'Loophole' in CHL law??

[mlawler]

Houston channel 11 tonight ran a story about a supposed 'loophole' that allows Texans to obtain an out-of-state concealed carry permit that is accepted in Texas to carry.
What's ya'lls opinion on the subject??
Some of the reasons for getting another State's permit are: less cost, paperwork & time; less restrictions on who's elligible and the addition of State's without Texas reciprocity.
Negatives are: lack of Texas specific carry limits; different understanding on use of force and lack of a proficiency test.

[stealthfightrf17]

My opionion is that you should get the texas permit and that it should be valid in all states. Out of state permits should not be accepted in the state you have residency, and should not be needed if you decide to travel.

[carlson1]

If you live in Texas then pay your fee and get a Texas CHL. Support Texas if you live here is what I believe. I have a Utah CFP, but I also hold a Texas CHL.

[Jumping Frog]

Negatives are: lack of Texas specific carry limits; different understanding on use of force and lack of a proficiency test.

And a theoretical vulnerability to being arrested over the federal gun free school zones act. . .

[jmra]

If you do a search you will find numerous discussions on this topic. You will find those who resent the "high cost" of the TX CHL and those who feel the TX requirements are too strict. You will find those who feel that only a TX CHL should permit a TX resident to carry in TX and you will find those who claim that the US constitution says "we don't need no stinking permits".

Do the search - it will provide you with hours of entertainment.

[The Annoyed Man]

Well first of all, it's not new, nor is it a "loophole." People have always been able to get non-resident permits from other states. The only question over the years was whether or not Texas would recognize those permits from other states through reciprocity.

My own feelings are mixed:

1. I believe in the "Arizona Solution"—Constitutional Carry, with a CHL obtainable if so desired for reciprocity purposes with other states.
2. I personally have a Utah CFP, obtained after I got my CHL. I personally think that this is the order that someone ought to pursue if they're going to get a CHL, primarily because I worry that, because 2nd Amendment issues tend to be volatile issues that stir the passions of those opposed, and that not doing it "the right way" will (and already has) result in a political backlash which threatens the RKBA rather than promoting it. If 40%-50% of the state's population had a CHL, this would be a non-issue; but only about 2%-3% actually care enough about it to get one.....and the right not expressed can easily become the right lost.
3. But in the face of #2, I agree that a Texas CHL costs way more than it needs to, putting it outside of the realm of affordability for many people, and I fully understand and support the right of a qualified individual to pursue a more affordable alternative.
4. I also have mixed feelings about what constitutes "qualified," and if that is too tightly defined, then it impacts Constitutional Carry as well.
5. However, all of the above said, I am easily upset by class providers who loudly, incautiously, and brazenly advertise their service a way to circumvent Texas CHL law......the implication being that they can get a permit for someone who is not qualified under Texas law to obtain a CHL. This type of advertising HAS drawn the attention of anti-CHL politicians; they HAVE attempted to file bills that would make it harder for a qualifying person to get an out of state permit; and even "pro-gun" legislators get their backs up when people try to circumvent their legislative intent, and they are more likely to clamp down and further restrict the RKBA than they are likely to loosen up and further enable it. After all, they are politicians, and they like the exercise of power.

For what it's worth, I waited too long to submit my renewal paperwork, and my own CHL expires today, while I'm still waiting for the new one to come in the mail. So from today forward until I receive my renewed CHL in the mail, I will be carrying under the authority of my Utah CFP—which is exactly the type of purpose for which I obtained it in the first place......but I have to drive through about 5 or 6 school zones on my way to physical therapy this morning, so here's hoping that I don't get stopped.

[RoyGBiv]

I agree pretty closely with TAM...

My situation was a bit different in that when I moved to TX 9 years ago from NC I already had both a NC and FL permit. My NC permit became invalid when I moved out of NC so I carried on my FL non-resident permit for nearly 8 years before getting my TX permit. Why take on the expense and inconvenience of a TX permit when my FL permit was valid? I had no intent to "circumvent" any local laws, I already had 2 permits and didn't think it was necessary to spend the several hundred dollars to get yet another.

Why can't CHL's be just like drivers licenses? I walked into DMV, gave them my NC DL and they gave me back a TX DL. 15 minute process. If you're worried about "differences in local laws", hand me a CHL-16 to read and let me take a written test. Do I need to take a driving class to get a TX DL? No.

Someday, when TX realizes that the CHL requirements here are excessive and expensive, I hope that the "installed base" of CHL instructors is supportive of reducing the requirements, even though it would mean less work for the growing cottage industry that is TX CHL Instructors.

So... Count me among the realists... These silly requirements make people feel safer, but in reality all they do is impinge on our rights and make it more difficult and expensive for honest folks to protect themselves.

[Crossfire]

For what it's worth, I waited too long to submit my renewal paperwork, and my own CHL expires today, while I'm still waiting for the new one to come in the mail. So from today forward until I receive my renewed CHL in the mail, I will be carrying under the authority of my Utah CFP—which is exactly the type of purpose for which I obtained it in the first place......but I have to drive through about 5 or 6 school zones on my way to physical therapy this morning, so here's hoping that I don't get stopped.

Well then, HAPPY BIRTHDAY!

[The Annoyed Man]

For what it's worth, I waited too long to submit my renewal paperwork, and my own CHL expires today, while I'm still waiting for the new one to come in the mail. So from today forward until I receive my renewed CHL in the mail, I will be carrying under the authority of my Utah CFP—which is exactly the type of purpose for which I obtained it in the first place......but I have to drive through about 5 or 6 school zones on my way to physical therapy this morning, so here's hoping that I don't get stopped.

Well then, HAPPY BIRTHDAY!

Thanks Crossfire...........just so everybody knows, I took my renewal class from Crossfire-Training back in June, but I kept getting derailed working on other things and never got around to mailing in my paperwork. By the time I went to actually do it, I had lost my CHL-100 form! I decided to delay the immediate gratification of a panic attack and called Crossfire to ask what I should do. She chuckled and told me that I was not the first person dumb enough to lose their paperwork and suggested I drive out to Cabelas the next day and have Marty reprint it for me.....which he gladly did. He also chuckled and told me I was not the first person dumb enough to lose his paperwork. (I note that neither of them excluded me from that subset of humans who are "dumb enough to...." )

Anyway, I mailed my paperwork in on or about the 15th of September, so it has been just shy of 3 weeks. I just checked my status. Everything has been received, and my background check is "under review."

<fingers crossed>

[recaffeination]

My opinion is the US Constitution says my right to carry a gun SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!

My opinion about lowlife domestic enemies of the constitution can't be prnted here.

[Rex B]

Tam is right on all point, as usual.

My alternate license is from Pennsylavania. If you have a Texas CHL, you mail a form, a copy of the CHL and a check for $26 and you get a PA CHL.

I absolutely agree that Texas fees are too high. How many low- or fixed-income citizens skip the licensing because that $150 or so represents 2 weeks worth of groceries?
And the 10-hour class requirement is a joke. Too many instructors just fill the time with irrelevant anecdotes and even incorrect law. Just give us the rulebook and let us take a written test. The range requirements are OK in that they make sure the applicant has a basic understanding of safety, and knows which end the bullet comes out.

[RPB]

I looked up "Loophole" in a dictionary
Apparently it's a foreign word.
In the land of Democratia they use it to mean "freedom"
Idiom: "closing a loophole" means "taking away a freedom"
Democrats seem to look for "loopholes" to "close" as a pastime or hobby.
Example: dishwasher "loophole" - you may re-sell your used dishwasher without reporting it's serial number and transaction to the government database

Gun show "loophole" and "private gun sale transaction loophole" same as "dishwasher loophole" but pertaining to used guns instead of used dishwashers

Yard sale used clothing "loophole" see above and figure it out

I understand there's a "loophole" where a person licensed to drive in Texas may operate a motor vehicle in some other States now ... someone needs to stop that. If we don't nip this in the bud, Texas will have people with drivers licenses issued in other States wanting to operate motor vehicles in Texas. We can't have this willy-nilly type freedom, these loopholes need closing. There is nothing in the Bill of Rights about a right to keep and operate motor vehicles, especially in States which did NOT issue them a license to own or operate a vehicle in that State

[Charles L. Cotton]

I too saw the report on Ch. 11. As has already been said, there's no loophole, that's Texas law. Some people like it, some do not.

As TAM mentioned, irresponsible advertising has created the current problem, not the relatively small number of Texas residents who get out of state licenses in lieu of a Texas CHL. If so-called untrained people were a safety threat, then we would have seen a problem with residents of other states visiting Texas and we have not. I was disappointed to see the CHL instructors on that news report claiming current Texas law endangers the public. If this erroneous position were carried to its logical conclusion, then Texas would cancel reciprocity with every other state. More Texas CHL instructors and instructor/industry associations need to seriously consider the full ramifications of the positions they promote.

All that said, this is creating a very difficult situation for Texas legislators. Those who only want to earn money by selling out of state licenses as a way around Texas eligibility requirements are putting our friends in Austin in a very tough spot. Sadly, they don't care as long as they can generate revenue, even if only for the short term.

Hopefully, we can convince legislators to change current Texas law by amending or removing provisions that encourage Texans to opt for out of state licenses. Reducing the initial class from 10 hrs to 4 hrs is a great step in the right direction. Not only will students not have to sit through unnecessarily long classes, class fees will come down to the level now enjoyed by renewal students.

Reducing the license fee is a nearly impossible task in a tight budget year. However, if we can do away with the requirement for fingerprints, then the State of Texas can save $23.50 (FBI processing fee) for every new and renewal application processed by the DPS. At today's license count, that's a savings of $16,450,000 over five years, or $3,290,000 annually. The savings will increase as the number of Texas CHL holders increase. This means the new and renewal CHL fees can be reduced to $116.50 and $46.50 respectfully, without reducing the net revenue to the State. Fingerprints no longer serve any purpose since DPS already has access to every bit of information the FBI currently checks for the $23.50 fee. In fact, DPS checks these same computers before the digital fingerprints are transmitted to the FBI. (New students will also save the cost of digital fingerprints, thus further reducing the net cost of a Texas CHL.)

Successfully completed "deferred adjudications" should not be considered a "conviction" for eligibility purposes. Delinquency in taxes or child support has nothing to do with crime prevention, thus it violates Art. I., Sec. 23 of the Texas Constitution. Plus, getting killed because one was unarmed and defenseless guarantees those taxes and child support will never be paid.

If removing the shooting requirement wouldn't cost us reciprocity with other states, I would support doing away with it also. Removing this requirement will also help to reduce the cost of taking classes because more instructors will be able to teach without having to have access to shooting ranges. This increase in competition will drive down class fees. The student will also save the cost of the range fee and the factory ammo required for the course. Some will argue that the shooting requirement adds an element of safety, but I respectfully disagree. Everyone knows the course is so simple virtually no one fails. (I've only had 4 students not pass on the first attempt and all passed on the second.) Some will call to make the course harder, but that will be met with huge opposition, with me leading the charge. I've heard some instructors talk about elements of the proficiency portion of the class (shooting) that are not found in statute or DPS rules. Every time an instructor adds their own requirement to the shooting portion, they are doing so without any authority whatsoever. Apparently, the Texas Legislature agrees with my position, otherwise they wouldn't have removed the renewal class requirement for every other renewal beginning with the 3rd renewal.

I know many instructors aren't going to like my position on this issue, but I'm a life-long Second Amendment activist first, an NRA Board Member second, and a CHL instructor third.

The focus in 2013 needs to be on fixing Texas law, not restricting the rights of Texans.

Chas.

[wgoforth]

Tam is right on all point, as usual.

My alternate license is from Pennsylavania. If you have a Texas CHL, you mail a form, a copy of the CHL and a check for $26 and you get a PA CHL.

I absolutely agree that Texas fees are too high. How many low- or fixed-income citizens skip the licensing because that $150 or so represents 2 weeks worth of groceries?
And the 10-hour class requirement is a joke. Too many instructors just fill the time with irrelevant anecdotes and even incorrect law. Just give us the rulebook and let us take a written test. The range requirements are OK in that they make sure the applicant has a basic understanding of safety, and knows which end the bullet comes out.

I don't know any instructor, who if a person came to them and said "I really need to be able to carry because.... but can't afford it" would not help the person. I probably would not do it for free, as my experience it that something free is not appreciated. I would probably ask what ~could~ they afford, or see if they could do some work at my house or trade me something. I suspect most other instructors here would do similar. Second, the state gives "indigents" a discounted fee for the application if they can establish it. If they cannot afford that, they probably can't afford the ammo or range fee to be able to shoot properly to start with. They can still have one for home or MPA (which isn't allowed in most other states) even without the CHL. As for 10 hours of irrelevancies... while I have seen and heard incorrect laws taught, I am talking as fast as I can to cover what must be taught in that 10 hours with no time for irrelevancies.

[MoJo]

I have to agree 110% with Charles. The class is too long and my dog could almost pass the shooting portion of the class. He doesn't have an opposing thumb.

I am an instructor and I like the extra income generated but, I would gladly give it all up to see Texas' firearm laws become more reasonable and Texan's rights easier to exercise. Go for it Charles I'm with you!