ACTION NEEDED: Hearing on Anti-gun HB356

Discussions about relevant bills filed and their status.

Moderator: Charles L. Cotton

User avatar

tacticool
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 1486
Joined: Tue May 12, 2009 2:41 pm

Re: ACTION NEEDED: Hearing on Anti-gun HB356

#46

Post by tacticool » Fri Mar 25, 2011 3:20 pm

sjfcontrol wrote:However, Alaska (at least), offers a Concealed permit for those that want one for Reciprocity purposes. So Alaskans, as I read it, would still need an Alaska permit to validate a Utah license.
Same for an Alaskan getting the $26 Pennsylvania license.
http://www.co.centre.pa.us/sheriff/license_to_carry.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
When in doubt
Vote them out!


Griz44
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 7
Posts: 223
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2008 6:39 pm
Location: Round Rock, TX
Contact:

Re: ACTION NEEDED: Hearing on Anti-gun HB356

#47

Post by Griz44 » Fri Mar 25, 2011 10:27 pm

so Griz44. Sounds like you also believe Utah residents with a Utah CHL should not be recognised in Texas?
I did not say that. That's not even on the same planet to what I said. If they have a license in their home state, why would it make any difference at all if they had a license from every state they could get one in?
We were discussing Texas residents, and Texas licenses. I occasionally take out of state customers hunting. Some of them have CHL licenses from their home state, and carry legally in Texas. There's no problem with that. They don't use a Texas license to skirt the requirements of their home states minimum standard. I don't give a flip about what any person who is a Utah resident does, has or wants. That's Utah's business, not ours.


cbr600
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 775
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 8:23 pm
Location: not here

Re: ACTION NEEDED: Hearing on Anti-gun HB356

#48

Post by cbr600 » Sat Mar 26, 2011 1:09 am

deleted
Last edited by cbr600 on Tue Apr 05, 2011 10:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.


Sniper John
Member
Posts in topic: 5
Posts: 80
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:45 pm

Re: ACTION NEEDED: Hearing on Anti-gun HB356

#49

Post by Sniper John » Sat Mar 26, 2011 7:41 am

Griz44 wrote:
so Griz44. Sounds like you also believe Utah residents with a Utah CHL should not be recognised in Texas?
I did not say that. That's not even on the same planet to what I said. If they have a license in their home state, why would it make any difference at all if they had a license from every state they could get one in?
We were discussing Texas residents, and Texas licenses. I occasionally take out of state customers hunting. Some of them have CHL licenses from their home state, and carry legally in Texas. There's no problem with that. They don't use a Texas license to skirt the requirements of their home states minimum standard. I don't give a flip about what any person who is a Utah resident does, has or wants. That's Utah's business, not ours.

It was a question. And you answered it. Thank you. So you have no problem with the fact Utah is a 4 hour class and no shooting. So you also have no problem with a Utah resident carrying in Texas under the same permit/class. Correct?

User avatar

sjfcontrol
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 5
Posts: 6258
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2009 7:14 am
Location: Flint, TX

Re: ACTION NEEDED: Hearing on Anti-gun HB356

#50

Post by sjfcontrol » Sat Mar 26, 2011 8:54 am

Grizz

So if you were to look at two identical people, both have Utah licenses, the same training, the same skills, the same knowledge, except one lives in Oklahoma, and the other lives in Texas. Neither has Texas licenses. I'd be OK for the Okie to carry here, but not the Texan. That means the Texan has less rights than the Okie, just because he lives here. Punish the Texan for living in Texas. Sounds fair to me!
Range Rule: "The front gate lock is not an acceptable target."
Never Forget. Image


morigan
Junior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 9
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 4:53 pm

Re: ACTION NEEDED: Hearing on Anti-gun HB356

#51

Post by morigan » Sat Mar 26, 2011 5:26 pm

The campus carry bill (HB 750) only allows concealed carry by someone with a CHL issued by the State of Texas. The Texas Capitol only allows us to bypass the metal detectors if we have a CHL issued by the State of Texas. Are those rules anti-gun? If not, how can we call this bill anti-gun?


hirundo82
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 1001
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2006 10:44 pm
Location: Houston

Re: ACTION NEEDED: Hearing on Anti-gun HB356

#52

Post by hirundo82 » Sat Mar 26, 2011 5:48 pm

I'd consider the restriction for campus carry to be mildly anti-gun, but it appears to be a necessary concession to get campus carry passed this session and likely will be easy to remove once the hubbub over out-of-state licenses dies down.

I don't know how out-of-state licenses are being handled at the capitol now that there are metal detectors; state law doesn't allow them to exclude people who are carrying on a non-Texas permit.
"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." Barack Obama, 12/20/2007


morigan
Junior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 9
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 4:53 pm

Re: ACTION NEEDED: Hearing on Anti-gun HB356

#53

Post by morigan » Sat Mar 26, 2011 5:53 pm

They ran my Texas CHL through a card reader attached to a laptop to verify it's valid.

ETA: Supporting link http://texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=409335#p409335" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


hirundo82
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 1001
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2006 10:44 pm
Location: Houston

Re: ACTION NEEDED: Hearing on Anti-gun HB356

#54

Post by hirundo82 » Sat Mar 26, 2011 6:33 pm

Yes, I'm aware that they swipe Texas CHLs to confirm they are valid and that is not possible with licenses from other states. However, DPS does not have the authority to exclude someone from the Capitol because they are legally carrying on another state's license.
"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." Barack Obama, 12/20/2007

User avatar

Topic author
Charles L. Cotton
Site Admin
Posts in topic: 10
Posts: 17463
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:31 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX
Contact:

Re: ACTION NEEDED: Hearing on Anti-gun HB356

#55

Post by Charles L. Cotton » Sat Mar 26, 2011 6:48 pm

morigan wrote:The campus carry bill (HB 750) only allows concealed carry by someone with a CHL issued by the State of Texas. The Texas Capitol only allows us to bypass the metal detectors if we have a CHL issued by the State of Texas. Are those rules anti-gun? If not, how can we call this bill anti-gun?
This thread isn't about campus-carry or the Texas Capitol. It's about HB356.

Let's get back on topic.

Chas.
Image


SWAMPRNR
Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 48
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 11:20 pm
Location: Bruceville - Eddy Texas

Re: ACTION NEEDED: Hearing on Anti-gun HB356

#56

Post by SWAMPRNR » Mon Mar 28, 2011 2:29 pm

Any idea were this bill stands now?


hirundo82
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 1001
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2006 10:44 pm
Location: Houston

Re: ACTION NEEDED: Hearing on Anti-gun HB356

#57

Post by hirundo82 » Mon Mar 28, 2011 2:44 pm

It was heard in committee on Tuesday 3/22, but the committee hasn't voted yet on the bills they heard that day.
"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." Barack Obama, 12/20/2007


Ameer
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 1390
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 8:01 pm

Re: ACTION NEEDED: Hearing on Anti-gun HB356

#58

Post by Ameer » Mon Mar 28, 2011 2:54 pm

SWAMPRNR wrote:Any idea were this bill stands now?
"Left pending in committee"
I believe the basic political division in this country is not between liberals and conservatives but between those who believe that they should have a say in the personal lives of strangers and those who do not.


Burn
Banned
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 11
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2011 3:53 pm

Re: ACTION NEEDED: Hearing on Anti-gun HB356

#59

Post by Burn » Fri Apr 01, 2011 4:24 pm

The CHL law has many requirements in place that limit eligibility for a Texas CHL. The Texas Legislature put those requirements in place intentionally. They were no accident. I don't think I would be going out on a limb if I said the reason the Texas Legislature created those elibibility requirements is they didn't want to allow Texans to carry guns unless they are eligible, i.e. they satisfy all the requirements for a Texas CHL.

HB 356 was introduced this session to ensure Texas residents are properly trained and can pass the criminal background check, before they're allowed to carry guns in churches, shopping malls, parks where children are playing, and other public places. It's a common sense law that closes an unintended loophole, and it deserves support from gun owners and concerned citizens alike.

User avatar

sjfcontrol
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 5
Posts: 6258
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2009 7:14 am
Location: Flint, TX

Re: ACTION NEEDED: Hearing on Anti-gun HB356

#60

Post by sjfcontrol » Fri Apr 01, 2011 4:39 pm

Burn wrote:The CHL law has many requirements in place that limit eligibility for a Texas CHL. The Texas Legislature put those requirements in place intentionally. They were no accident. I don't think I would be going out on a limb if I said the reason the Texas Legislature created those elibibility requirements is they didn't want to allow Texans to carry guns unless they are eligible, i.e. they satisfy all the requirements for a Texas CHL.

HB 356 was introduced this session to ensure Texas residents are properly trained and can pass the criminal background check, before they're allowed to carry guns in churches, shopping malls, parks where children are playing, and other public places. It's a common sense law that closes an unintended loophole, and it deserves support from gun owners and concerned citizens alike.
Using that logic, Texas should eliminate reciprocity with Utah altogether, and the other states as well.

There is NO reason to think a Texan carrying in Texas on a Utah license (or Florida license) is more dangerous, or less knowledgable of the laws, than a Utah-ite (or Floridian) carrying in Texas on a Utah (or Florida) license. And everybody in the above scenario has passed a background check.
Range Rule: "The front gate lock is not an acceptable target."
Never Forget. Image

Locked

Return to “2011 Texas Legislative Session”