending on how many of those 6,000 are entitled to the 50% discount. Your money theory doesn't seem plausible.

If Texas passes Lon Burnam's HB356, it won't have anything to do with money. It will be the direct result of irresponsible advertising by Utah Instructors. Make no mistake, those instructors didn't merely advertise a cheaper license, they strongly and aggressively advertised the facts that Utah 1) doesn't require a written test; 2) doesn't require shooting; 3) will give a CFP to persons with deferred adjudications for any felony, past due child support, or past due Texas taxes. As I've said before, the Utah "problem" wasn't the license, it was the in-your-face advertising by irresponsible instructors that amounted to nothing more than thumbing their collective noses at the Texas Legislature.

greggtex wrote:If you're for more govt. control, then I can see you being against the Utah CHL, but if you stand for people protecting themselves, well, that's me.

It's difficult for me to respond nicely to this ridiculous accusation. To globally categorize anyone who has concerns about the Utah CFP in terms of irresponsible advertising and a resulting backlash that harms reciprocity as being "for more govt. control" is to adopt the tactics of Sarah Brady. It smacks of "if you disagree with me, you have evil motives." You have only made four posts here on TexasCHLforum and every single one has been in defense of the Utah CFP.

Chas.

i8godzilla wrote:From page nine of the proposed bill: $1,298,500 in lost revenue be year.

If my math is correct at $63.50 each that is 20,776 licenses be year. Is this really that big of a 'problem'?

I don't know how that fiscal note ($1,298,500) breaks down in terms of initial licenses at $63.50 and renewals at $10.00, so the number could be much higher than 20,776.

The "problem" isn't the Utah license, it's the irresponsible advertising tactics of a small but apparently growing number of Utah instructors. A friend told me he saw a banner of a Utah instructor at a Houston gun show just a few weeks ago touting the Utah CFP over the Texas CHL. The instructor was never heard telling potential students that HB356 has been filed that, if passed, will render a Utah CFP useless in Texas for a Texas resident. If anyone other than F-rated Lon Burnham had filed HB356 it would have been very difficult to kill.

Chas.