The focal point for Texas firearms information and discussions
https://mail.texaschlforum.com/
We took the Utah test...as well as the Texas test. The Texas test was a joke. The instructor spent most of the class educating us on Texas law.johnson0317 wrote:Yes, that was my whole point...cheap, quick, not geared to the issuing state. Not sure why you are paranoid about the State of Texas knowing you have it...does not the State of Utah know about it?
First off, what part of a Texas CHL involves registering firearms? Having a CHL doesn't mean that some one owns a gun, it just means their more likely to do so (Kinda like living in the South). As far as Texas knowing your business, they know about your Drives License, automobile license/taxes, your property taxes, voter registration, kids schooling (if applicable), ect. Lets say that the proverbial fecal matter hits the fan, whats to keep Utah from emailing a list of names and addresses of Texas residents who have a CFP to the Texas DPS? In fact I think that your Utah CFP info is tied to your DL/NCIC record just like a Texas CHL is. I am personally not Anti-Utah but I am against the people who abuse the Utah licensing and advertise classes that could end up causing additional restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms (like a particular legislator in Texas tried to do in the recent Session).Shinesintx wrote:We took the Utah test...as well as the Texas test. The Texas test was a joke. The instructor spent most of the class educating us on Texas law.
Paranoid? Do you want to register your guns with the Feds or State govt??? Pretty sure the answer is no. I do not want Texas knowing my business.
Yes Utah knows I have a permit...but I will never go there.
Why are you so anti Utah?
The right to carry is, well, a right that we are made to jump through hoops to obtain said right.
1) Having a Texas CHL simply implies that I have own a handgun. Be honest with yourself...what percentage of CHL holders do YOU actually think are not gun owners? Be honest about this...G.A. Heath wrote:First off, what part of a Texas CHL involves registering firearms? Having a CHL doesn't mean that some one owns a gun, it just means their more likely to do so (Kinda like living in the South). As far as Texas knowing your business, they know about your Drives License, automobile license/taxes, your property taxes, voter registration, kids schooling (if applicable), ect. Lets say that the proverbial fecal matter hits the fan, whats to keep Utah from emailing a list of names and addresses of Texas residents who have a CFP to the Texas DPS? In fact I think that your Utah CFP info is tied to your DL/NCIC record just like a Texas CHL is. I am personally not Anti-Utah but I am against the people who abuse the Utah licensing and advertise classes that could end up causing additional restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms (like a particular legislator in Texas tried to do in the recent Session).Shinesintx wrote:We took the Utah test...as well as the Texas test. The Texas test was a joke. The instructor spent most of the class educating us on Texas law.
Paranoid? Do you want to register your guns with the Feds or State govt??? Pretty sure the answer is no. I do not want Texas knowing my business.
Yes Utah knows I have a permit...but I will never go there.
Why are you so anti Utah?
The right to carry is, well, a right that we are made to jump through hoops to obtain said right.
Having any CHL from any state implies you are interested in handguns. It does not necessarily imply you have one though, as you may get the license for other reasons. One of the more famous reasons, and it is just a Texas reason as far as I know, is to bypass metal detectors and long lines. When the legislature passed rules to increase the security at the state capitol, they recognized that the law allowed CHL's to carry there. The legislators did not want to change the law to carve out an exception for their own offices (based on politics and possible repercussions). So, they included int he rule a bypass line for anyone with a CHL. Many lobbyists, reporters, and state employees have either gotten CHLs already, started the process, or thought about it, just to pass the long lines trying to get into the capitol during the session and tourist seasons. Given the lack of a session now, the lines are down and it remains to be seen how many more will get CHLs for this reason, but this was widely reported. Obviously, there are no numbers available on this, since we do not ask why people are getting their CHL. I do not think it is a significant percentage, but it could be a large number when looked at as an absolute number.Shinesintx wrote:1) Having a Texas CHL simply implies that I have own a handgun. Be honest with yourself...what percentage of CHL holders do YOU actually think are not gun owners? Be honest about this...
States are well known to share information, so keeping Texas from knowing is not met if it was a requirement. Texas may not have your name in the database your friend checked, and your Utah permit is certainly not tied to your Texas DL. That does not mean that Texas does not knwo or have your name in its databases somewhere. There are many databases that are not public or even available between agencies without some coordination.2) What Texas already knows about me...is what they already know. I cannot control that. I can keep them from knowing that I have a Utah CWP.If Utah tells Texas that I have a Utah permit...there is nothing that I can do about that. One thing that is for certain, I do not show up in any Texas database as having one at the moment. I have a buddy who checked it out for me. So no, you are not certain that my Utah PERMIT is not tied to my Tx DL.
As a result of the Utah classes and licenses being issued, there was a bill introduced in the recent legislative session to require Texas residents to have a Texas CHL. Utah did pass a law saying that no new licenses would be issued to out of state residents, and no existing licenses like that would be renewed, if the person did not have a license from the state they were a resident of. This is not a serious restriction for Texas residents, but it is a serious restriction for residents of states that have permissive licensing. it may be a problem for a Texas resident that meets the Utah requirements but does not meet Texas requirements. these are additional restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms that may be problems for some people, even if they do not affect me directly.3) You saying that you are "personally not Anti-Utah but I am against the people who abuse the Utah licensing and advertise classes that could end up causing additional restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms" is a bit offensive to me. Why? This part of your statement: restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms
If you took a class that taught you Texas law instead of Utah law, you abused their licensing, in my opinion. I am not sure if your class even met the letter of their law or not. Texas law has specific material that must be covered in the class, and I would be surprised if Utah did not. I would be even more surprised if their class requirements said to teach any state's laws other than Utah's. If the class met both the Utah requirements and taught the Texas law in addition, then you did not abuse the licensing provisions, in my opinion. This would be the only point of contention on their lciensign that I can think of though.4) How did I abuse Utah licensing?
If we're being honest, it's not the Utah instructors or students who are causing problems. It's the people who are prejudiced against them who are causing the problems.G.A. Heath wrote:Looking at #3 I didn't mean to offend you, however UT instructors aggressively marketing the UT license as an alternative to a resident license has caused problems for people in more than one state
If it was instead of Utah law you're right, but anyone familiar with the Utah class rules knows they allow instructors to teach more the topics required by Utah, and even combo-state classes if the rules are followed.G.A. Heath wrote:and finally for #4 Like srothstein said, if you class taught TX law instead of UT law then it was an abuse of the non-resident process.
The people who make the Texas CHL so expensive are the ones doing that. It sounds like he's saying that since they're both "a joke" because they don't stop anyone, they just make it more expensive and more of a hassle, it makes good sense to choose the option that's least expensive and least hassle for the same benefit.G.A. Heath wrote:Additionally you talk about the Texas test being a joke, does this mean that you want to make it more difficult for people to get a license?
To my knowledge, there is no test--written or practical--for the Utah CFP. It's been several years, though, since I got my CFP, so if I'm mistaken about this Crossfire or one of our other Utah-certified instructors will correct me.Shinesintx wrote:We took the Utah test...as well as the Texas test. The Texas test was a joke. The instructor spent most of the class educating us on Texas law.
It's a moot point now, though. As of May 11, 2011, Texas residents may not obtain a new Utah CFP without providing proof that they already have a Texas CHL. For CFP renewals, that law goes into effect January 1, 2012.Shoot Straight wrote:If we're being honest, it's not the Utah instructors or students who are causing problems. It's the people who are prejudiced against them who are causing the problems.
That's no longer correct. BCI now requires that the Utah CFP course be taught in its entirety, start to finish, and not comingled with information about other states' laws or concealed carry requirements. BCI no longer allows instructors to teach what used to be called "multi-state permits" classes.Shoot Straight wrote:If it was instead of Utah law you're right, but anyone familiar with the Utah class rules knows they allow instructors to teach more the topics required by Utah, and even combo-state classes if the rules are followed.G.A. Heath wrote:and finally for #4 Like srothstein said, if you class taught TX law instead of UT law then it was an abuse of the non-resident process.