Charles, I think you've confused me with another poster again.Charles L. Cotton wrote: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.)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.
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.
I just looked over all the posts I've made in this thread. My first post was questioning the consistency of people's arguments between their overall political stance on gun laws and their solutions for this issue. It did not reference revocation rates or give my opinion on non-resident Utah CFPs.
My second post stated that reciprocity is a poor term for describing the process of recognizing other states' concealed carry permits (which sjfcontrol later responded to by stating that reciprocity is accurately used in conjunction with the term unilateral as necessary).
My third post was about economics being a valid point of discussion. The summary statement in that post is, "So the real question here is what should the laws be and how do we get them there? The contingency plan if that doesn't work shouldn't be the first run."
My fourth post only said, "Yes, and he really shot himself in the foot, too, as his revenue stream could really be dried up after that." It obviously did not state an opinion on the subject of recognizing non-resident CFPs.
My fifth post mainly asked questions regarding what is actually going on because of the what-if scenarios being presented. It asked for stats to determine the reality. Sjfcontrol later said that this post caused the thread to jump the shark when I used a reductio ad absurdum regarding extraterrestrial lifeforms to demonstrate the absurdity of the fearmongering in place of any real data.
My sixth post again asked for data from which opinions could be extrapolated. A quote from that post: "I think those numbers would observably show if Utah's non-resident license holders maintain the minimum standards for Texas concealed carry in comparison to those with a TX resident CHL." It did not state a position and clearly demonstrated that I continued to look for statistics from which a legitimate opinion could be reached.
My seventh post again asked questions about statistics, specifically asking if stats I had were accurate and for input from those who had more knowledge of the statistics. It made no statements of opinion.
My eighth post pointed out that you responded to me, specifically saying I'd made a derogatory comment, when you were intending to respond to comments from a different poster and misattributed those comments to me.
My ninth post said that I agreed with baldeagle that the stats posted had too many variables from which to draw opinions and I mused on which stats would lead to better extrapolation on the subject at hand. A quote from that post: "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."
This is my tenth post to the thread in which I will again say that we seem to be shooting at ghosts without any data on how much of a "problem" this is. Guesses and hypotheses are useless, especially when considering a restriction of people's current legal rights. I completely concede that guesses by those who are in the thick of things are more likely to be accurate, and if they are then they will stand up to investigation. I have no opinion on the accuracy of your guesses and I continue to wonder what the stats are. I understand that it would take time and money to discover them and that is why I asked in my seventh post if a study already taken covers the topic.
My only thought--and this is the first time I've mentioned an opinion on the topic at hand, which I point out is not so much an opinion but a very rough observation more than anything--is that even with Utah's rate of revocation being so much higher than Texas', that it seems that their revocation rate is still an infinitesimally small number in comparison to the whole of non-resident CFP holders. I wonder if those revocations include an abnormally high percentage of concerning crimes in comparison to more administrative issues, as someone else has brought up at least a couple times in the thread. I have no opinion on that and again would be interested in the numbers. I'm not personally invested enough to finance finding those numbers, but I know that some people and organizations are concerned about further restrictions being placed on Texans' gun rights who would be interested in those stats. I point out again that I am surprised by the inconsistency of some posters who belong to such organizations and regularly say that they want less restrictions on the carrying and bearing of arms who then post on this issue to say more, more, more restrictions based only on what everyone has so far agreed is an isolated situation of media fearmongering over what-ifs.
If it is a problem, get the numbers, form a solution, and do something about it. I would hope that the solution offered would be consistent with the political ideology the poster holds overall. If it isn't a problem, the issue is the distortion of the media and the solution should be directed towards that and not towards the non-issue.
