Online Class promotion at Lewsiville Gun Show

[Charles L. Cotton]

Should doctors be able to practice medicine in Texas using a Utah license?

Chas.

If Texas recognized the validity of the Utah license, presumably after examining the underlying qualifications required to obtain one, then YES.

I knew that would be your answer. Of course, you had no choice if you were going to continue in your position. You would turn your back on long-term pro-gun legislators over this one issue. I and most gun owners won't.

Chas.

[RoyGBiv]

Should doctors be able to practice medicine in Texas using a Utah license?

Chas.

If Texas recognized the validity of the Utah license, presumably after examining the underlying qualifications required to obtain one, then YES.

I knew that would be your answer. Of course, you had no choice if you were going to continue in your position. You would turn your back on long-term pro-gun legislators over this one issue. I and most gun owners won't.

Chas.

Ouch. Not true.
You are speaking from a practical standpoint.
My comments should be taken as "in a perfect world".

As in... "In a perfect world" when one state recognizes a license (DL, CHL, Marriage, Physician, etc) issued by another state, a person should not need to be re-licensed by the state that already recognizes that persons existing license.

I certainly recognize that political reality would dictate that the situation at hand with the VA and previously UT licenses will be a political fireball and will almost certainly face "retribution" within the TX legislature, making things more difficult for all of the TX 2A community.

Indicating a preference for this kind of reciprocity in this forum is nothing even close to "turning my back" on anyone. I regret that you've read that in what I've written.

[bayouhazard]

If the Virginia license is defective in some way, then I agree Texas should revoke reciprocity for all Virginia license.

OTOH if a Virginia license is good enough for a Richmond Va resident to carry in Houston then it's good enough for a Richmond Tx resident to carry in Houston. It's the same license and should be treated the same by any rational person.

[The Annoyed Man]

It's the same license and should be treated the same by any rational person.

This presumes, of course, that all politicians are rational people. In RoyGBiv's "perfect world," they would be. But, they are not. And so that is the reality with which we have to reckon. So, given the reality, we have to ask ourselves whether certain tactics are strategically damaging. In the case of flouting legislative intent, and given the nature of political animals, the net result over the long haul will be less freedom, not more of it. It takes either a severe lack of wisdom, or a callous disregard for the welfare of the 2nd Amendment, to pursue those kinds of tactics.

We can all say that we support and defend our RKBA; but in the end, the only measurement that counts is whether or not our actions furthered the RKBA or harmed it. So when an ill-advised marketing campaign trumpets a product for the express purpose of circumventing the will of the Legislature, you can take it to the bank that it will excite the enemies of the RKBA, causing them to apply sufficient pressure on the Legislature to act against it. Although he was as wrong as lace panties on a silverback gorilla, John Woods was undeniably the most effective advocate against campus carry during the last session. All it takes is to twist the tail of just ONE guy like that, and the RKBA for students over 21 was shot down. How is that so? Because these things don't occur in a vaccum, and the "gentemen" of the press like him more than they like us. So acting in a manner which just BEGS them to bring their attention to bear on us is downright irresponsible, and ultimately more bad will come of it than good.

There are plenty of good reasons to have an out of state non-resident permit. I have one myself—a Utah CFP. But I don't have it in place of a CHL, for which I was also qualified. I have nothing but respect for people who offer the CFP class in addition to the CHL, and I obtained my CFP from one such instructor. To me, that is not the issue. The issue is the willful ignorance on the part of some vendors about the impact their marketing has on the cause, and a tacit refusal to accept that they've been making a huge strategic error because they are more interested in the quick buck than they are in the RKBA. When the founders signed the Declaration of Independence, they pledged their sacred honor to the cause, and they pursued it with equal parts of committment AND wisdom. That can't be said about some of the vendors in quesion.

[bizarrenormality]

If a legislator suggested a 10 hour class and a $140 fee before you can have a bible in public, I wouldn't call them pro-Christian.

If their response to other states having less onerous requirements for bible possession was to deny reciprocity to Texans who have a Virginia bible license, I really wouldn't call them pro-Christian.

This is a poor analogy. Do you feel Texas residents should be able to drive using a Florida driver's license? Should doctors be able to practice medicine in Texas using a Utah license?

Chas.

My analogy is between two constitutional rights, not between a right and a business license. But I'll play.

If there is reciprocity now between Texas and Utah for medical licenses, and some legislator threatened to limit reciprocity, I would not call them pro health care freedom.

If a doctor went to medical school in Utah, or Johns Hopkins in Maryland, I don't think they should have to re-do medical school in Texas to get licensed here.

If a doctor from Utah comes to Texas for vacation or sabbatical, he doesn't have any more rights to practice medicine then a Texas resident if they both have a Utah "medical license" and graduated from University of Utah School of Medicine together. So your argument may support eliminating reciprocity with Utah and Virginia completely, but it doesn't support denying Texans the same consideration as non-Texans.

[westex1948]

If there is reciprocity now between Texas and Utah for medical licenses, and some legislator threatened to limit reciprocity, I would not call them pro health care freedom.

If a doctor went to medical school in Utah, or Johns Hopkins in Maryland, I don't think they should have to re-do medical school in Texas to get licensed here.

But I believe they are required to PASS a test on TEXAS JURISPRUDENCE, Before being issued a licence to practice in Texas.

[apostate]

Sounds good. Allow people to take the CHL tests and if they pass, they don't have to sit through or pay for a class. Not even an online class.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Come on guys, quit defending people who are creating problems we will have to deal with in 2013. They are in it solely for the money and I don't want to have to spend ours or, more importantly, our political capital on this issue. It needs to be spent on far more important things like reducing the 10 hr. course to 4 hrs; removing deferred adjudication from the definition of "conviction" for CHL eligibility purposes; putting CHL's in the same "not applicable" section of the Penal Code along with LEOs, judges, probation officers, prosecutors, etc.; campus-carry; and others I won't mention on an open forum.

Chas.

[bayouhazard]

I agree. We should stop defending the legislators who threaten gun rights. We should stop making excuses for people who, as TAM agrees with me, are not people who think rationally.

Get rid of the illogical, irrational, unreliable legislators.
That would help solve the majority of the problems in this country and state!

[Keith B]

For those of you who are saying we should oust any person that votes negatively, even once, on some piece of perceived pro-gun legislation, there are a couple of old expressions that fit; 'Dont throw the baby out with the bath water' and 'Be careful what you wish for'

Just because a legislator doesn't fall in line one time with a piece of pro-gun legislation that you support doesn't mean they are anti-gun. You have to look at their track record on previous issues to see if they follow an anti-path, or if this was a one-time thing that was driven by a larger issue. If you have never been in politics or worked for a large corporation (aka Government) then you may not understand, but sometimes you have to compromise to keep a person who, for the majority of issues, is on your side and is a good bedfellow. My question to you is, do you throw out your spouse or S.O. because they disagree with you on one thing? Or better yet, do they throw YOU out because you disagree with them? No, you have to compromise and sometimes have to agree to disagree, but keep the overall good relationship going. If you or they DO throw the other out because of one little item, then your or their scope if way to narrow to see the whole picture and you will never be able to work together to accomplish anything.

My biggest concern on the 'Throw them all out and start fresh' mentality is you end up with a bunch of greenhorns that have no clue on how to introduce and pass legislation, and they end up floundering around and accomplishing nothing. They will also tend to flop sides on views as the seasoned and shrewd lobbyists prey on their naivety and work them over like Mike Tyson in a fight with Boy George. To have a balanced congress, you have to keep a good amount of senior legislators that know how to fight, while balancing the newcomers with the old heads. If you keep the ones that are on your side for the major portion of your views, then replace those that are on the opposite side of your views with a new person that carries your agenda, you will end up over time with a well groomed legislature that sides with you on more and more of your beliefs. Does it happen over night? No, but it can happen.

Bottom line, while you might like to think you could vote in a whole new house and senate of people that would share 100% of your views, you are living in a dream world if you do. I will bet that there is not one candidate that has ever been out there that would agree with you on everything.

[Dragonfighter]

If there is reciprocity now between Texas and Utah for medical licenses, and some legislator threatened to limit reciprocity, I would not call them pro health care freedom.

If a doctor went to medical school in Utah, or Johns Hopkins in Maryland, I don't think they should have to re-do medical school in Texas to get licensed here.

But I believe they are required to PASS a test on TEXAS JURISPRUDENCE, Before being issued a licence to practice in Texas.

Exactly, a nationally licensed paramedic still has to pass the boards for any system they work in.

[tbrown]

Thanks for the inspiration guys. I made up my own little sign.

VAlicense.pdf

Free for noncommercial use.

(25.96 KiB) Downloaded 72 times

[JustMe]

I don't know how it is for MD's, but for RN's you have to be licensed in that state--but many states do have reciprocity--I believe Texas RN licenses are recognized in all 50 states. You don't have to sit boards again, but you do have to pay the license fee and to keep it up you have to fulfill their CEU requirements

[The Annoyed Man]

I agree. We should stop defending the legislators who threaten gun rights. We should stop making excuses for people who, as TAM agrees with me, are not people who think rationally.

Get rid of the illogical, irrational, unreliable legislators.
That would help solve the majority of the problems in this country and state!

You are putting words in my mouth, and no, I don't agree with that statement. See Keith B's explanation of grooming a good legislature. That would be my view as well. Whereas the radical stomping around that you are expressing is exactly the kind of irrationality I was talking about. Both sides of the argument can be guilty of it, not just the lefties who try to trample our rights. There is a HUGE difference between the irrational fear of guns on the part of some politicians, and the rational recognition by others that the best and most long-lasting solutions can take years to accomplish—given the boots on the ground realities of the political landscape. Throwing the baby out with bath water most certainly is NOT a rational act. Remember, the real anti-gun politicians come from anti-gun districts. They didn't get elected in a vacuum. You won't be able to throw them out because a sufficient majority of their constituents like them. So now you're proposing to throw out all of the legislators who have had successful pro-gun track records, simply because they didn't hoist the Jolly Roger and burn down the capital fast enough to suit you.

The result of that kind of foolishness would be the handing over of legislative seniority to anti-gun politicians who are safe in their liberal districts, and replacing all the pro-gun legislators with noobies who won't know what they're doing for at least 2 or 3 legislatures. It would result in a LOSS of rights, not an advancement. In politics, loss is always swift, and gain always takes time.....sometimes a long time. That's just a fact, and we ignore it to our peril. See, what the firebrands never stop to take into account is how the political system actually works. We need to exercise wisdom and discernment, or lose all of it.