TexasCHLforum.com

baldeagle wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:And I find it interesting that people are considering preventing Texas Residents from carrying on an out-of-state license, that would be valid for the out-of-state residents to use in Texas. So here we would have an activity that is legal for Non-Texas residents to do in Texas, but illegal for Texas residents to do in Texas. That seems perverse to me. (You can do it here only if you're not from here?? -- Very odd!)

In the world of argument, this is what is known as a straw man. No one (AFAIK) has argued that Texas residents should be banned from carrying out of state licenses. The argument is that they should not be allowed to get a out of state license in lieu of a Texas CHL. And the only reason that is even being suggested is because of political realities.

I think the Annoyed Man put it best; out of state licenses should be an enhancement to a person's right to carry not a substitution for or end run around getting a Texas CHL.

Furthermore, you must always keep in mind that many of us are arguing not from our personal beliefs but from the cold stark political realities that we face. There are many many people in America that think you should not be allowed to own weapons at all. Some of them are very politically powerful and influential. Therefore it behooves us to work through the system patiently and continuously to sway public opinion to our side.

What we are discussing here is trying to limit the damage caused by one of our own so that we don't lose even more rights than we already have lost.

The Annoyed Man wrote: I think that Charles very clearly stated my own position in the above post. In a nutshell, I'm not saying I want the status quo to change, and I think that most people on this board would agree with that. But I am saying that the irresponsible actions of a few are going to wreck things for the rest of us - and so I suppose the rest of my remarks were really adressed more to them, than to you, and I apologize for the confusion. But in that light, I think that defending those people who cynically sell CFP classes as an end around is, in itself, indefensible for the reasons outlined in my previous post. So if you're not of that mind, then what I said doesn't apply to you, and again, I apologize for the confusion.

Regarding the gentleman you mentioned, I am of two minds. On the one hand, that does seem a long time to have to deal with an abusive language charge, particularly if the charge is baseless. And it is baseless, then the net effect on his CHL privileges is unfair. On the other hand, and meaning no disrespect toward him or you, but everybody claims innocence. If the trial's finding of fact is that he was in fact abusive in the expression of his First Amendment, then how do we know he won't be so in the expression of his Second Amendment? That's the problem with legal definitions like "abusive." What I might mean in good humor with no malice, you might take as abusive. It's a subjective definition with a constantly shifting data point. And, it's one thing if I verbally abuse you by calling you a profane name, and it's another thing entirely if I am verbally, psychologically, abusive of my wife or child. What are the facts in your friend's case?

The Annoyed Man wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:And I find it interesting that people are considering preventing Texas Residents from carrying on an out-of-state license, that would be valid for the out-of-state residents to use in Texas. So here we would have an activity that is legal for Non-Texas residents to do in Texas, but illegal for Texas residents to do in Texas. That seems perverse to me. (You can do it here only if you're not from here?? -- Very odd!)

I think you need to be more clear about that... I have both licenses, and I am not advocating against having a Utah CFP. What I am saying, and I believe what others are saying, is that a Texas resident probably shouldn't have a CFP in lieu of a CHL. CFP should enhance CHL, not replace CHL.

And there is a reason for why I think this. These things do not happen in a vacuum, and insisting that there is a vacuum does more damage to the cause than good. I would be perfectly happy to have no permitting requirements at all in the state of Texas, for either CC or OC. However, there are certain boots on the ground realities that have to be dealt with piecemeal and in a logical manner and sequence if we are ever to successfully arrive at the unrestricted expression of our rights. Anybody who denies that reality is politically delusional.

Now, they have a First Amendment right to be politically delusional, but if their position will do more harm to the RKBA over the long term than good, should they be encouraged to pursue their delusions? I submit that it is wrong to encourage that.

You have a rice bowl. I have a rice bowl. Everybody has a rice bowl, and nobody wants anyone else eating from their rice bowl. What that means is that we, as citizens have our prerogatives (rice bowls), but so do legislators. We hire them to do a job, and just like your job becomes part of your rice bowl and you don't want anybody messing with it, legislators jobs are part of their rice bowl, and they don't want anybody messing with theirs. The way to fix that, since they work for us, is to fire them and to hire another who will do what we want. But until we actually do that, they will do their jobs as they see fit to do them, and it will not go well for us to go against that which, in their opinions, we hired them to do. Am I making sense here?

So here is the political reality. If you hire the legislature to do a job, and they do that job to the extent that they are able to do so according to the voting majorities in the legislature at any given time, and then you come along and violate their intent, then they are going to react by crushing you. That is the nature of government. ALL governments.

The problem is, when they crush you, they also crush me and every Tom, Dick, Harry, and Jane who followed the law and did things in the right way, and we will become one of those states that only recognizes resident permits from other states. That is a political fact. They will "punish" us for our "transgressions." There will be no parking lot bill passed. There will be no campus carry bill passed. There probably will be a bill passed invalidating the use of out of state permits inside Texas for Texas residents.... ...because these things do not take place in a vacuum.

That is why it is irresponsible (and in my personal view, unethical) for someone to obtain a non-resident Utah CFP as an alternative to a resident Texas CHL. It will wind up having a negative impact on those who followed the law. Anyone who denies this is not living in the real political world, where real politicians not only jealously guard their rice bowls, but where real politicians also seek to expand their individual rice bowl as much as possible.

The correct way to approach the problem is to dismantle all restrictions on the RKBA by means of a systematic, orderly, and incrementalist approach. Unless you are advocating an armed revolution, there is simply no other way that is politically feasible. And, whenever you get a politician who will not cooperate, then you work toward firing him/her and hiring one who will. But that is a political process, and it involves the votes of at a least a few people, probably a lot more than a few, who think that you and I should not be allowed to have any guns at all... ...and they are part of what fills that vacuum so that it does not exist.

And whipping all of them into a frenzy is a decidedly leftist media which will jump on stories of CFP vendors who flaunt Texas CHL law and urge either politically naive and uninformed, or ethically compromised people into "cheating" their way into having a carry permit. That media is part of what fills the vacuum so that it does not exist.

NONE of this happens in a vacuum, and it will blow up in our faces, and I will be negatively impacted; so I take it personally - because, at the end of the day, the political always boils down to the personal.

Hoi Polloi wrote:1. Regarding the reciprocity issue, requiring the other state to give reciprocity in order to give it doesn't make much sense. If Texas recognizes other state's licenses and says, "Yeah, that's good enough of a background check for us to say we're OK with people who have your CHL-equivalent licenses to carry while they're in our state, too" why should it matter if the other state says the same in return? This isn't a group hug where we should all walk away feeling warm and fuzzy.

Hoi Polloi wrote:
You know, the statutes don't exclude extraterrestrial lifeforms from getting a non-resident permit. Who is to say that they can handle guns designed for human hands? Haven't you seen Mars Attacks? I think we should exclude them from concealed carry as well. And we definitely shouldn't offer reciprocity to aliens!

LarryH wrote:

stevie_d_64 wrote:
BTW, the local excuses for news in this town picked up on it as well...

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010 ... 936414.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

stevie, that link took me to North Korea's demand for $65 trillion in reparations for "atrocities", property loss, etc.

austinrealtor wrote: For this reason (above), I think any law requiring a Texan to have a Texas CHL should include some caveat that a Utah (or other recognized out of state license) is acceptable for a Texan who has an expired (but not revoked or denied) Texas CHL.

bronco78 wrote:What I see in the future (Swami Marquez Says:) Non res CHL will only be valid if the other state has the same level of training required by TX CHL course of instruction.. Reciprocity will be only for those states that have that level of training.