Out-of-state CHL Permit

[mlmphoto]

I live in Ohio and have family in Texas. My Ohio permit is not recognized by Texas. Is it possible for an out-of-state citizen to obtain a Texas permit? I appreciate any information you have on this. Thank you.

[G.A. Heath]

Texas does issue non-resident permits, however the class has to be taken in Texas. You may want to consider a non-resident Utah or Florida permit as well.

[mlmphoto]

Thank you for the information.
I am in Texas often enough to be able to take the class there and am looking forward to it.
Thanks again

[Pawpaw]

You can get a PA non-resident license for $26 that will be recognized in TX. Reports are it only takes a week or two.

http://www.co.centre.pa.us/sheriff/lice ... cation.asp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Heritage1]

Thank you for the information.
I am in Texas often enough to be able to take the class there and am looking forward to it.
Thanks again

mlm,
Check the class forum on the board here. Not sure what part of Texas you come to but any instructor would love to have you in class to discuss the differences in states.

[TexasGal]

Nice thing about a Texas CHL class is you learn more about the laws here than you do for Utah, or others. If you plan on carrying regularly, learning all the laws is important. The corps of engineers land issue being just one reason...

[RPB]

Nice thing about a Texas CHL class is you learn more about the laws here than you do for Utah, or others. If you plan on carrying regularly, learning all the laws is important. The corps of engineers land issue being just one reason...

The Federal "Gun Free School Zone" exemption for those issued a license by "the State in which the school zone is located," is another real good/even better reason.

I'd hate to get pulled over for speeding/holding a cell phone etc in a GFSZ and hand the officer a PA/FL/Utah CHL, which was not "issued by the State in which the school zone is located".

18 USC 922
(q)(2)(A) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.
(B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the possession of a firearm—
(i) on private property not part of school grounds;
(ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license;
(iii) that is—
(I) not loaded; and
(II) in a locked container, or a locked firearms rack that is on a motor vehicle;

[jester]

I'd hate to get pulled over for speeding/holding a cell phone etc in a GFSZ and hand the officer a PA/FL/Utah CHL, which was not "issued by the State in which the school zone is located".

It's no different than MPA.

[RPB]

I'd hate to get pulled over for speeding/holding a cell phone etc in a GFSZ and hand the officer a PA/FL/Utah CHL, which was not "issued by the State in which the school zone is located".

It's no different than MPA.

You lost me ... I might be misunderstanding what you meant, but

Penal Code Sec. 46.02 (The MPA)
Allows for concealed carry in a vehicle without even requiring a license, but I see no exemption under the MPA that precludes Federal law for school zones. Nor do I believe that the State Code could preclude Federal Law, as much as I believe it should.

(Without regard to "Exhibiting" the State of Texas law (Education Code Section 37.125, Exhibition of Firearms: which uses the Health and Safety Code definition of Premises 1) "Institution of higher education" and "premises" have the meanings assigned by Section 481.134, Health and Safety Code."(4) "Premises" means real property and all buildings and appurtenances pertaining to the real property. http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/d ... hs.481.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; for Exhibiting a handgun)

As has been stated before on the forum, You're only allowed with 1000ft of a school if you have a CHL issued by the State the school zone is in. If you do not have a CHL issued by the State the school zone is in, simply being within 1000ft of a school with a handgun is illegal under federal law.
More discussion was here: viewtopic.php?f=94&t=33236&start=0&hilit=school+zone" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I'm probably misunderstanding what you said ... sorry.

[dicion]

I'd hate to get pulled over for speeding/holding a cell phone etc in a GFSZ and hand the officer a PA/FL/Utah CHL, which was not "issued by the State in which the school zone is located".

It's no different than MPA.

Yes it is.. with MPA you are not required by law to incriminate yourself by informing the officer that you have a handgun in your vehicle.

With CHL, you are.

So getting pulled over for speeding/cell phone if you were carrying under MPA would not be an issue if the officer never discovered you had a handgun in your vehicle.
Getting pulled over with an out-of-state CHL, still requires you by law to inform the officer, thereby telling them that you're carrying a handgun in violation of Federal law!

[jester]

There may still be a requirement to rat yourself out, but there's no longer a penalty for exercising your Fifth Amendment right, in that circumstance

[ScottDLS]

Unless the FBI or ATF is running speed traps in school zones, the likelihood of getting charged under this statute is pretty low. The local/state police don't generally enforce federal law. I also think the US attorneys are going to be reluctant to try to prosecute for a fairly technical violation of this statute for fear of it being struck down, as it was in its previous form. I also think there's a decent argument that a reciprocal license holder IS "licensed by (the) state", though that is not the ATF's official interpretation. I wouldn't want to be the dreaded "test case", but I'm not going to be sweating it as I drive through another state's school zone.

[Jumping Frog]

The Federal "Gun Free School Zone" exemption for those issued a license by "the State in which the school zone is located," is another real good/even better reason.

I'd hate to get pulled over for speeding/holding a cell phone etc in a GFSZ and hand the officer a PA/FL/Utah CHL, which was not "issued by the State in which the school zone is located".

18 USC 922. . .

Yes, it is technically against federal law.

However, after the ATF lost at the Supreme Court in Lopez v US, Congress added a bit of interstate commerce language to dress that pig of a bill up and then re-passed it. I have been keeping an eye out on this issue in various gun forums for years and can find no evidence of this ever being enforce against anyone.

I've seen lawyers advance the notion that the ATF doesn't want to test the statute in court because it is still unconstitutional and they don't want to lose again. Not sure if I give the ATF that much credit.

However, I do believe that the chances of falling afoul of this law for ordinary law-abiding citizens is exceedingly remote.

BTW, I second the PA non-resident license. My Ohio license combined with the PA out of state license let's me carry in Texas. For $26 and less than a week turnaround by mail, it is a no brainer as far as I am concerned.

[ELB]

I've seen lawyers advance the notion that the ATF doesn't want to test the statute in court because it is still unconstitutional and they don't want to lose again. Not sure if I give the ATF that much credit....

I would avoid hiring those lawyers. The second iteration of the GFSZA has been to the Circuit courts several times for constitutional challenges and has NEVER been struck down for constitutionality. Of the cases I have seen, it has always been an add-on to some other serious charge (like drug trafficking).

I know of one CHL holder who was arrested by local police for a state offense, but prosecuted by a federal prosecutor for violating the GFSZA. The CHL holder won at both district court and circuit court (when the prosecutor appealed) because he (his lawyer) was able to show that he was indeed protected by the exemption (exception?) for those who hold a CHL from the same state the school zone is in. Thus he won not by showing unconstitutionality, but by showing he was well within the law.

see FAQ: Gun Free School Zone Act

[ELB]

Yes it is.. with MPA you are not required by law to incriminate yourself by informing the officer that you have a handgun in your vehicle.

With CHL, you are.

...
Getting pulled over with an out-of-state CHL, still requires you by law to inform the officer, thereby telling them that you're carrying a handgun in violation of Federal law!

This triggered something I never thought of before. I wonder if the state law requiring a CHL holder to display his CHL is unconstitutional in certain circumstances because it requires him to self-incriminate in those situations where the CHL holder is in a place where he should not be with his gun? Or if downstream convictions from this could be thrown out because he was essentially required to incriminate himself.

Felons who possess firearms in jurisdictions that have firearms registration cannot be prosecuted for failing to register those firearms, because the very act of registration would incriminate someone with a felony on his record. This has been to the SCOTUS, and the SCOTUS ruled against the state and for the felon.

Interesting question...