TexasCHLforum.com

sjfcontrol wrote:

Burn wrote:The CHL law has many requirements in place that limit eligibility for a Texas CHL. The Texas Legislature put those requirements in place intentionally. They were no accident. I don't think I would be going out on a limb if I said the reason the Texas Legislature created those elibibility requirements is they didn't want to allow Texans to carry guns unless they are eligible, i.e. they satisfy all the requirements for a Texas CHL.

HB 356 was introduced this session to ensure Texas residents are properly trained and can pass the criminal background check, before they're allowed to carry guns in churches, shopping malls, parks where children are playing, and other public places. It's a common sense law that closes an unintended loophole, and it deserves support from gun owners and concerned citizens alike.

Using that logic, Texas should eliminate reciprocity with Utah altogether, and the other states as well.

When reciprocity was created, Texas did not issue nonresident licenses like we do now. In the current system, a nonresident who meets all the same requirements as a Texas resident, except for residence, can get a nonresident Texas CHL.

If you want to ask your legislator to introduce a bill next session to revoke reciprocity for tourists, that is your right. However, that's not what HB 356 does. HB 356 would only force Texas residents to comply with Texas law.

Burn wrote:In the current system, a nonresident who meets all the same requirements as a Texas resident, except for residence, can get a nonresident Texas CHL.

And what is wrong with that?

Burn wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:

Burn wrote:The CHL law has many requirements in place that limit eligibility for a Texas CHL. The Texas Legislature put those requirements in place intentionally. They were no accident. I don't think I would be going out on a limb if I said the reason the Texas Legislature created those elibibility requirements is they didn't want to allow Texans to carry guns unless they are eligible, i.e. they satisfy all the requirements for a Texas CHL.

HB 356 was introduced this session to ensure Texas residents are properly trained and can pass the criminal background check, before they're allowed to carry guns in churches, shopping malls, parks where children are playing, and other public places. It's a common sense law that closes an unintended loophole, and it deserves support from gun owners and concerned citizens alike.

Using that logic, Texas should eliminate reciprocity with Utah altogether, and the other states as well.

When reciprocity was created, Texas did not issue nonresident licenses like we do now. In the current system, a nonresident who meets all the same requirements as a Texas resident, except for residence, can get a nonresident Texas CHL.

If you want to ask your legislator to introduce a bill next session to revoke reciprocity for tourists, that is your right. However, that's not what HB 356 does. HB 356 would only force Texas residents to comply with Texas law.

And there are a lot of people who would have problems in terms of whether they have a domicile in Texas. I pointed out these problems in another post. HB356 is a major anti-gun bill.

Chas.

Burn wrote:The CHL law has many requirements in place that limit eligibility for a Texas CHL. The Texas Legislature put those requirements in place intentionally. They were no accident. I don't think I would be going out on a limb if I said the reason the Texas Legislature created those elibibility requirements is they didn't want to allow Texans to carry guns unless they are eligible, i.e. they satisfy all the requirements for a Texas CHL.

HB 356 was introduced this session to ensure Texas residents are properly trained and can pass the criminal background check, before they're allowed to carry guns in churches, shopping malls, parks where children are playing, and other public places. It's a common sense law that closes an unintended loophole, and it deserves support from gun owners and concerned citizens alike.

Do you feel that visitors coming to Texas and carrying on their state's license pose a threat to Texans?

Chas.

Burn wrote: When reciprocity was created, Texas did not issue nonresident licenses like we do now. In the current system, a nonresident who meets all the same requirements as a Texas resident, except for residence, can get a nonresident Texas CHL.

If you want to ask your legislator to introduce a bill next session to revoke reciprocity for tourists, that is your right. However, that's not what HB 356 does. HB 356 would only force Texas residents to comply with Texas law.

I realize that TxCHLforum now has a burn-ban in effect - - but in case you're still listening, I'll point out that your response was a non-sequitor to my post. Nothing I said had anything to do with Texas non-resident licenses. I was talking about other states licenses being valid in Texas. And it was YOUR "logic" that would lead to the elimination of reciprocity, not mine.

And Texas residents are already complying with Texas law.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I have gone through and read all of the posts made by "burn", and quite honestly, after taking into account the Firmly Brady buzzwords, terminology that is only used by the Anti side, and the style and composition of the statements, I think we may have been unfortunatly graced by the Author of the bill himslef. Which isn't surprising considering the amount of support against this bill that was expressed by the members of this board, im sure the name of this website was without a doubt included in that support against this bill. I do honestly believe that burn=Mr.Burnam himself. Only a F rated Liberal Dem and a definite non gun owner would use each and every anti-gun buzzword and catch phrase to try and garner support for an antigun bill on a progun forum. So sorry for you Lon, better luck next time!

Coy Greer wrote:Only a F rated Liberal Dem and a definite non gun owner would use each and every anti-gun buzzword and catch phrase to try and garner support for an antigun bill on a progun forum.

Nice first post.

Coy Greer wrote:I do honestly believe that burn=Mr.Burnam himself. Only a F rated Liberal Dem and a definite non gun owner would use each and every anti-gun buzzword and catch phrase to try and garner support for an antigun bill on a progun forum.

I really doubt that. Since he has already gone on public record, there is no reason for him to conceal his identity and he would probably be more articulate posting his arguments.

P.S. There is no such thing as "negative support."

WildBill wrote:

Coy Greer wrote:I do honestly believe that burn=Mr.Burnam himself. Only a F rated Liberal Dem and a definite non gun owner would use each and every anti-gun buzzword and catch phrase to try and garner support for an antigun bill on a progun forum.

I really doubt that. Since he has already gone on public record, there is no reason for him to conceal his identity and he would probably be more articulate posting his arguments.

P.S. There is no such thing as "negative support."

I see your point, however, his ship(Bill) is clearly sinking, and a man on a sinking ship will quite often try anything to save his ship(Bill), even playing a 3rd version incognito of himslef to get support. However, your probably right, and the poster was just using the name burn cause he thought it was cute. Also, you are very correct about negative support, it has been corrected. thanks!

Coy Greer wrote:

WildBill wrote:

Coy Greer wrote:I do honestly believe that burn=Mr.Burnam himself. Only a F rated Liberal Dem and a definite non gun owner would use each and every anti-gun buzzword and catch phrase to try and garner support for an antigun bill on a progun forum.

I really doubt that. Since he has already gone on public record, there is no reason for him to conceal his identity and he would probably be more articulate posting his arguments.

P.S. There is no such thing as "negative support."

I see your point, however, his ship(Bill) is clearly sinking, and a man on a sinking ship will quite often try anything to save his ship(Bill), even playing a 3rd version incognito of himslef to get support. However, your probably right, and the poster was just using the name burn cause he thought it was cute. Also, you are very correct about negative support, it has been corrected. thanks!

In the internet world, those are known as sock puppets, and liberals are quite famous for using them.