REMEMBER to be KIND.I am Not Understanding Reciprocity
I am Not Understanding Reciprocity
This is probably not a good question to ask. I can feel the slam dunks coming my way, but oh well. I am not understanding why people from one State may carry in Texas, while we cannot carry in their State. Why if they will not recognize our CHL should we recognize theirs? Just curious. REMEMBER to be KIND.
REMEMBER to be KIND.-
HighVelocity
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 1
- Posts: 3374
- Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2005 7:54 pm
- Location: DFW, TX
- Contact:
-
flintknapper
- Banned
- Posts in topic: 1
- Posts: 4962
- Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2005 8:40 pm
- Location: Deep East Texas
-
Charles L. Cotton
- Site Admin
- Posts in topic: 1
- Posts: 17787
- Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:31 pm
- Location: Friendswood, TX
- Contact:
Reciprocity has a long and contentious history in Texas. The original reciprocity provisions delegated to the DPS the authority to negotiate reciprocity agreements with other states. That state’s CHL laws had to be at least as stringent as Texas’ and this left far too much discretion with DPS. This coupled with DPS’s general disinterest with securing reciprocity agreements resulted in very few agreements being signed during the several years DPS had this responsibility.
In the mid to late 1990's, Texas had a terrible reputation among the states with regard to reciprocity. In fact, Oklahoma changed its CHL statute solely because DPS had snubbed Oklahoma by not entering a reciprocity agreement. At that time, Oklahoma’s statute recognized any state’s CHL. After repeated attempts to get an agreement with Texas (at least that’s what was said), Oklahoma changed its statute to recognize all states’ CHL’s, if that state recognized Oklahoma’s. It was so embarrassing for Texas that the DPS negotiated an agreement shortly thereafter.
It became clear to everyone that reciprocity had to be taken away from DPS, if any progress was to be achieved. It was also determined that the law should be changed such that there was no need to compare the laws, so it was changed to require that the other state’s CHL statute meets the requirements for NICS exemption. The change also required the AG to provide an annual report to the Governor listing all states that meet the statutory requirements for reciprocity and it requires the Governor to issue a unilateral proclamation, if a full reciprocity agreement can’t be reached.
Shortly after the 2003 Legislative Session, after reciprocity became the responsibility of both the AG and the Governor, Attorney General Greg Abbott immediately sent letters to every state that was NICS exempt and attempted to negotiate agreements. He has also met his duty to provide the annual report (he actually give it far more often) and Governor Perry is meeting his duty to issue the unilateral recognition proclamations if full reciprocity cannot be achieved. AG Abbott has garnered more reciprocity agreements since 2003 than DPS did from day one!
Since 2003, Texas has become the poster-child for the way reciprocity should be handled. Yes, unilateral agreements don’t help Texans, but it sure shows that we respect the right of others to defend themselves and their families. This fact is being recognized and applauded throughout the Country. I have no doubt that DPS’s intentional stalling for years resulted in the strong backlash that resulted in one of the most liberal reciprocity policies in the U.S. While I’d like to have full reciprocity with every state that currently enjoys unilateral recognition by Texas, I’m proud of the standard we have set for other states.
Regards,
Chas.
In the mid to late 1990's, Texas had a terrible reputation among the states with regard to reciprocity. In fact, Oklahoma changed its CHL statute solely because DPS had snubbed Oklahoma by not entering a reciprocity agreement. At that time, Oklahoma’s statute recognized any state’s CHL. After repeated attempts to get an agreement with Texas (at least that’s what was said), Oklahoma changed its statute to recognize all states’ CHL’s, if that state recognized Oklahoma’s. It was so embarrassing for Texas that the DPS negotiated an agreement shortly thereafter.
It became clear to everyone that reciprocity had to be taken away from DPS, if any progress was to be achieved. It was also determined that the law should be changed such that there was no need to compare the laws, so it was changed to require that the other state’s CHL statute meets the requirements for NICS exemption. The change also required the AG to provide an annual report to the Governor listing all states that meet the statutory requirements for reciprocity and it requires the Governor to issue a unilateral proclamation, if a full reciprocity agreement can’t be reached.
Shortly after the 2003 Legislative Session, after reciprocity became the responsibility of both the AG and the Governor, Attorney General Greg Abbott immediately sent letters to every state that was NICS exempt and attempted to negotiate agreements. He has also met his duty to provide the annual report (he actually give it far more often) and Governor Perry is meeting his duty to issue the unilateral recognition proclamations if full reciprocity cannot be achieved. AG Abbott has garnered more reciprocity agreements since 2003 than DPS did from day one!
Since 2003, Texas has become the poster-child for the way reciprocity should be handled. Yes, unilateral agreements don’t help Texans, but it sure shows that we respect the right of others to defend themselves and their families. This fact is being recognized and applauded throughout the Country. I have no doubt that DPS’s intentional stalling for years resulted in the strong backlash that resulted in one of the most liberal reciprocity policies in the U.S. While I’d like to have full reciprocity with every state that currently enjoys unilateral recognition by Texas, I’m proud of the standard we have set for other states.
Regards,
Chas.
Last edited by Charles L. Cotton on Sun Feb 12, 2006 12:47 am, edited 1 time in total.
The Texas CHL is one of the most valuable when it comes to recognition by other states, even if we don't have reciprocity with everyone we recognize. If you want to see some craziness, you should spend some time on PDO, looking at some of the reciprocal agreements other states have with just one or two other states, when they seemingly should have reciprocity with several others.
Texas and Arkansas were each others' first reciprocity agreements. Louisiana soon followed for Texas, but not for Arkansas. Louisiana has reciprocity with Oklahoma and Texas. Oklahoma has reciprocity with Arkansas, Texas, and Louisiana. Texas has reciprocity with Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Louisiana. But Arkansas and Louisiana still don't have any form of reciprocity or recognition, despite almost identical requirements.
So long as licenses or permits are required (something I'd like to change), then Texas is doing it right.
Remember the rallying cry: Alaska carry in 2007!
Texas and Arkansas were each others' first reciprocity agreements. Louisiana soon followed for Texas, but not for Arkansas. Louisiana has reciprocity with Oklahoma and Texas. Oklahoma has reciprocity with Arkansas, Texas, and Louisiana. Texas has reciprocity with Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Louisiana. But Arkansas and Louisiana still don't have any form of reciprocity or recognition, despite almost identical requirements.
So long as licenses or permits are required (something I'd like to change), then Texas is doing it right.
Remember the rallying cry: Alaska carry in 2007!