Teamless wrote:He would need a license that had reciprocity with Texas
UTAH (is having issues with Texas, so that may not last long)
Florida would be OK
Utah isn't having issues with
Texas per se. What they are having issues with is people buying non-resident Utah licenses as a means of getting around the requirements of their own states of residence. Utah feared that they would
lose reciprocity with states where this was occuring......at least partly motivated by what was happening in Texas with Utah instructors promoting the Utah CFP as a means of avoiding the Texas CHL process, and a threatened legislative response from Texas. This was happening probably more in Texas than in any other "CHL friendly" state because of the stricter CHL requirements imposed on Texas residents than those in many other states. Utah, in order to preserve the value of Utah
residents' licenses, passed a law requiring that an out of state applicant possess a license from their state of residence
before they could be eligible for a non-resident license from Utah. And by the way, Utah's response is probably what saved Texas from passing its own law requiring Texas residents to possess a Texas CHL before any non-resident licenses they might hold could be honored. I'm glad that Utah's passing their own bill helped to avert the possibility of Texas imposing such a requirement upon its own residents.
ALL of this could have been avoided if not for a few greedy braying asses.
If the national concealed carry bill which just passed the House succeeds in the Senate (doubtful), and if Obama will sign it into law (
highly doubtful unless it is embedded in a bill that he really wants), the whole idea of selective reciprocity will go out the window. The proposed law would treat a CCW permit the same as a DL is currently handled. My TDL is valid in California (so long as I am not a California resident), but while
in California, I am subject to California's driving laws. Under the proposed legislation, if a state does
not have a CHL law, then my Texas CHL would not be valid in that state. Of course, the likely reaction from states like California/New York/Massachussets if this bill is signed into law would be to either legislatively ban CHL altogether, or to tack additional requirements onto existing law, such as a requirement for the license holder to be currently employed as an LEO.....which would automatically eliminate all non-LEO concealed carry, while not radically expanding LEO concealed carry—since many LEO are already permitted to carry concealed off-duty.
And let me emphasize that none of the above is how I personally want things to be. What I
want is for the federal government to enthusiastically protect and support the 2nd Amendment, in its fullest expression. The above merely describes what
is, not what I
want. Sans that, I would at least like Texas to pass Arizona-style Constitutional Carry, where one can still obtain a CHL for purposes of reciprocity with other states, but one is not required to have a CHL in order to carry either concealed or in the open. I also think that baby steps is what is going to get us there......but that's a whole 'nuther argument.
That is in violation of Wisconsin's law but since when has a minor detail like that stopped government agencies.