TexasCHLforum.com

To base all your objections on one persons actions is really not a good idea. There are jerks and stupid people in all walks of life, unfortunately in the CHL world as well.

I am most certain that you have had interactions with fine upstanding people that have their CHL but never knew it.

Question for you, if the guy who is being a jerk had his Utah permit, would that make it any better, any worse? Would it make you want to get your Texas permit instead of the Utah one?

The fact is that CHL holders have a much lower rate of breaking laws or generally doing stupid things than the general population. Don't let one bad apple spoil the whole bunch or get you bent sideways over classroom time, cost or whatever.

10 hours, and 240 or so bucks is a pretty small price to pay if you break it down like some other posters have. Heck you might even make some friends to go shooting with during the class. Good shooting partners would be worth the effort.

MR Redneck wrote:

Purplehood wrote:

MR Redneck wrote:Here is the biggest problem I have with the State CHL mess. I know several people who like to provoke people and present themselfs in a negative manner. These people all have CHL's and I attempted to report them to the DPS in Austin.

I won't be bashful. I think that statement threw me off. Perhaps if you could provide a little background as to why you did what appears on the surface to be a really stinky thing to do, I might be able to evaluate your posts better.

Im not sure what you mean by stinky, but i'll be glad to elaberate on the subject.
We have a local " sell your stuff, post local event, chat" website here on the west side of the state. For example, one of the members is a disliked person who is always running of at the mouth and calling people out on the website. Myself as well as others know he's a pill poping doper. If you seen him, the first thing you would think is, This guy needs to shut up. He aint built to be fighting with people. He's alway provoking people ect, ect... I really have no desire to beat the boy's butt even though I feel like he needs it. The fact that he has a CHL and constantly conducts himself in a manner that provokes people is exactly why I discussed the issue with the DPS.
Me personaly, I dont agree with the CHL requirment. I see no reason why a socker Mom needs the states permission to defend herself and her kids from the bad elements of sociaty. If the state wants to require people to have a license, I think they should follow up better on complaints agianst those who have them.
Basicly im sayin firearms are not suppose to be ego builders. If a person has a CHL and acts in a provocative manner, I really dont think they should be able to keep those privileges. If you ever seen the boy at the racetrack or anywhere else, you'll notice he stands with his hand in his pocket all the time. Kinda like a person would who knows people cant stand his butt.
If im wrong to think people should have decent conduct while carrying a weapon makes me "stinky" then im fine with that.
BTW, I have been visiting Arizona pretty often this year and noticed something pretty special. The place is like a different world. Most of the places I visit have armed people everywhere. I hate to admit it, but the politeness of people out there really stands out. I havent put my finger on it yet, but something is very different out there.

I guess I feel this way about the matter: How is DPS supposed to withhold CHL's from folks based on assessments of their character from people that might not like them? Do you honestly believe that if I call up DPS and tell them that Fred-the-Head is a no-good nincompoop they should take my word for it and withhold or cancel his CHL?

Along the same lines...since Fred-the-Head is a no-good nincompoop, should he be deprived of his 2A rights? I think not until and unless he does something illegal vice something merely annoying to you or me.

MR Redneck wrote:

Purplehood wrote:

MR Redneck wrote:Here is the biggest problem I have with the State CHL mess. I know several people who like to provoke people and present themselfs in a negative manner. These people all have CHL's and I attempted to report them to the DPS in Austin.

I won't be bashful. I think that statement threw me off. Perhaps if you could provide a little background as to why you did what appears on the surface to be a really stinky thing to do, I might be able to evaluate your posts better.

Im not sure what you mean by stinky, but i'll be glad to elaberate on the subject.
We have a local " sell your stuff, post local event, chat" website here on the west side of the state. For example, one of the members is a disliked person who is always running of at the mouth and calling people out on the website. Myself as well as others know he's a pill poping doper. If you seen him, the first thing you would think is, This guy needs to shut up. He aint built to be fighting with people. He's alway provoking people ect, ect... I really have no desire to beat the boy's butt even though I feel like he needs it. The fact that he has a CHL and constantly conducts himself in a manner that provokes people is exactly why I discussed the issue with the DPS.
Me personaly, I dont agree with the CHL requirment. I see no reason why a socker Mom needs the states permission to defend herself and her kids from the bad elements of sociaty. If the state wants to require people to have a license, I think they should follow up better on complaints agianst those who have them.
Basicly im sayin firearms are not suppose to be ego builders. If a person has a CHL and acts in a provocative manner, I really dont think they should be able to keep those privileges. If you ever seen the boy at the racetrack or anywhere else, you'll notice he stands with his hand in his pocket all the time. Kinda like a person would who knows people cant stand his butt.
If im wrong to think people should have decent conduct while carrying a weapon makes me "stinky" then im fine with that.
BTW, I have been visiting Arizona pretty often this year and noticed something pretty special. The place is like a different world. Most of the places I visit have armed people everywhere. I hate to admit it, but the politeness of people out there really stands out. I havent put my finger on it yet, but something is very different out there.

And what makes you the authority to judge his character? Especially over comments made via the internet? What laws has he broken?
How do you know he has a CHL? Did he show it to you in person?
How do you know he's a pill popper? Did he pop one in front of you?


So what if he sticks his hand in his pocket at the racetrack. What does that mean? Maybe his hand is cold.

Texasjeep and purplehood, i'll give you the cleanest example I can of this guy's "attitude".. now this is the cleanest remark he made and I had to clean up up some more........;
I understand your entitled to your opinion just as I am. The "feds" dont do anything wrong, oh no no no. Gary told his story so there wont be any need to tell the "real" story. Hooie on Larry webb and the system and I say that from the bottom of my heart.

So you will know, he is talking about a guy" Larry" who just won a federal oil field theft case. The " Gary" guy is the theif and also a friend of the CHL holders.
Just so you'll know, the case involved almost 3 million dollars... The guy got 20 years in a federal prison..
He has made some very profound threat toward the individuals and thats the conduct im talking about.
This is a little off topic to the original subject, but Im glad to explain whatever comments I made that may be of consern.
To answer jeeps question, yea, I know a lot of people with CHL's that dont consern me at all. Matter of a fact, I dont take offense to anyone carrying a gun. What I do take offense to is the way people act. That relates back to my opinion of its not the guns that bother me, its what the person who has the gun is doing that gets my attention. Understand??
Purple, you said; Along the same lines...since Fred-the-Head is a no-good nincompoop, should he be deprived of his 2A rights? I think not until and unless he does something illegal vice something merely annoying to you or me.
Ok, that the same way I feel about the CHL. I have done nothing wrong but im being deprived untill I get a CHL. You might not like that opinion but its true.
Jeep said; Question for you, if the guy who is being a jerk had his Utah permit, would that make it any better, any worse? Would it make you want to get your Texas permit instead of the Utah one?

The fact is that CHL holders have a much lower rate of breaking laws or generally doing stupid things than the general population. Don't let one bad apple spoil the whole bunch or get you bent sideways over classroom time, cost or whatever.
Utah or Texas, neither should be any diffenent when conduct is involved. I still think people should take it upon themself to be as educated on the law and safety as they can, no matter what the choose. Althow I do think the state would jump at the chance to suspend a Utah permit faster than a Texas one. JMO again.. I this guy im talking about had a Utah permit, do you think the state would evaluate him differently?
The actions of other wont determine my view at all. Stupid people cant be fixed! Honestly the permit a jerk has wouldnt influance me either way. T oput it simply, no matter what permit I get im still going to follow up on knowing the laws in the most effective way I can. Im already pretty well edjucated on the laws I think. I even go to the extent of following up with some LE friends to see how they determine the law. They give me tips and advise on the less than desirable crap that some cops can pull on ya. " Yea, Im sure that comments going to open a can of worms"..
So I guess all Im still wondering is with my attempt to be as knowledgeable of the law as I can be, why should it matter Utah Vs. Texas permit? If a person understand the state law, would one permit be better than the other?

Correct me if I am wrong (and I am sure you will): It is okay for you to determine who gets a CHL and 2A rights, but no one should deprive you of yours?
I tried reading your post a few times to get the gist of what you are saying, but I just don't get it.

On the issue of Utah and Texas permits to carry... I personally don't like the idea of a non-resident permit. In reality I don't like the requirement for a permit in any state. The 2A should be my permit. But that ain't the current reality.

Purplehood wrote: I tried reading your post a few times to get the gist of what you are saying, but I just don't get it.

+1

MR Redneck wrote:Lots of interesting advise and im thnakful for it.
The first being the legislature comment. If legislature has issues with anyones choice of license, then that just shows the negativity that they promote. I for one dont agree with the state charging for self defense.

Agreed, but it is a fact of life, for now. You should be aware that Charles L. Cotton, the man who owns this discussion board, is the man who actually wrote the CHL law, and who wrote most or all of the changes made to it since it first passed. There's what you or I think about something, and then there is what the legislature thinks. That legislature is not in lockstep with one another. The democratic process means that there are state senators and representatives who get elected by (mostly liberal) voters and who are anti-gun. The laws had to pass their muster too before they could vote on it. So that's just a fact. You should also be aware that some of those same politicians who had/have doubts about CHL in the first place have now got their panties in a twist over people obtaining Utah CFPs to get around the CHL law. Those politicians are brewing trouble for us, and if you go the CFP route and do not get a CHL, then you are adding yeast to their brew, and it will rear up and bite us all on the butt. So you don't have to like those facts, but neither should you be too cavalier in dismissing them, because they have an effect on all of us, not just you.

MR Redneck wrote:The second being LE officers not know the Utah license is accepted by Texas residents. Well, I have experianced this issue on several different subjects and I agree that could create a problem.

I have no bone to pick with LEOs, but if I want to final disposition on the law, I go to a lawyer, not a cop. I see no profit in tempting fate by assuming that any LEO I encounter is the next Melvin Belli.

MR Redneck wrote:Third is the money. Sure [sic] I can come up with the money, but now days I simply try to stretch it out as far as I can. Im no different than anyone else, I have bills piled up and im simply trying to use my money as effictivly as I can.

Believe me, I understand. We're all in that boat to some degree or other these days. One possible solution, as I pointed out earlier, is to decide what vices you can do without in order to fund your CHL. That will have the added benefit of giving you a real sense of where your priorities really lie. Do you smoke or drink alcohol? What do cigarettes cost? $7-$9 per pack... something like that? (I don't smoke, so I really don't know.) But if you were a pack a day smoker for instance at $8/pack, you could could cover both the cost of the licensing fee AND a CHL class by quitting smoking for a month - and by then you'd be past the worst part of quitting and could make the health benefit permanent.

MR Redneck wrote:All of the advise is very good and i'll consider those comment. Except for the Legislature issue. Legislature is elected by Texans and should represent the people who put them in office.

Like I said, this is a representative democracy, and there are people in the legislature who do not represent you, but DO represent their anti-gun constituencies. Those legislators would not be doing their jobs if they did not represent their anti-gun constituencies effectively. The problem isn't so much the legislators as it is the voters. The legislators are basically just doing what they were elected to do. They would not be elected and doing anti-gun things if the majority of the active voters in their districts weren't responsible for it (which is why it is almost criminally negligent to not vote if you are able to do so). The voters, on the other hand, are often truly stupid, and so they ask for truly stupid stuff. The solution is to lift stupid voters up out of their ignorance and convert them into pro-gun voters, so that they will in turn elect pro-gun legislators.

MR Redneck wrote:I did look at the Utah licenses state acceptance last night. I found New Mexico doesnt accept it , but I can open carry in New Mexico without a license. I prefer open carry anyway. I just wished Texas had the same.
Im still a little confused by the school zones comment. Texas has a castle doctrine and considers your vehicle to be an extension of your home. Its legal to conceal carry in your vehicle in Texas, so I really dont see what the issue is there.

Castle doctrine is often misunderstood. It is the Motorists Protection Act that allows you to carry in your vehicle. Castle doctrine simply codifies that Texas is a true-man state, and you have no duty to retreat to protect yourself - either with a firearm, or with some other kind of weapon.

However, as far as I know MPA does not protect you within 1,000 feet of a school zone. Neither does a Utah CFP. But a Texas CHL is a defense to prosecution if you are within the 1,000 foot exclusion zone. As a practical matter, you are not likely to get caught, and also as a practical matter, unless your behavior is truly egregious you're not likely to get prosecuted if caught inside that school zone with a gun and no CHL.... ....but it is not a guarantee. Having that CHL is.

If you want reasonable training requirements and low price, try the Idaho license.

http://www.adasheriff.org/RecordsReport ... apons.aspx

The Annoyed Man wrote: Like I said, this is a representative democracy, and there are people in the legislature who do not represent you, but DO represent their anti-gun constituencies. Those legislators would not be doing their jobs if they did not represent their anti-gun constituencies effectively. The problem isn't so much the legislators as it is the voters. The legislators are basically just doing what they were elected to do. They would not be elected and doing anti-gun things if the majority of the active voters in their districts weren't responsible for it (which is why it is almost criminally negligent to not vote if you are able to do so). The voters, on the other hand, are often truly stupid, and so they ask for truly stupid stuff. The solution is to lift stupid voters up out of their ignorance and convert them into pro-gun voters, so that they will in turn elect pro-gun legislators.

I think the first duty of an elected representative is to the Constitution so I think they're not doing their jobs when they subvert the Constitution on the basis that it's what their constituents want. In fact, I'd say a representative has a duty NOT to represent his constituents when they desire something unconstitutional, unless by that representation he seeks to properly amend the Constitution.

VMI77 wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote: Like I said, this is a representative democracy, and there are people in the legislature who do not represent you, but DO represent their anti-gun constituencies. Those legislators would not be doing their jobs if they did not represent their anti-gun constituencies effectively. The problem isn't so much the legislators as it is the voters. The legislators are basically just doing what they were elected to do. They would not be elected and doing anti-gun things if the majority of the active voters in their districts weren't responsible for it (which is why it is almost criminally negligent to not vote if you are able to do so). The voters, on the other hand, are often truly stupid, and so they ask for truly stupid stuff. The solution is to lift stupid voters up out of their ignorance and convert them into pro-gun voters, so that they will in turn elect pro-gun legislators.

I think the first duty of an elected representative is to the Constitution so I think they're not doing their jobs when they subvert the Constitution on the basis that it's what their constituents want. In fact, I'd say a representative has a duty NOT to represent his constituents when they desire something unconstitutional, unless by that representation he seeks to properly amend the Constitution.

And I would agree with you. But I'm not talking about ideals. I was talking about what is actually happening in terms of voter expectations for their elected representatives - which often has nothing to do with the constitutionality of political initiatives. Uninformed voters who are ignorant about constitutional matters elect uninformed representatives who are ignorant about constitutional matters, and those representatives behave accordingly. Even so, they are doing the job their voters elected them to - wrongly or not. That was the point I was trying to make.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote: Like I said, this is a representative democracy, and there are people in the legislature who do not represent you, but DO represent their anti-gun constituencies. Those legislators would not be doing their jobs if they did not represent their anti-gun constituencies effectively. The problem isn't so much the legislators as it is the voters. The legislators are basically just doing what they were elected to do. They would not be elected and doing anti-gun things if the majority of the active voters in their districts weren't responsible for it (which is why it is almost criminally negligent to not vote if you are able to do so). The voters, on the other hand, are often truly stupid, and so they ask for truly stupid stuff. The solution is to lift stupid voters up out of their ignorance and convert them into pro-gun voters, so that they will in turn elect pro-gun legislators.

I think the first duty of an elected representative is to the Constitution so I think they're not doing their jobs when they subvert the Constitution on the basis that it's what their constituents want. In fact, I'd say a representative has a duty NOT to represent his constituents when they desire something unconstitutional, unless by that representation he seeks to properly amend the Constitution.

And I would agree with you. But I'm not talking about ideals. I was talking about what is actually happening in terms of voter expectations for their elected representatives - which often has nothing to do with the constitutionality of political initiatives. Uninformed voters who are ignorant about constitutional matters elect uninformed representatives who are ignorant about constitutional matters, and those representatives behave accordingly. Even so, they are doing the job their voters elected them to - wrongly or not. That was the point I was trying to make.

I wasn't reading it that way when I responded, but from that perspective, yes, I agree. I'll be very politically incorrect and say that I don't believe a large segment of the population should even be allowed to vote. I don't know what method could be used to screen voters --education, property ownership, net tax payer, a test-- all have their problems, but at a minimum it seems to me that people on the dole shouldn't be allowed to vote. Maybe there is just no practical or equitable way to do it, but in the current political environment there is no way a such a proposal could even be intelligently discussed.

Poll taxes, literacy test or other types of voter "eligibility" have been deemed unconstitutional long ago.

When you say dole, are you referring to the politicians, governement employees whether federal, city, county or state, or people that work for companies who primarily have some gov. entitity as their sole purchaser, or are funded by governement grants, or are you referring to people on welfare, and social security?

They are all on the dole in some form or fashion IMO.

That form of system isn't going to be put in place any time in the future.

The elected officials are supposed to represent the people, sometimes that is the working people, sometimes it is the non working people, other times it is the gun owner, and even at times those who don't support gun ownership or carry. Luckily right now we have folks in Texas who are basically on the gun owners side. I certainly hope that doesn't change.

Let's get back on the OP's topic of a Texas CHL v. Utah CFP.

Thanks,
Chas.

Most of this would go away if Texas lowered the fees to bring them in line with Utah and many other shall issue states. If legislators want to fix the so-called Utah problem, that's the best way to do it.

I agree with ya Bart!