Montgomery County Constable issues with AZ CHL

[Acera]

A friend of mine recently had an experience with the Montgomery County Constable's Office regarding getting fingerprinted for his AZ CHL that left him concerned.

It took a lot longer than expected for him to get his fingerprints taken and he was subjected to some, what I feel unnecessary, questioning. He received this written response from the deputy later. The Deputy insinuated that any stop he made with a person carrying this license would probably take a while to sort out, and he did not feel he would recognize it. Obviously the Deputy did his homework and studied the issue to become better informed as to the legal position of the issue following my friends departure from his office.

He is especially concerned about the statements:

"I reviewcd the Texas laws concerning the reciprocity law with Arizona and discovered that Texans with Arizona Handgun Licenses would be in violation of unlawfully carrying a concealed weapon."

It was confirmed that a Texan carrying a concealed weapon with a Concealed Handgun License out of Arizona would in fact be in violation of unlawfull carrying of a concealed weapon in the state of Texas.

Fortunately I was able to direct his attention to the following on the second page,

[FONT=&amp]Texas residents will now be able to circumvent the Eligibility requirements (10, 11, 12, and 13) set forth by:............[/FONT]

[FONT=&amp]I feel this has created the need for new laws to be outlined, or clearly defined in this matter to close any loop holes or circumvention[/FONT].

I let him know that it is my personal opinion that the officer does not like the current situation, and there is nothing legally he can do about it, and that the AZ CHL is good to go in Texas for the majority of instances. (Don't want this discussion to be about those differences, LOL)

However I feel that I may be wrong.

Here is a copy of the scanned document, sorry for the quality, it was faxed to me, then I scanned it into my system.

I am interested in the opinions of those on this board, especially those in law enforcement (hint, hint.... txinvestigator) and ordinary citizens as how you would respond to this.

 

[Acera]

Ok, follow up. I just had a long conversation with the Deputy. Real nice guy, and very interested in getting this resolved. He mentioned that he did talk to the Montgomery county DA, and that the DA would accept charges if a Texas resident, possessing a AZ out of state CHL only, were stopped.

He also brought to my attention he conducting further investigation of this.

There also seems to be issues with those that can hold CHLs in Texas regarding child support payments, college tuition loans and other items that AZ does not check on, which may make the license invalid.

I am interested in how this effects my own FL CHL, and others.

We are exchanging emails, and he is going to keep me posted as to what his investigation finds out further.

 

[Bithabus]

He is dead wrong. He sounds like he has no idea what he is talking about honestly. There is no "new law" which alllows non residents to get AZ permits, that's been going on for a while. TX recognizes AZ licenses, that's all there is to it. Here is a thread including a verification letter sent to one of our members by DPS: http://www.texasguntalk.com/forums/...-action-chl/25735-how-obtain-arizona-chl.html

Thanks for posting, this is scary stuff.

 

[Bithabus]

The "info" that Constable is relying on is a paraphrasing of the law, not the law itself. The Government code describes how Texas will honor out of State licenses:

Sec. 411.173. NONRESIDENT LICENSE.
(a) The department by rule shall establish a procedure for a person who meets the eligibility requirements of this subchapter other than the residency requirement established by Section 411.172(a)(1) to obtain a license under this subchapter if the person is a legal resident of another state or if the person relocates to this state with the intent to establish residency in this state. The procedure must include payment of a fee in an amount sufficient to recover the average cost to the department of obtaining a criminal history record check and investigation on a nonresident applicant. A license issued in accordance with the procedure established under this subsection:
(1) remains in effect until the license expires under Section 411.183; and
(2) may be renewed under Section 411.185.
(1) Expired.
(2) Expired.
(a-1) Repealed by Acts 2005, 79th Leg., Ch. 915, Sec. 4, eff. September 1, 2005.
(b) The governor shall negotiate an agreement with any other state that provides for the issuance of a license to carry a concealed handgun under which a license issued by the other state is recognized in this state or shall issue a proclamation that a license issued by the other state is recognized in this state if the attorney general of the State of Texas determines that a background check of each applicant for a license issued by that state is initiated by state or local authorities or an agent of the state or local authorities before the license is issued. For purposes of this subsection, "background check" means a search of the National Crime Information Center database and the Interstate Identification Index maintained by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
(c) The attorney general of the State of Texas shall annually:
(1) submit a report to the governor, lieutenant governor, and speaker of the house of representatives listing the states the attorney general has determined qualify for recognition under Subsection (b); and
(2) review the statutes of states that the attorney general has determined do not qualify for recognition under Subsection (b) to determine the changes to their statutes that are necessary to qualify for recognition under that subsection.
(d) The attorney general of the State of Texas shall submit the report required by Subsection (c)(1) not later than January 1 of each calendar year.

Nothing here requires that the license holder be a resident of the issuing State.

 

[Acera]

I know all about that thread, and have participated in it. One of the reasons that I got the packets, my buddy is using.

Montgomery County is interpreting the law differently. Just saying, you might have problems. They feel they have a strong case against Texas residents having only a AZ out of state CHL. The Deputy mentioned that he did talk to DPS and that they concur with his assessment.

I have forwarded a copy of that letter to him.

 

[Kimber_me_timbers]

I think the majority of states are eventually going to do what Utah has done. In order to get a Utah non-resident CWP you have to have a valid chl from the state you reside in.

Why wouldn't a Texas resident want to get a Texas CHL anyway, and just get a non-resident somwhere else to supplement it?

 

[TexasRedneck]

I think the majority of states are eventually going to do what Utah has done. In order to get a Utah non-resident CWP you have to have a valid chl from the state you reside in.

Why wouldn't a Texas resident want to get a Texas CHL anyway, and just get a non-resident somwhere else to supplement it?

Part of it is cost. IMO, Texas is stupid-high on their CHL's, especially renewals.

 

[Acera]

Why wouldn't a Texas resident want to get a Texas CHL anyway, and just get a non-resident somwhere else to supplement it?

I think that has been beat to death in many other threads, money, length of time the license is valid, not having to spend hours sitting in class, paying instructors, process times, etc......................................

 

[Kimber_me_timbers]

Part of it is cost. IMO, Texas is stupid-high on their CHL's, especially renewals.

Yeah, but our CHL's are all perty, Ive seen some from other states that were nothing more than laminated paper cards.

 

[JADB]

I think the majority of states are eventually going to do what Utah has done. In order to get a Utah non-resident CWP you have to have a valid chl from the state you reside in.

That makes no sense. Why would they need one from Utah if the have a TX one?

 

[Kimber_me_timbers]

That makes no sense. Why would they need one from Utah if the have a TX one?

Because the Utah CWP has reciprocities that the Texas CHL doesn't, Washington state is one example.

 

[Mikewood]

This is why constitutional carry on the federal level is so critical. If we only had a federal law stating that "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed then the federal and state governments could not touch us. But it's almost impossible to get a pro gun law much less a constitutional amendment like this passed.

 

[Acera]

That makes no sense. Why would they need one from Utah if the have a TX one?
Because the Utah CWP has reciprocities that the Texas CHL doesn't, Washington state is one example.

New Hampshire, Minnesota, Vermont and West Virginia are others.




edited to add, further communication from the Deputy, he is busting his A$$ trying to sort this out. Regarding the letter mentioned in the other thread, their issue is that the citizen did not state that he is a resident of Texas.

More to follow....................

 

[JADB]

Part of it is cost. IMO, Texas is stupid-high on their CHL's, especially renewals.

Really?? $50 is stupid-high every five years? Says the guy who owns more 1911's than God himself. Thats funny.

 

[JADB]

Because the Utah CWP has reciprocities that the Texas CHL doesn't, Washington state is one example.

Gotcha, makes perfect sense now.

 

[Bithabus]

New Hampshire, Minnesota, Vermont and West Virginia are others.




edited to add, further communication from the Deputy, he is busting his A$$ trying to sort this out. Regarding the letter mentioned in the other thread, their issue is that the citizen did not state that he is a resident of Texas.

More to follow....................

This is ridiculous. There is nothing to sort out. Tell him about Burnam's bill last session. If the Deputy's "interpretation" is correct why would a Legislator need to file a bill to change the law, so that the Deputy's "interpretation" would be made correct? http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=82R&Bill=HB356

 

[RetArmySgt]

I didnt get a Texas CHL for the same reason i stopped persuing a TECLOSE cert. As a vet, that at the time had just gotten out of the military, they wanted me to spend way too much money. They wanted me to pay out of pocket for pysc evals from state shrinks and would not accept the discharge eval the military preformed. But now that the policy is no longer there yes I am looking at getting my Texas as well.

 

[TexasRedneck]

Really?? $50 is stupid-high every five years? Says the guy who owns more 1911's than God himself. Thats funny.

Yeah, it is - and it's actually $70 to renew. Why should it be any more than for a DL renewal?

 

[TexasRedneck]

This is ridiculous. There is nothing to sort out. Tell him about Burnam's bill last session. If the Deputy's "interpretation" is correct why would a Legislator need to file a bill to change the law, so that the Deputy's "interpretation" would be made correct? Texas Legislature Online - 82(R) History for HB 356

Actually, I appreciate a LEO going the "extra mile" to double-check. If the DA's wrong, he'll tell him. If there's something to the DA's stance, wouldn't you rather find out NOW, rather than on a traffic stop???

 

[jocat54]

Really?? $50 is stupid-high every five years? Says the guy who owns more 1911's than God himself. Thats funny.

I believe TexasRedneck was talking about the cost of Texas license as compared to Arizona

Texas Class= $60 to $150?
License= $140


Arizona
$60 license fee

Plus the time you have to spend in class, for some of us that can be a long distance to travel.