TexasCHLforum.com

Charles,

This bill introduces an alternative for a perpetual CHL. Obviously, this would not meet federal standards for NICS checks. By leaving the option open for the renewable CHL, would the renewable CHL still be valid for NICS exemptions?

I can see reasons for each way if both are allowed and the renewable is valid for NICS. IF it stops the renewable from being vaild, I would think we need to oppose the bill.

srothstein wrote:Charles,

This bill introduces an alternative for a perpetual CHL. Obviously, this would not meet federal standards for NICS checks. By leaving the option open for the renewable CHL, would the renewable CHL still be valid for NICS exemptions?

Yes, the renewable or "standard" CHL would still be NICS exempt, so long as the two different licenses are visually distinguishable. That would be easy to do, especially since the renewable CHL would have an expiration date.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

srothstein wrote:Charles,

This bill introduces an alternative for a perpetual CHL. Obviously, this would not meet federal standards for NICS checks. By leaving the option open for the renewable CHL, would the renewable CHL still be valid for NICS exemptions?

Yes, the renewable or "standard" CHL would still be NICS exempt, so long as the two different licenses are visually distinguishable. That would be easy to do, especially since the renewable CHL would have an expiration date.

Chas.

My concern for hanging on to the renewable one would be crossing state lines. I feel its more important for me to be able to carry while on the road, than it is close to home. Wonder if we will be able to have both?

Liberty wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

srothstein wrote:Charles,

This bill introduces an alternative for a perpetual CHL. Obviously, this would not meet federal standards for NICS checks. By leaving the option open for the renewable CHL, would the renewable CHL still be valid for NICS exemptions?

Yes, the renewable or "standard" CHL would still be NICS exempt, so long as the two different licenses are visually distinguishable. That would be easy to do, especially since the renewable CHL would have an expiration date.

Chas.

My concern for hanging on to the renewable one would be crossing state lines. I feel its more important for me to be able to carry while on the road, than it is close to home. Wonder if we will be able to have both?

I don't know what impact this would have on reciprocity, if any. I know some states currently issue permanent or "lifetime" licenses, but I don't know how many and I don't know if they have any reciprocity problems. My gut tells me that a one-time background check could be a problem for reciprocity in some/many states.

I travel so much that I'd keep the renewable CHL; the NICS exemption is just an added bonus.

Chas.

If DPS automatically ran a NICS check on every lifetime CHL holder every five years, wouldn't this solve the gun-purchase and reciprocity questions? Frankly, I think this is the way they ought to do it anyway, at least until the 2A actually becomes recognized as a carry permit, like Vermont.

Essentially that's what happens now -- the renewal paperwork seems primarily geared toward making some prosecutor's job easy, since by initialing and signing a bunch of stuff and taking the class I think all you are doing is acknowledging you know the law so he can point at it in court and say "See! You knew the rules!" Could solve the backlog and save the state money on permanent employees and contracted help by just running the NICs every five years and updating addresses from the driver's licence or state ID renewals.

Just a thought...

ELB wrote:If DPS automatically ran a NICS check on every lifetime CHL holder every five years, wouldn't this solve the gun-purchase and reciprocity questions? Frankly, I think this is the way they ought to do it anyway, at least until the 2A actually becomes recognized as a carry permit, like Vermont.

I believe someone (Charles? Steve?) has mentioned that Texas DPS is unable to run a NICS check because of some "point of contact" bureaucratic silliness with the Federal TLAs.

ELB wrote:If DPS automatically ran a NICS check on every lifetime CHL holder every five years, wouldn't this solve the gun-purchase and reciprocity questions? Frankly, I think this is the way they ought to do it anyway, at least until the 2A actually becomes recognized as a carry permit, like Vermont.

Essentially that's what happens now -- the renewal paperwork seems primarily geared toward making some prosecutor's job easy, since by initialing and signing a bunch of stuff and taking the class I think all you are doing is acknowledging you know the law so he can point at it in court and say "See! You knew the rules!" Could solve the backlog and save the state money on permanent employees and contracted help by just running the NICs every five years and updating addresses from the driver's licence or state ID renewals.

Just a thought...

Unfortunately, that wouldn't work. BATFE's regulations require an expiration date on the license and the license cannot have a valid duration that exceeds five years.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
Unfortunately, that wouldn't work. BATFE's regulations require an expiration date on the license and the license cannot have a valid duration that exceeds five years.

Chas.

Dang.

apostate wrote:

ELB wrote:If DPS automatically ran a NICS check on every lifetime CHL holder every five years, wouldn't this solve the gun-purchase and reciprocity questions? Frankly, I think this is the way they ought to do it anyway, at least until the 2A actually becomes recognized as a carry permit, like Vermont.

I believe someone (Charles? Steve?) has mentioned that Texas DPS is unable to run a NICS check because of some "point of contact" bureaucratic silliness with the Federal TLAs.

DPS now has the capability of running NICS background checks directly.

Chas.

What would we have to do to get the finger print requirement waived for renewals like a lot of states do?

If someone passed two finger print background checks (FBI and DPS) and in person investigation by a DPS trooper for their initial license, it seems like a computer check like NICS without prints would satisfy any reasonable requirement for a renewal background check. That would also reduce the DPS workload for renewals and cut out having to pay the FBI to rerun prints for renewals.

bayouhazard wrote:What would we have to do to get the finger print requirement waived for renewals like a lot of states do?

If someone passed two finger print background checks (FBI and DPS) and in person investigation by a DPS trooper for their initial license, it seems like a computer check like NICS without prints would satisfy any reasonable requirement for a renewal background check. That would also reduce the DPS workload for renewals and cut out having to pay the FBI to rerun prints for renewals.

You are exactly right. I wrote a bill to do just that and more, but the reality of this session's legislative makeup made it imprudent to even file it. I can't tell you how frustrating it was to make that decision. I hope some of the more vocal open-carry supporters take this into consideration when condemning TSRA for not supporting open-carry. We had to withhold filing of some of our own bills to concentrate on the two high profile bills; employer parking lots and campus security/campus-carry. We have other bills filed, but completely revamping DPS processing of CHL applications would have been a high profile bill that would have taken away from employer parking lots and campus-carry.

Chas.

gives us something to look forward to in 2010

Liberty wrote:gives us something to look forward to in 2010

I think you mean 2011.

apostate wrote:

Liberty wrote:gives us something to look forward to in 2010

I think you mean 2011.

Yeah, I,m still writing 2008 out.. and get caught up in the election cycles.