TexasCHLforum.com

It seems this is in response to people trying to game the system and cut corners (as far as cost, time requirements and other restrictions).

Someone in the military should have a DL and CHL from where ever their "home" is. This would solve the "non-resident CHL" issue. Then, the only people affected would be those that come from places that do not allow Concealed Carry. I guess the fix for that would be to setup residency somewhere else.

Not recognizing "non-resident CHL's" is different than not recognizing reciprocity.

I find it odd that a state would even issue a non-resident CHL. The whole concept is weird to me.

However, this type of legislation sets a precedent that starts a slippery slope.

Pennsylvania has fairly strong preemption for firearms laws and the City of Philadelphia is probably not allowed to do what they are attempting. A Florida CWFL is harder and more expensive to get than a PA LTCF and requires live fire, which PA doesn't. The issue seems to be Philadelphia setting arbitrary and illegal rules for issuance to their residents. They also arbitrarily deny and revoke licenses, which are issued locally but valid throughout the Commonwealth.

Not really a slippery slope. On another board that I frequent, there are a couple of guys that went and got Utah or something, because they have disquals under Texas law. I personally like the idea that you should be licensed by the state that you live in. That is, as long as we are going to license folks for a birthright, but that's another thread.

Regarding the military concerns, it isn't a problem. If you are from Utah, and have a Utah drivers license and a Utah CHL, yet you are stationed at Fort Hood, you are in the eyes of the law a resident of Utah. Don't believe me, ask one of the guys from a state income tax state, that's in the military, if they pay state income tax on their military pay, even if they live in Texas. Your permanent address is your state of residence while in the military.

Who cares where the license came from. There should be no license to begin with. Criminals are going to carry if they want regardless of the law. The licenses are just another way to subject and tax us, the law abiding everyman. Nothing more. We should be fighting for full reciprocity regardless of residence with an eye toward constitutional carry, concealed or not.

MeMelYup wrote:

SWAMPRNR wrote:This is something the military is complaining about.They move around so much most have Non-resident permits.If this passes most will not be allowed to carry due to there Non-resident permits not being valid and by the time they get a Texas permit they are reassigned someplace else.Some of these guys have a DL from one state and a CHL from another and so on.
Don't forget about the resident that have Non resident permits from other states but are unable to get a Texas Chl due to a restriction only recognized by Texas.

I don't see that happening because of their U.S. Military ID card. That puts them in a completely different catigory.

That ID card won't cover you. You might think it should or would, but unless there is a Federal Law/Code to provide exemptions for Military Personnel to have their Concealed Carry License be considered "Resident" while under orders they are just plain out of luck.

Winchester,

Your analogy is accurate when it comes to taxes only. It does not by default apply to other issues, such as concealed carry.

tacticool wrote:

Beiruty wrote:I do not like Texas Resident to acquire NON-TX CHL to carry in TX. If you can get TX CHL and learn TX laws and afford to pay the fee, (low income earners have a discount too, no?) I think there is a problem here if you seek something else.

Yeah! If cops want to carry off duty, or after they retire, they should have to get a second amendment license, same as the taxpayers who pay their salary or pension.

There's actually a ton of hoops to jump through to get legal retired carry. Your point is still valid though.

The problem here is all these pesky states. We need to be just one Federal land, we'll change the name of our Country to just UA- United America....then we'll only have to deal with the federal government...that'll streamline the entire process. Get rid of the state lines and all that junk.

If a Utah license is good enough for a Utah resident to carry in Texas on vacation, it's good enough for a Texas resident to carry in Texas. Why? Same standards. Same background check. Same everything. So either it's good enough to carry in Texas, or it's not, no matter whether the licensee lives in Dallas, Salt Lake City, or Los Angeles.

Philadelphia is notoriously anti-gun and it's much more difficult to get a license in Philly than in Centre County, for example. If they could get away with it, I bet Philly would restrict licenses from Western PA, like NYC won't accept licenses from Upstate NY.

Tamie wrote:If a Utah license is good enough for a Utah resident to carry in Texas on vacation, it's good enough for a Texas resident to carry in Texas. Why? Same standards. Same background check. Same everything. So either it's good enough to carry in Texas, or it's not, no matter whether the licensee lives in Dallas, Salt Lake City, or Los Angeles.

Philadelphia is notoriously anti-gun and it's much more difficult to get a license in Philly than in Centre County, for example. If they could get away with it, I bet Philly would restrict licenses from Western PA, like NYC won't accept licenses from Upstate NY.

Well put.