Utah CHL Instructor Story on WFAA

[jester]

You'll have to go to a CHL class, pay your money, and wait on your license. This doesn't infringe on anyone's rights.

No more than a literacy test and poll tax for voting.

[LarryH]

KHOU, Channel 11 in Houston, just did a sensationalized piece on "the Utah loophole".

While I believe that a Texas CHL should be the default choice for a Texas resident, all this hoopla is likely to lead to overreaction and the inability to use the Utah license to gain some extra reciprocity, which is the only reason I'd get one.

[baldeagle]

Adding more layers of regulation (i.e. when you can or can't get a Utah license) is just asking for more problems. We would all like others to be more proficient with firearms, but forcing Texas residents to jump through more hoops is not the answer.

That wasn't what was suggested. Anyone can get a Utah license any time they want. The suggestion is that Texas require that Texas residents who want to carry have a Texas CHL. Whether they want a Utah CHL as well is their business.

As Charles has pointed out, this issue isn't going to go away simply because we wish it would. Unless we suggest reasonable solutions, the legislature may decide to get really radical and not recognize Utah licenses at all. That certainly would be worse than what's been suggested, don't you think?

Texas deadly force statutes should be known by everyone, not just people with Texas CHLs, but that won't happen either. I certainly don't want my mother (or any other non-CHL) to be forced to take a class on those statutes before she can keep a loaded 1911 in the nightstand or a shotgun in the closet. I'm afraid that expecting Texas laws be taught in order to grant reciprocity would be a slippery slope toward just that, requiring it of anyone keeping a gun for self-defense. I realize that may be seen by some as a "sky is falling" way to look at things, but I think you get my point.

I'm not following you. Your mother doesn't have to have a CHL or know deadly force law to keep a loaded weapon in her home. Reciprocity has to do with CHL holders, not people who only keep guns in their homes.

However, which would you prefer? That Texas residents be required to have a Texas CHL to carry in Texas? Or that Texas withdraw reciprocity with Utah (which effectively accomplishes the same thing but is a much worse solution.) Nevada has already done so. Let's not let Texas follow suit.

In addition, all of us make sure we figure out where we're allowed to carry in states we vi[sit before we attempt it. I would expect that Texas residents getting Utah licenses would do the same thing. I would venture to say that, generally, the primary motivation for Texas residents getting Utah or other states' licenses is not the inability to hit a giant piece of paper from close range or pass a multiple choice test; it is more likely the motivation is either the high cost of the Texas license or the simple fact that a Utah license is recognized in more states.

That may well be, but it's inarguable that some people want a Utah CHL because they can't get a Texas CHL. And I can guarantee you that the politicians will take notice of that fact and introduce legislation to "correct" that problem. The question before us, then, is what's the solution that does the least damage to our rights.

[Beiruty]

Guns are over-rated. You can lose weight by leaving your piece at home. Just sign a contract with all BG that no guns are needed today.

[jester]

However, which would you prefer? That Texas residents be required to have a Texas CHL to carry in Texas? Or that Texas withdraw reciprocity with Utah

If those are the only two choices, I pick #2.

If Texas will honor the Utah license, they should honor it for Blacks and Whites, Jews and Christians, Women and Men, Texans and Utahns, etc.

If Texas will not honor the Utah license, they shouldn't honor it for anyone. They should also have the moral consistency to not honor LEOSA for Utah police, for the same reasons. (e.g. they don't know Texas law.)

In any case, the legislature should change the law to disallow one-sided "reciprocity" (which is not really reciprocity at all.) If a state will not honor the Texas CHL, then we should not honor their license either. Equal rights.

[A-R]

Interesting discussion. And I think it's time something is done about this "loophole", but I too am not sure what is the ideal solution that addresses the concern ... people avoiding the Texas CHL process and obtaining a license with "lesser" requirements who may or may not be fully prepared .... without unnecessarily burdening those who get a Utah (or other out-of-state) CHL for the "right reasons" .... additional reciprocity or as a "back up" in case their Texas renewal takes too long.

This is one point that the "ban the Utah license" crowd seems to have quickly forgotten. Just last year Texas DPS was taking FOREVER and a day to send new and renewal Texas CHLs to those who had done everything by the book. DPS just got backlogged by a huge influx of applications. This was causing some folks to have a lapse in their ability to legally carry. If those people had a Utah CHL, they could have carried under that license until the Texas DPS finally got their act together and sent the Texas license.

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. Put a timeframe on it that is equal to the timeframe for a new resident to acquire a Texas CHL. For example, let's say the "grace period" is 6 months:

* John Doe lives in Utah and has a Utah CHL. John Doe moves to Texas on March 1. He can continue to carry in Texas under his Utah CHL until September 1. At that point, he must have a Texas CHL or stop carrying in Texas.

* Juan Diaz lives in Texas and has both a Texas CHL and Utah CHL. Juan's Texas CHL expires March 1. He can continue to carry in Texas under his Utah CHL until September 1. At that point, he must have a Texas CHL or stop carrying in Texas.

Neither person would be allowed to carry if their Texas CHL (or Utah CHL for that matter) were revoked or denied for a disqualifying factor (i.e. a felony conviction etc).

Of course, the real fix for the slow-to-issue problem is for a grace period to receive your new-to-Texas or renewal CHL, including a "temporary" CHL issued by DPS, just like with driver's licenses.

Another element I haven't read in this thread (or elsewhere) yet is how a states rights argument against a national CHL law fits in with the interstate commerce clause of the US Constitution in terms of regulating CHL reciprocity, Driver's License reciprocity etc. Some say (and I'm not arguing for or against) that the Feds should stay out of this because it's a "states rights" issue, as if to say the Feds don't have authority. But seems to me (as a complete Constitutional layman) that Feds have all the authority they need under interstate commerce clause to regulate the carrying of guns between states. I don't WANT them to do so, but we might all want to come up with a "better" argument because telling the Feds they "can't" do so is kinda like telling a cop he doesn't have the authority to arrest you - you're basically guaranteeing that the now angry cop will arrest you. My point in this long-winded paragraph is that we - as responsible gun owners/users - need to help the states rectify these situations before the Feds take notice and step in.

And as a final suggestion, anyone (Texan or otherwise) who carries in Texas under a non-Texas license should be REQUIRED BY LAW to read every post on this entire forum before carrying

[Grog]

Thanks for the extra motivation to keep my Indiana DL and avoid all the Texas CHL nonsense and xenophobia.

What about insurance rates? I was quoted auto insurance (from the same company) that is truly triple my current rate because of the very high TX rates.

[TexasGal]

I think the right answer is for Texas to require that residents must pass the CHL to carry in Texas. Non-residents must possess a CHL from their home state. And those who want to carry multiple CHLs for reasons of greater coverage may do so without penalty. But inside the state of Texas it would be illegal for a resident to carry without a Texas CHL.

That satisfies the state's desire to ensure that proper training and certification has taken place without trampling on the rights of those who can qualify for a Texas CHL.

[aggie06]

Adding more layers of regulation (i.e. when you can or can't get a Utah license) is just asking for more problems. We would all like others to be more proficient with firearms, but forcing Texas residents to jump through more hoops is not the answer.

That wasn't what was suggested. Anyone can get a Utah license any time they want. The suggestion is that Texas require that Texas residents who want to carry have a Texas CHL. Whether they want a Utah CHL as well is their business.

As Charles has pointed out, this issue isn't going to go away simply because we wish it would. Unless we suggest reasonable solutions, the legislature may decide to get really radical and not recognize Utah licenses at all. That certainly would be worse than what's been suggested, don't you think?

I was referring to the insinuation that Utah licensees should be required to know Texas laws. I don't think we should suggest solving "problems" with more rules. The choices is not between suggesting rules that don't help and letting the legislators overreact. If we make Texas licenses more attractive by reducing the wait times, doing what we can to secure reciprocity agreements with more states, and reducing the fees required, I think we would counter most of the arguments people have to become licensed in Utah.

Texas deadly force statutes should be known by everyone, not just people with Texas CHLs, but that won't happen either. I certainly don't want my mother (or any other non-CHL) to be forced to take a class on those statutes before she can keep a loaded 1911 in the nightstand or a shotgun in the closet. I'm afraid that expecting Texas laws be taught in order to grant reciprocity would be a slippery slope toward just that, requiring it of anyone keeping a gun for self-defense. I realize that may be seen by some as a "sky is falling" way to look at things, but I think you get my point.

I'm not following you. Your mother doesn't have to have a CHL or know deadly force law to keep a loaded weapon in her home. Reciprocity has to do with CHL holders, not people who only keep guns in their homes.

However, which would you prefer? That Texas residents be required to have a Texas CHL to carry in Texas? Or that Texas withdraw reciprocity with Utah (which effectively accomplishes the same thing but is a much worse solution.) Nevada has already done so. Let's not let Texas follow suit.

Again, referring to the insinuation that you should not be able to carry in Texas without a class on Texas law. Everyone is still subject to those laws whether they have a CHL or not. I am simply saying that we should not let our legislators start down that slippery slope of requiring more training for Utah CHLs. It could very easily go from that to requiring a class before you can keep a loaded weapon in the car. Even if we did change the law to require an additional class, people would get the Utah CHL and take the class. Then we'd have a news story on the Utah loophole that allows Texas residents to avoid the range time or the CHL processing wait. We already have people upset that we get our own line at the Capitol. No matter what we do, the antis will not be happy until everything is banned.

In addition, all of us make sure we figure out where we're allowed to carry in states we vi[sit before we attempt it. I would expect that Texas residents getting Utah licenses would do the same thing. I would venture to say that, generally, the primary motivation for Texas residents getting Utah or other states' licenses is not the inability to hit a giant piece of paper from close range or pass a multiple choice test; it is more likely the motivation is either the high cost of the Texas license or the simple fact that a Utah license is recognized in more states.

That may well be, but it's inarguable that some people want a Utah CHL because they can't get a Texas CHL. And I can guarantee you that the politicians will take notice of that fact and introduce legislation to "correct" that problem. The question before us, then, is what's the solution that does the least damage to our rights.

Of course some people want a Utah CHL because they can't get a Texas CHL, but I would be willing to bet it is a very small number. We need to find out why those people can get a Utah license but not a Texas license. If the requirements are different, we need to either change our requirements, or we need to take a look at why we recognize licenses like that. I am not clear on why someone would be eligible for a Utah CHL and not a Texas CHL. Other than the stated lack of a test and range qualification, what are the other differences between their requirements and ours?

[Grog]

I am not clear on why someone would be eligible for a Utah CHL and not a Texas CHL.

The concealed handgun law sets out the eligibility criteria that must be met......

....a copy of your Texas driver license or identification card"

I've not before a full Texas resident yet, so I am unable to get a Texas CHL. There is also a significant cost difference between the two (total costs).


I could care less about shooting, I have qualified for the last nine years on a much tougher course of fire than any CHL regulation could ever require.


Like many things, it's about money. Every government wants what they can get with as little effort as possible. How many times do you know of people willing to pay money for something that is not a necessity? A CHL, just like a DL or hunting license is not needed, but wanted.

[sjfcontrol]

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.

The problem is that Texas suspends or revokes licenses when the licensee hasn't necessarily done anything seriously wrong. It can suspend, or even revoke your license if you fail to report a change of address enough times. That's a trivial reason to remove one's self-protection rights. (An increasing fee for "failure to notify" would be a more appropriate, not to mention more profitable response.)

Additionally, if you're involved in a self-defense shooting (lets assume its a justified shooting), you will most likely be charged with a felony. At that point, your license will be suspended and your firearm confiscated pending the outcome of the case. This constitutes a "guilty until proven innocent" attitude. Since Utah doesn't revoke licenses until the licensee is found guilty, this gives the (Texas revoked) licensee the right of self-protection until the case is settled, and presumably his Texas license reinstated. If the shooter is CONVICTED, his Utah license will be revoked as well.

Note that NEITHER Texas nor Utah will issue a license to someone who has committed, and been found guilty, of serious crimes. So it generally isn't a case of someone who's record contains convictions being able to get a Utah license when he is unable to qualify for a Texas license.

[ericlw]

i thought the reason people were getting out of state licenses was it covered some states that the texasl chl doesnt?i didnt think it was to get "around" texas license process.

[Keith B]

i thought the reason people were getting out of state licenses was it covered some states that the texasl chl doesnt?i didnt think it was to get "around" texas license process.

There are a lot of people who get a non-resident license for various reasons and don't get a Texas license. This issue is more then likely going to end up causing Texas to stop honoring non-resident licenses.

[The Annoyed Man]

i thought the reason people were getting out of state licenses was it covered some states that the texasl chl doesnt?i didnt think it was to get "around" texas license process.

That is only one of several motivations. I have a Utah CFP, but I had my Texas CHL first. I didn't get my CFP until a little more than a year later. I got my CFP for the following three reasons, in no particular order of importance to me:

1. At the time that I first got my CHL, there was a good deal of delay in processing time (mine took about 75 days or so). Not knowing if this would be an ongoing issue or not for the long term, I got a CFP so that I would still be licensed to carry in Texas if continuing delays caused my CHL to expire while my renewal was processing.
2. Getting the CFP gave me reciprocity with an additional three states. I intend to do a lot of traveling when I retire, and the more states I can carry in, the better.
3. In the event that, God forbid, I should ever be involved in a defensive shooting, it is likely that my CHL would be at least temporarily suspended pending the results of an investigation. I hoped that I would be able to continue to carry for self-defense purposes under the authority of my CFP. There are some who think that a Texas CHL suspension automatically invalidates my CFP, but there are reasonable arguments against that idea, based on the notion that the incident is not under Utah's jurisdiction and that my CFP is not under Texas's jurisdiction, and thus my CFP remains valid during that time. That is certainly open to debate, and I am not a lawyer, and I'm willing to admit that I might be wrong about this. I would depend on my lawyer's advice at that time, rather than on Internet speculation based on hypothetical incidents - meaning no disrespect to the lawyers on this board -.

Now, all of that said, my personal self-identity as a person who is licensed by a state to carry a gun is as a Texas CHL holder. I am proud of Texas, and I am proud of my CHL. I love it here, even though I am not a native. I intend to stay here. Texas was the first state which, in its wisdom, decided that I could be trusted to carry a gun. I am extremely grateful for this - even though I take "shall not be infringed" literally.

You can make all the arguments you want about whether or not the state has any business regulating the RKBA at all (and I tend to be very libertarian in that regard, myself), but the fact of the matter is that all of that is a "wish sandwich" - no meat, only bread; not even any mayo. The boots on the ground reality is that the state has asserted its right to regulate my behavior with regard to the RKBA, and the state will throw my sorry butt in prison for violating its laws - unconstitutional or not. And so, until the political landscape changes, and Texans overwhelming decide to implement some kind of Arizona/Vermont style attitude toward the RKBA, I still have to deal with Texas law. That's just the reality of the whole thing.

So, with the future goal in mind of removing such restrictions, I obey Texas CHL law, and I don't try to work any "end arounds." And that is what people who teach CFP classes as an alternative to CHL are doing. They are encouraging people to circumvent the law by the skin of their teeth. It's like encouraging someone to cook their books as an alternative to paying taxes. Worse yet, they're doing it for profit. It's a deadbeat attitude, and I have no place in my heart for any of that. Those folks are making a grave mistake, and it is going to cost all of us in the end by imposition of the burden of additional laws we'll all have to deal with because of the irresponsible actions of a few immoral dolts.

[garcia946]

Heres my two cents...

If they want to teach utah chl here so be it , but the students should have to go through something per Tx Law also , they should have to shoot. False sense , I dont think so, they need to be taught where to shoot. Be taught our laws as well as their laws. Four hour class , really what can really be taught in that time frame?
Thats all Im saying.... end of story..... I`ll get off my soap box......