Utah CHL Instructor Story on WFAA

CHL discussions that do not fit into more specific topics

Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton

Post Reply
User avatar

pbwalker
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 3032
Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 10:12 am
Location: Northern Colorado

Re: Utah CHL Instructor Story on WFAA

#91

Post by pbwalker »

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
pbwalker wrote:
Charles L. Cotton wrote:
Significant Otter wrote:On the whole, Texans with a Utah CFP seem to be at least as knowledgeable and competent as those who pass one of the many "One Day CHL" classes taught in Texas.
What is the basis of this statement? What evidence supports this rather outrageous opinion of approximately 450,000 Texas CHL holders about 1600 CHL Instructors?

Chas.
What's outrageous about the statement? My class was one day. I had many choices of CHL instructors.
It's outrageous to argue that someone who takes only a Utah CHP class is as knowledgeable about Texas law as someone who takes a Texas CHL course. The Utah course does not and cannot teach Texas law.
pbwalker wrote:Are Texans with Utah CFP licenses NOT as knowledgeable as Texans with TX CHLs?

I must be missing something..
Correct, see above.

Chas.
Aren't you making assumptions there? What evidence do you have that supports this?

It is the responsibility of the CHL/CFP holder to know the laws of the state they are in, regardless of the license. Are you saying that non-resident CHLers are not as up on the law as resident CHLers?

I'm sorry, but based on some of the questions I have seen here (from newbie CHLers), I'd argue that even TX CHLers are not that knowledgeable of the law...

not being argumentative here...just trying to understand your thought on this...

full disclosure, I don't have any out of state CHL/CFP.
:tiphat:
*NRA Endowment Member* | Veteran
Vote Adam Kraut for the NRA Board of Directors - http://www.adamkraut.com/
User avatar

baldeagle
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 15
Posts: 5240
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:26 pm
Location: Richardson, TX

Re: Utah CHL Instructor Story on WFAA

#92

Post by baldeagle »

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
baldeagle wrote:In 2009 Texas revoked 164 of 402,914 CHL licenses - http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administra ... evoked.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; - http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administra ... tr2009.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
In 2009 Utah revoked 409 of 214,403 CWP licenses - http://publicsafety.utah.gov/bci/documents/2010Q1.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

What that means to you I have no idea.
Now that's interesting. Here is the revocation rate per 100,000:

Texas: 40.79
Utah: 191.00

Chas.
Yes, but what does it mean? That Utah is more aggressive about revoking licenses? Or that Utah is more lax in issuing them and then has to revoke them later? Or that Texas isn't nearly aggressive enough about revoking licenses? Or that Texas does a much better job of training and vetting licensees and therefore has the lower revocation rate?

Beats me. You know what they say about statistics......

Maybe you could get that college student you hired to do the study of crimes committed by CHL licensees to study Utah revocations...... :biggrinjester:
The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation where the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. James Madison
NRA Life Member Texas Firearms Coalition member
User avatar

Charles L. Cotton
Site Admin
Posts in topic: 29
Posts: 17787
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:31 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX
Contact:

Re: Utah CHL Instructor Story on WFAA

#93

Post by Charles L. Cotton »

pbwalker wrote:
Charles L. Cotton wrote:
pbwalker wrote:
Charles L. Cotton wrote:
Significant Otter wrote:On the whole, Texans with a Utah CFP seem to be at least as knowledgeable and competent as those who pass one of the many "One Day CHL" classes taught in Texas.
What is the basis of this statement? What evidence supports this rather outrageous opinion of approximately 450,000 Texas CHL holders about 1600 CHL Instructors?

Chas.
What's outrageous about the statement? My class was one day. I had many choices of CHL instructors.
It's outrageous to argue that someone who takes only a Utah CHP class is as knowledgeable about Texas law as someone who takes a Texas CHL course. The Utah course does not and cannot teach Texas law.
pbwalker wrote:Are Texans with Utah CFP licenses NOT as knowledgeable as Texans with TX CHLs?

I must be missing something..
Correct, see above.

Chas.
Aren't you making assumptions there? What evidence do you have that supports this?
You can't be serious. Are you really going to argue that someone who takes a class on Texas law is not more knowledgeable about Texas law than someone who takes a class on Utah law?
pbwalker wrote:It is the responsibility of the CHL/CFP holder to know the laws of the state they are in, regardless of the license. Are you saying that non-resident CHLers are not as up on the law as resident CHLers?
Yes, I'm saying that a resident from another state who comes to Texas and carries on their state's license is not as "up on [Texas] law as a [Texas] resident" who took a Texas CHL class.

Chas.
User avatar

Charles L. Cotton
Site Admin
Posts in topic: 29
Posts: 17787
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:31 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX
Contact:

Re: Utah CHL Instructor Story on WFAA

#94

Post by Charles L. Cotton »

baldeagle wrote:
Charles L. Cotton wrote:
baldeagle wrote:In 2009 Texas revoked 164 of 402,914 CHL licenses - http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administra ... evoked.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; - http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administra ... tr2009.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
In 2009 Utah revoked 409 of 214,403 CWP licenses - http://publicsafety.utah.gov/bci/documents/2010Q1.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

What that means to you I have no idea.
Now that's interesting. Here is the revocation rate per 100,000:

Texas: 40.79
Utah: 191.00

Chas.
Yes, but what does it mean? That Utah is more aggressive about revoking licenses? Or that Utah is more lax in issuing them and then has to revoke them later? Or that Texas isn't nearly aggressive enough about revoking licenses? Or that Texas does a much better job of training and vetting licensees and therefore has the lower revocation rate?

Beats me. You know what they say about statistics......

Maybe you could get that college student you hired to do the study of crimes committed by CHL licensees to study Utah revocations...... :biggrinjester:
You're absolutely right. One thing is clear though, the Utah revocation rate is over 4.5 times as high as Texas. :txflag:

Chas.
User avatar

pbwalker
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 3032
Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 10:12 am
Location: Northern Colorado

Re: Utah CHL Instructor Story on WFAA

#95

Post by pbwalker »

Charles L. Cotton wrote: You can't be serious. Are you really going to argue that someone who takes a class on Texas law is not more knowledgeable about Texas law than someone who takes a class on Utah law?
Well, yes...because its an assumption on your part. Would you say that ALL TX CHL students / licensees are well versed on the law? I wouldn't...when there are TX CHLers can't even grasp the concept of a 30.06 sign.
pbwalker wrote:It is the responsibility of the CHL/CFP holder to know the laws of the state they are in, regardless of the license. Are you saying that non-resident CHLers are not as up on the law as resident CHLers?
Charles L. Cotton wrote: Yes, I'm saying that a resident from another state who comes to Texas and carries on their state's license is not as "up on [Texas] law as a [Texas] resident" who took a Texas CHL class.

Chas.
Again, that's an assumption / opinion. Rest assured, when I travel to Florida or Arizona, I will know the laws. I would expect the same from anyone who comes here. There's too much risk involved in not doing so...
Last edited by pbwalker on Sat Jun 26, 2010 10:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
*NRA Endowment Member* | Veteran
Vote Adam Kraut for the NRA Board of Directors - http://www.adamkraut.com/
User avatar

Hoi Polloi
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 18
Posts: 1561
Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2010 9:56 pm
Location: DFW

Re: Utah CHL Instructor Story on WFAA

#96

Post by Hoi Polloi »

I was writing a response to baldeagle saying the same thing he said about variables.

I started looking up the legal reasons for revocation to compare Texas' to Utah's.

A much better sample which would limit variables would be TX residents with a TX resident CHL and TX residents with a Utah non-resident CHL.

It hasn't changed my opinion, as I don't have one and am merely offering that the stats should be considered before forming one, but it does definitely pique my curiosity.
Pray as though everything depended on God. Work as though everything depended on you. -St. Augustine
We are reformers in Spring and Summer; in Autumn and Winter we stand by the old;
reformers in the morning, conservers at night. - Ralph Waldo Emerson
User avatar

jester
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 12
Posts: 505
Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 8:52 pm
Location: Energy Capital of the World

Re: Utah CHL Instructor Story on WFAA

#97

Post by jester »

baldeagle wrote:Yes, but what does it mean? That Utah is more aggressive about revoking licenses? Or that Utah is more lax in issuing them and then has to revoke them later? Or that Texas isn't nearly aggressive enough about revoking licenses?
It could be any one of those, a combination of those, or something else.
baldeagle wrote:Or that Texas does a much better job of training and vetting licensees and therefore has the lower revocation rate?
To make that claim, I think you would have to look at the number of revocations for gun-related offenses, and whether the offense was committed because of ignorance of the law, or if they knew it was illegal and did it anyway.

For example, I think most everyone knows drunk driving is illegal. If someone's CHL is revoked because of a drunk driving conviction, I doubt that would have been prevented by better handgun training. Interestingly, Utah may revoke a permit if someone "has been or is convicted of an offense involving the use of alcohol" and it appears that is a lifetime ban, whereas Texas allows drunk drivers (Class B misd.) to get a CHL after 5 years.

Similarly, it looks like public intoxication is a Class C misd. in Texas and a single conviction should not affect Texas CHL eligibility. However, unless I'm missing something, public intoxication is "an offense involving the use of alcohol" and a single PI conviction during their lifetime would make someone ineligible for a Utah license.
"There is but one correct answer...and it is best delivered with a Winchester rifle."
User avatar

skub
Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 157
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2009 9:41 am

Re: Utah CHL Instructor Story on WFAA

#98

Post by skub »

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
Significant Otter wrote:On the whole, Texans with a Utah CFP seem to be at least as knowledgeable and competent as those who pass one of the many "One Day CHL" classes taught in Texas.
What is the basis of this statement? What evidence supports this rather outrageous opinion of approximately 450,000 Texas CHL holders about 1600 CHL Instructors?

Chas.
Very strong opinions are being expressed in response to Charles' challenge, stated here.

Let me ask the question this way - If we took randomly selected a group of 1000 Texans who hold ONLY a Texas CHL and a group of 1000 Texans who hold ONLY a Utah CFP, and we put the two groups through a comprehensive evaluation in the following areas:

1. Knowledge of Texas Law related to concealed carry
2. Competency in using a firearm

You would be willing to bet your best gun that the group who hold only a Utah CFP would do as well on or better than the group who hold a Texas CHL? :headscratch
Theologue at large
5th Generation Texan
CHL 05/04
User avatar

sjfcontrol
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 10
Posts: 6267
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2009 7:14 am
Location: Flint, TX

Re: Utah CHL Instructor Story on WFAA

#99

Post by sjfcontrol »

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!

OK -- this thread just "jumped the shark" "rlol"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jumped_the_shark" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Range Rule: "The front gate lock is not an acceptable target."
Never Forget. Image
User avatar

sjfcontrol
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 10
Posts: 6267
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2009 7:14 am
Location: Flint, TX

Re: Utah CHL Instructor Story on WFAA

#100

Post by sjfcontrol »

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.
It doesn't make much sense, because it isn't done that way.
Go to http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administra ... rocity.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

There you will find a list of "Reciprocal States"(31) -- states where the agreement goes both ways.
And a list of "Unilateral States"(11) where the agreement is one-way, i.e. we recognize the other-states license, but they don't recognize ours.


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!)

From a logic point of view, it would make more sense to say nobody can carry on a Utah license. After all, I doubt that Utah residents carrying in Texas on a Utah license are SAFER than Texas residents carrying in Texas on a Utah license.
Range Rule: "The front gate lock is not an acceptable target."
Never Forget. Image
User avatar

Charles L. Cotton
Site Admin
Posts in topic: 29
Posts: 17787
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:31 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX
Contact:

Re: Utah CHL Instructor Story on WFAA

#101

Post by Charles L. Cotton »

Hoi Polloi wrote:I was writing a response to baldeagle saying the same thing he said about variables.

I started looking up the legal reasons for revocation to compare Texas' to Utah's.

A much better sample which would limit variables would be TX residents with a TX resident CHL and TX residents with a Utah non-resident CHL.

It hasn't changed my opinion, as I don't have one and am merely offering that the stats should be considered before forming one, but it does definitely pique my curiosity.
You are the one who referenced the revocation rates as being relevant, not me. Baldeagle just gave you the numbers I didn't know and they clearly cut against your argument. As an attorney, I know how uncomfortable it is trying to defend against an issue you brought up when it turned sour. There's an old saying with trial attorneys, "once the skunk is in the jury box, you can never get rid of the smell!" (I'm just having a little fun here, so don't be offended.)

I agreed with baldeagle that there is no way to draw any real conclusions from this data, other than the obvious; the Utah revocation rate is 4.6 times higher than the Texas revocation rate. I was also very surprised to see that Utah had issued over 200,000 CFP's. When I took the course, Utah had issued only about 40,000 to 60,000 licenses (2 years ago), according to one of the instructors. (He could have meant to Utah residents.) My instructor class had about 35 to 40 people in it and only 4, that's right 4, were Utah residents! The rest were from all over the country including Hawaii. So it is highly likely that Utah revocations are from all over the country and not just from Utah licenses issued to Utah residents.

As for enforcement, I can state with confidence that Utah's 4 employees in the concealed handgun division do not pursue revocation more aggressively than Texas. As a Utah instructor I can also state that Utah law does not provide greater reason or opportunity to revoke a license than Texas law. Only by thoroughly researching this issue could we be sure (and I have neither the time nor the desire to do so), but I suspect the majority of the Utah revocations are because of acts committed in states other than Utah by people carrying on a Utah non-resident CFP. Two factors support this hypothesis; 1) there are many more Utah CFP's held by non-residents than Utah residents; and 2) the fact that Utah law prohibits the teaching of any other state's laws during the Utah class increases the likelihood those CFP's have not received training or education on their home state's laws relative to the use of force, including deadly force, or any other statutes that impact the carrying of handguns by citizens. (Remember, there's a lot more to carrying a gun than knowing when you can use it. Texas' 51% rule; definition of "premises," duty to display a CHL; 30 day time limit to report a new address, SA v. NSA license are but examples.)

Chas.
User avatar

The Annoyed Man
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 12
Posts: 26852
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 12:59 pm
Location: North Richland Hills, Texas
Contact:

Re: Utah CHL Instructor Story on WFAA

#102

Post by The Annoyed Man »

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.
“Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.”

― G. Michael Hopf, "Those Who Remain"

#TINVOWOOT
User avatar

Topic author
Keith B
Moderator
Posts in topic: 8
Posts: 18502
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 3:29 pm

Re: Utah CHL Instructor Story on WFAA

#103

Post by Keith B »

Let's face it; if you are going to carry anyplace, you need to know the laws that affect you. That being said, is anyone going to be 100% up on the laws of their state after any class? No. There is not enough time to teach everything to the level needed to make sure of that, and unless the individual has previously studied the laws heavily, then they will not be clear. Shoot, with the gray areas in the laws, no one will be 100%.

I have several thousand hours of personal training, as well as having been an instructor for a time in my 30+ years with my company. Every student learns differently. There are those that pick up and retain the info like a sponge, and there are those that never get it even after multiple times of being shown/taught. The average person will pick up the general point and then gain better insight as they do the job. In the case of CHL, unless they go out and research on their own afterward, 99.999% of the people will NOT have any other exposure to the state laws or try to learn more (Texas CHL Forum members excluded.) So, without this OJT (On Job Training) they will have what they came out of class with and more than likely not remember some of it.

My belief is if you live in the state you will predominantly carry in, you should taught the laws of that state in class. A person coming out of a CHL class that has been exposed to that states laws will at least have a good start on the basics of what you are or are not allowed to do in the state. As I stated, unlike those of us on this forum, many people will not even look at the statutes or laws after the class until renewal time. Is that a disaster waiting to happen? You bet. With at least a basic exposure of the state law in class they have been armed (pun intended) with the right info. If they don't even get shown the laws of the state, or where to find them and the rules you must abide by, they are being thrown out like a baby in the wilderness to fend for themselves against the wolves (laws) and are VERY vulnerable to doing something they shouldn't and ending up in hot water legally.

This also boils down to instructors. We all know there are good ones and bad ones. A good instructor will make you want to learn and retain the info. A bad one will turn you off on the subject. We know of many cases where we have heard of Texas CHL instructors teaching something that was totally inaccurate or flat wrong. It happens. However, if they are at least teaching the Texas laws and course, then the student will have the majority of the info correctly presented to them and the LS-16 handbook to reference later. That way maybe they will go back and review the rules they must follow. If they never get that taught or handed to them (i.e. a Utah only class) then they will doubtfully ever go and research the Texas laws themselves.
Keith
Texas LTC Instructor, Missouri CCW Instructor, NRA Certified Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun Instructor and RSO, NRA Life Member

Psalm 82:3-4
User avatar

Charles L. Cotton
Site Admin
Posts in topic: 29
Posts: 17787
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:31 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX
Contact:

Re: Utah CHL Instructor Story on WFAA

#104

Post by Charles L. Cotton »

I have to admit that I've had fun sparring intellectually on the Utah issue, but I want to clear up a growing misconception I believe is taking place.

1. I don't want to see any change in Texas law regarding licenses issued by Utah or any other state;
2. I don't want to see Texans prohibited from carrying a handgun in this state under the authority of a license issued by any other state;
3. I don't think there is any credible evidence that persons carrying a handgun in Texas under the authority of a license issued by another state pose any threat to our citizens;

When I started warning of the perceived "Utah problem" months ago, I clearly stated this was a growing perception in Austin among a growing number of Texas Legislators. I have also repeatedly stated that I do not want the Legislature to intervene because I prefer that we instructors police ourselves through peer pressure and that the public shun people who advertise irresponsibly.

The simple and sad truth is this; the Utah CFP has become an issue because one single instructor and shooting range started aggressively advertising that the Utah CFP is "bigger, better, faster, cheaper and easier" than a Texas CHL. In so doing, they infuriated a very powerful and politically active person in their county and this person started making calls to legislators. These range owners would not listen when warned that this was causing a growing political problem and to please change their advertising. (They weren't asked to stop teaching the Utah course, simply change the advertising.) A few more Utah instructors saw these advertisements and started advertising their classes in the same fashion, or worse.

Were it not for irresponsible advertising by a very few but vocal instructors, the Utah CFP would be a non-issue.

I didn't start this issue; TSRA/NRA didn't start this issue. It began as the advertising campaign of one person/range and it is growing like a cancer. I respect my fellow TexasCHLmembers and I respect your opinions on this and other issues. But I suggest that it is time to stop the bantering about the "Utah problem," fun though it may be, and focus our efforts on solving the problem without intervention by the legislature. If we don't, we'll have a fight on our hands in 2011.

Chas.
User avatar

sjfcontrol
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 10
Posts: 6267
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2009 7:14 am
Location: Flint, TX

Re: Utah CHL Instructor Story on WFAA

#105

Post by sjfcontrol »

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.
Wow -- TAM, I'm lost. Maybe I just don't have the concentration power this morning to understand such a long and complex (at least to me) post.

I don't think I was arguing against what you were talking about. I only mentioned that I thought those who were arguing that Texas residents should not be allowed to carry in Texas on Utah licenses, while allowing non-Texas residents to carry in Texas on Utah licenses, are arguing for a very strange situation. (Were you making that argument?) I said nothing about having both Texas and Utah licenses.

That having been said, I DO believe there are valid situations where Texas residents licenses may be rejected, suspended or revoked for either temporary or trivial reasons. Under those conditions it seems to me carrying in Texas under a Utah license is understandable. I am not advocating getting a Utah license to bypass a Texas license because it's easier, faster or cheaper.

For example, this weekend I met a gentleman who feared he could not renew his Texas license, because FIVE YEARS AGO, he was charged with 42.01(a)(1) (Disorderly Conduct, abusive language). He's been trying every since then to get the case to court to fight it, but Class C misdemeanors are SLOW to get to trial. He claims the charge is baseless. But he'd have to report it on his renewal app, and that is the only Class C misdemeanor (42.01) that can remove his eligibility. What are his options?

And I've stated before, people can have their Texas licenses suspended or revoked for such things as not reporting their change of address soon enough, or for being CHARGED with serious crimes before those charges are proven or disproven in court.
Range Rule: "The front gate lock is not an acceptable target."
Never Forget. Image
Post Reply

Return to “General Texas CHL Discussion”