UPDATE: 1/10/13

This sub-forum will open for posting on Sept. 1, 2012.

Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton

User avatar

Topic author
Charles L. Cotton
Site Admin
Posts in topic: 7
Posts: 17787
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:31 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX
Contact:

UPDATE: 1/10/13

#1

Post by Charles L. Cotton »

HB383 by Burnam: Prohibiting Texas residents from carrying on an out-of-state license

SB164 (Van de Putte): Providing option to have "Veteran" printed on CHL.

texasmike
Junior Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 19
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2011 11:03 am
Location: Austin

Re: UPDATE: 1/10/13

#2

Post by texasmike »

Charles L. Cotton wrote:HB383 by Burnam: Prohibiting Texas residents from carrying on an out-of-state license
Interesting
[A] person's license to carry a concealed handgun issued by another state may not be recognized and is not valid in this state if the person has established a domicile in this state.
So, apparently, reciprocity applies as usual, except that if you actually live in Texas, you need to get a Texas CHL. You can't live here and carry under the authority of a license issued by another state. (If the bill were to pass of course.)

steveincowtown
Banned
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 1374
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 1:58 pm

Re: UPDATE: 1/10/13

#3

Post by steveincowtown »

Charles L. Cotton wrote:HB383 by Burnam: Prohibiting Texas residents from carrying on an out-of-state license
Boo.

This is a bad bill all around.

#1> Burnam is no conservative.

#2> My prediction is this will cause a myriad of unintended consequences.
The Time is Now...
NRA Lifetime Member

texasmike
Junior Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 19
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2011 11:03 am
Location: Austin

Re: UPDATE: 1/10/13

#4

Post by texasmike »

steveincowtown wrote:
Charles L. Cotton wrote:HB383 by Burnam: Prohibiting Texas residents from carrying on an out-of-state license
Boo.

This is a bad bill all around.

#1> Burnam is no conservative.

#2> My prediction is this will cause a myriad of unintended consequences.
My immediate concern is that determining domicile is an inherently fact-laden inquiry. If a Texas LEO confronts someone carrying under the authority of a CHL issued by another state, how does the LEO know whether the person is domiciled in Texas? What if the person is visiting for a week, has a three-week job assignment here, or is attending school for a semester? Persons carrying in Texas under the authority of a CHL issued by another state would be put to increased risk of prosecution for unlawfully carrying a firearm, just to determine whether the license holder is "domiciled" in Texas.

By contrast, the reciprocity regime is a clear rule with predictable results.

I also worry that, by chipping away at reciprocity, we could eventually make things more difficult for Texas CHL holders who carry in other states.

SRH78
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 513
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2011 8:53 pm

Re: UPDATE: 1/10/13

#5

Post by SRH78 »

I would hope there is at least an exception for members of our armed forces stationed in Texas.
User avatar

Topic author
Charles L. Cotton
Site Admin
Posts in topic: 7
Posts: 17787
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:31 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX
Contact:

Re: UPDATE: 1/10/13

#6

Post by Charles L. Cotton »

I don't like this bill and I don't want it to pass. The fact that Lon Burnam is rated F is the best thing we have going for us. That said, requiring Texans to have a Texas CHL will not impact reciprocity. In fact, a few states have already passed such legislation and more are going to do so as time goes on. We can thank those like the online Virginia instructor/class for this bill being filed again.

The best approach is to remove the incentives to get out of state licenses like reducing the time required for the initial CHL and removing successfully completed deferred adjudications from the definition of "conviction."

Chas.

DevilDawg
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 351
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2012 7:53 pm

Re: UPDATE: 1/10/13

#7

Post by DevilDawg »

Charles L. Cotton wrote:SB164 (Van de Putte): Providing option to have "Veteran" printed on CHL.
So long as this is OPTIONAL and only per the discretion of the veteran. To be otherwise woul be an attempt to strip our vets by doctor.
User avatar

Topic author
Charles L. Cotton
Site Admin
Posts in topic: 7
Posts: 17787
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:31 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX
Contact:

Re: UPDATE: 1/10/13

#8

Post by Charles L. Cotton »

DevilDawg wrote:
Charles L. Cotton wrote:SB164 (Van de Putte): Providing option to have "Veteran" printed on CHL.
So long as this is OPTIONAL and only per the discretion of the veteran. To be otherwise woul be an attempt to strip our vets by doctor.
It would be optional, but I see no justification for this bill. I would unnecessarily increase DPS' workload for no benefit.

Chas.
User avatar

bigbang
Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 134
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 12:08 pm

Re: UPDATE: 1/10/13

#9

Post by bigbang »

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
DevilDawg wrote:
Charles L. Cotton wrote:SB164 (Van de Putte): Providing option to have "Veteran" printed on CHL.
So long as this is OPTIONAL and only per the discretion of the veteran. To be otherwise woul be an attempt to strip our vets by doctor.
It would be optional, but I see no justification for this bill. I would unnecessarily increase DPS' workload for no benefit.

Chas.
I felt the same about printing it on the drivers license but I guess Texas has a budget surplus they need to reduce.
This is a Glock 40. Fifty Cent. Too Short. All of them talk about a Glock 40. OK?
I'm the only one in this forum fool enough - that I know of - to shoot himself with a Glock 40.

texanjoker

Re: UPDATE: 1/10/13

#10

Post by texanjoker »

texasmike wrote:
Charles L. Cotton wrote:HB383 by Burnam: Prohibiting Texas residents from carrying on an out-of-state license
Interesting
[A] person's license to carry a concealed handgun issued by another state may not be recognized and is not valid in this state if the person has established a domicile in this state.
So, apparently, reciprocity applies as usual, except that if you actually live in Texas, you need to get a Texas CHL. You can't live here and carry under the authority of a license issued by another state. (If the bill were to pass of course.)
In reality if you live here you have to have a TX driver's license.(minus the military and a few exceptions)
User avatar

77346
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 569
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2012 5:49 pm
Location: Atascocita, TX

Re: UPDATE: 1/10/13

#11

Post by 77346 »

Charles L. Cotton wrote:HB383 by Burnam: Prohibiting Texas residents from carrying on an out-of-state license
Although my opinion is that a resident should get the license from the state in which he resides, I don't think this should be made into law. I am sure some Texas residents have good reasons for having out-of-state licenses and not a Texas CHL, but I think it's important to know about the Texas law if you're going to carry here every day.
Alex
NRA Benefactor Life & TSRA Life Member
Bay Area Shooting Club Member
CHL since 7/12 | 28 days mailbox-to-mailbox
User avatar

SewTexas
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 3509
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2010 11:52 pm
Location: Alvin
Contact:

Re: UPDATE: 1/10/13

#12

Post by SewTexas »

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
DevilDawg wrote:
Charles L. Cotton wrote:SB164 (Van de Putte): Providing option to have "Veteran" printed on CHL.
So long as this is OPTIONAL and only per the discretion of the veteran. To be otherwise woul be an attempt to strip our vets by doctor.
It would be optional, but I see no justification for this bill. I would unnecessarily increase DPS' workload for no benefit.

Chas.
I was talking with the husband about this and said "WHY?" his response was so that she could say "see, I did this for the veterans, and I'm pro-gun" and she did it all in one bill, she's smart! he thinks it'll pass in 15 mins, no problem, then real work can get done. My problem with it is that it when a real CHL bill comes up will the legs say "what, we passed that other bill for the vets....what more do you want?"

does that make sense?
~Tracy
Gun control is what you talk about when you don't want to talk about the truth ~ Colion Noir
User avatar

hpcatx
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 511
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2011 11:21 am
Location: New Orleans, Louisiana

Re: UPDATE: 1/10/13

#13

Post by hpcatx »

Charles L. Cotton wrote:That said, requiring Texans to have a Texas CHL will not impact reciprocity. In fact, a few states have already passed such legislation and more are going to do so as time goes on. We can thank those like the online Virginia instructor/class for this bill being filed again.
This is the law in Louisiana and it does NOT affect reciprocity as you have correctly indicated, Charles. It DOES, however, presumably affect folks moving to Texas. When I moved to Louisiana this past year, my wife had a baby six weeks later. Between the new addition to the family, new job, new house, etc., it would have been great to legally carry longer under my Texas CHL -- until things quieted down and getting my Louisiana permit wasn't directly trading off with other key responsibilities in my life.

For what it's worth, my Louisiana instructor said it was the Florida permits that prompted the change here.
"We have four boxes with which to defend our freedom: the soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box." - L. McDonald
User avatar

John75
Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 72
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 8:06 pm
Location: Dallas, TX

Re: UPDATE: 1/10/13

#14

Post by John75 »

Charles L. Cotton wrote:HB383 by Burnam: Prohibiting Texas residents from carrying on an out-of-state license
Thanks for the alert! I'm currently using my FL CCW until my TX CHL gets here. Time to contact my reps.
User avatar

aaronspuler
Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 101
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2009 3:04 pm
Contact:

Re: UPDATE: 1/10/13

#15

Post by aaronspuler »

I have both a TX and a WA CHL. The reason being is that WA does not have reciprocity with the TX CHL. However, TX has reciprocity with the WA CHL.

The WA CHL only requires a flat $55 fee ($35 for renewals) -- that's it. Whereas the TX CHL requires much more in terms of fees and classroom instruction. I wouldn't mind having the option to let my TX CHL lapse and continue to renew my WA CHL.
Post Reply

Return to “2013 Texas Legislative Session”