Utah SB 36

[Texan2]

I heard on Cam & Company tonight that Utah SB 36 easily passed both houses and was on its way to the governor for a signature. Doesn't sound like much opposition.

If this news was accurate, no more Utah CHL for Texans (unless you already have a Texas CHL).

This also takes some steam out of the Texas legislation to put the brakes on folks getting Utah CHLs instead of Texas CHLs. Utah stole Burnam's thunder.

 

[matefrio]

Too bad. Really this is a bad thing.

 

[Texan2]

I dont see how. I understand the whole constitutional carry issue and agree. But while we have CHLs, I have no issue with the way its gonna be.

 

[Texan2]

Now THIS is a really bad thing.
http://www.texasguntalk.com/forums/...nsored-double-action-chl/20834-chl-badge.html

 

[matefrio]

Any restriction of how a person may legally carry is a step in the wrong direction.

 

[Bithabus]

Yep it's going to the governor. Looks like this is going to become law.

S.B. 36 Substitute Bill Status

 

[txinvestigator]

While I support laws that do not require licensing; it is only logical that since we DO have laws now, that the Utah and Texas bills regarding resident state licensing are passed.

 

[MR Redneck]

Any restriction of how a person may legally carry is a step in the wrong direction.

I agree. This is two steps back.

 

[matefrio]

I don't see an issue with someone going out of state to get a CHL to carry in Texas. They've met TX requirements, and the other state requirements, although through an "unintended" manner.

Why the concern? If Utah was loosing money why not just hike the cost?

If Texas is concerned about these folks not knowing enough Texas laws or passing the right background check to carry in Texas we need to look at our reciprocity with that state and our other instances where it's legal to carry in any fashion before jumping though the Texas CHL hoops.

 

[MR Redneck]

I don't see an issue with someone going out of state to get a CHL to carry in Texas. They've met TX requirements, and the other state requirements, although through an "unintended" manner.

Why the concern? If Utah was loosing money why not just hike the cost?

If Texas is concerned about these folks not knowing enough Texas laws or passing the right background check to carry in Texas we need to look at our reciprocity with that state and our other instances where it's legal to carry in any fashion before jumping though the Texas CHL hoops.

That's kinda what I would like to know. If the reciprocity is good enough for those in other states, then why aint it good enough for people living in Texas. It seem to me that the Texas requirement is set too high for Texans. The requirement in other states is far less, but those people are allowed to carry in Texas and not even know the Texas Laws. True, the force and defense laws are better in Texas, so those people from other states will simply have "more rights" while in Texas than they do at home. I just dont agree with this whole Licensing thing. Now it seems that states are fighting over BS that simply isnt the subject.
Why cant we focus on the "Exact" reason why people are getting nonresident Licensing while living in Texas?

 

[Bithabus]

Why the concern? If Utah was loosing money why not just hike the cost?

Utah was losing reciprocity. Their responsibility is to their own citizens and ensuring that Utahans can carry legally in as many States as possible.

 

[txinvestigator]

I don't see an issue with someone going out of state to get a CHL to carry in Texas. They've met TX requirements, and the other state requirements, although through an "unintended" manner.

Why the concern? If Utah was loosing money why not just hike the cost?

If Texas is concerned about these folks not knowing enough Texas laws or passing the right background check to carry in Texas we need to look at our reciprocity with that state and our other instances where it's legal to carry in any fashion before jumping though the Texas CHL hoops.

I agree there is a disparity; A Utah resident can come to Texas and carry without having ANY training in Texas law or being required to qualify and not have to have met our eligibility.

That said, if you MOVE to Texas you should have to qualify and carry a Texas CHL. same as with your DL

 

[Bithabus]

I agree there is a disparity; A Utah resident can come to Texas and carry without having ANY training in Texas law or being required to qualify and not have to have met our eligibility.

I don't see that as a disparity because visiting Texans can carry on TX CHL in Utah.

I do see a disparity in the fact that people from certain States such as CA, MA, NV etc can carry in Texas on their State issued licenses but our licenses are not honored in their States. If they don't honor our license we should not honor theirs.

 

[txinvestigator]

I don't see that as a disparity because visiting Texans can carry on TX CHL in Utah.

The diaparity is that people with out of state licenses do not have to meet the Texas standards.

I do see a disparity in the fact that people from certain States such as CA, MA, NV etc can carry in Texas on their State issued licenses but our licenses are not honored in their States. If they don't honor our license we should not honor theirs.

The governor has made unilateral agreements to encourage these states to accept Texas licenses.

 

[Bithabus]

The diaparity is that people with out of state licenses do not have to meet the Texas standards.

That's a different claim that the one I was responding to.

The governor has made unilateral agreements to encourage these states to accept Texas licenses.

I don't believe that. Nobody expects places like CA or MA to allow Texans to carry there. I don't know why Perry made these agreements.

 

[matefrio]

That said, if you MOVE to Texas you should have to qualify and carry a Texas CHL. same as with your DL

Why? I really don't understand why.

It's not for tracking.

It's not for training.

If they have a valid license from a state we have reciprocity with it shouldn't matter where they reside as they can legally carry under our CHL laws.

It shouldn't be the burden of the state to train people about Texas laws.

 

[leonidas]

So SB 36 states that if you don't live in UT then you need a CHL from your resident state first to then apply for a UT license. WhyTF would I want a UT license after already having a TX CHL? Granted UT has the most reciprocity. But if I move to another state after getting my TX and UT CHL, wouldn't I technically have to get my new state CHL in addition to the UT and TX CHLs to comply with SB 36? Would I have to relenquish the UT CHL if I didn't want to get ANOTHER CHL in ANOTHER state?

Texascop2, I love you man - but being content with gun restriction laws on the books just because those laws are already "on the books" is dangerous thinking. Besides, not meeting the TX standard isn't really an argument. It's not like there is any real firearm training to help you become a better shot with the field test for any CHL. I've watched CHL tests in two other states, I would not consider them in depth enough to teach anyone better concealed handling. If TX required a FrontSight type of two day training, then I think you might have a valid argument.

I have to agree with matefrio that any gun/carry restriction is in the wrong direction. I'd rather be caught in a bar with drunken UT CHL holders who don't like my politics, than caught in a mall with some psycho shooting up the place and no CHL holders around to stop him.

 

[Texan2]

So SB 36 states that if you don't live in UT then you need a CHL from your resident state first to then apply for a UT license. WhyTF would I want a UT license after already having a TX CHL? Granted UT has the most reciprocity. But if I move to another state after getting my TX and UT CHL, wouldn't I technically have to get my new state CHL in addition to the UT and TX CHLs to comply with SB 36? Would I have to relenquish the UT CHL if I didn't want to get ANOTHER CHL in ANOTHER state?

Texascop2, I love you man - but being content with gun restriction laws on the books just because those laws are already "on the books" is dangerous thinking. Besides, not meeting the TX standard isn't really an argument. It's not like there is any real firearm training to help you become a better shot with the field test for any CHL. I've watched CHL tests in two other states, I would not consider them in depth enough to teach anyone better concealed handling. If TX required a FrontSight type of two day training, then I think you might have a valid argument.

I have to agree with matefrio that any gun/carry restriction is in the wrong direction. I'd rather be caught in a bar with drunken UT CHL holders who don't like my politics, than caught in a mall with some psycho shooting up the place and no CHL holders around to stop him.

If you dont like the parameters of the Texas CHL program that is fine, I wont really take a stand on what is enough training, what is too much. My point from the beginning is that we live in Texas, we live by Texas laws, if you dont like the law then petition to get it changed. But having a system whereby you just go to another state to get a license is stupid.
I know...I know...they are licensing a right. I have heard that over and over and over. That is not the point of THIS thread. I am fine with Constitutional Carry, but until we have it, it is my belief that people shouldnt be able to skirt the program.
If I couldnt get a Texas DL because I cant drive worth a crap, but I can go get a Utah DL because they have low standards and then drive in Texas that is wrong and unfair to those who are abiding by the law the way it was intended.

I have said from day one on this forum that those who passed the first CHL laws here did not intend for Texans to go to other states for their CHL. Reciprocity was intended for those who visited here and for Texans who visit other states.

I also said that given time, this "loophole" would be fixed. (I was crucified for saying it was a loophole, but that is what it is. An oversight that is now being addressed.)

Telling politicians that "Even though I live here, I will go to another state for a license because I dont like this state's rules" is asking for trouble.

You can like it, or not like it, but it was easy to predict.

Ok...I have on my asbestos underwear...flame away.
Introduce a Constitutional Carry bill and I will most certainly support it, but I wont support hamstringing our current laws.

Thats just me.

 

[matefrio]

aws here did not intend for Texans to go to other states for their CHL. Reciprocity was intended for those who visited here and for Texans who visit other states.

I just don't see the harm caused by the loophole that demands the attention to close. What's the harm in letting it alone?

 

[leonidas]

If you dont like the parameters of the Texas CHL program that is fine, I wont really take a stand on what is enough training, what is too much. My point from the beginning is that we live in Texas, we live by Texas laws, if you dont like the law then petition to get it changed. But having a system whereby you just go to another state to get a license is stupid.
I know...I know...they are licensing a right. I have heard that over and over and over. That is not the point of THIS thread. I am fine with Constitutional Carry, but until we have it, it is my belief that people shouldnt be able to skirt the program.
If I couldnt get a Texas DL because I cant drive worth a crap, but I can go get a Utah DL because they have low standards and then drive in Texas that is wrong and unfair to those who are abiding by the law the way it was intended.

I have said from day one on this forum that those who passed the first CHL laws here did not intend for Texans to go to other states for their CHL. Reciprocity was intended for those who visited here and for Texans who visit other states.

I also said that given time, this "loophole" would be fixed. (I was crucified for saying it was a loophole, but that is what it is. An oversight that is now being addressed.)

Telling politicians that "Even though I live here, I will go to another state for a license because I dont like this state's rules" is asking for trouble.

You can like it, or not like it, but it was easy to predict.

Ok...I have on my asbestos underwear...flame away.
Introduce a Constitutional Carry bill and I will most certainly support it, but I wont support hamstringing our current laws.

Thats just me.

There's nothing to flame you with, I understand your point. Trying to stick to the main premise of this thread and not the notion of constitutional carry, I'll only state that getting a UT is less of a way of curtailing the TX licensing and more of a way to get more "bang" for your buck. It's like shopping for the best deal. If I can purchase a CHL that has reciprocity in 26 states or purchase a more expensive one that has reciprocity in only 8 or so, I'd choose the first for obvious reasons. Getting a UT CHL isn't about skirting the laws in TX, I see it more as TX isn't competitive enough with the product they are offering. After all is said and done, I'll have to get a TX CHL to carry concealed. I had considered the UT for the reasons I just stated - more bang for my buck.