NYPD carrying in Texas

[tacticool]

A police officer in New York receives no training in Texas law but can carry in Texas on vacation, or if they retire here.

Where is the uproar from Texas legislators about this dangerous loophole? It's as bad as the "Utah Problem" if you look at the facts, instead of Brady lies and emotion.

Plus, it also violates States Rights. At least Utah reciprocity is a decision made by Texas officials.

[WildBill]

Are you referring specifically to NYPD or LEOs in general?

[G.A. Heath]

I really don't care if any out of state LEO carries at all, I prefer that they know our state laws but I don't think it should be required. Its kinda like I don't care if out of state folks talk in Texas without knowing our laws that limit liable and slander. I also feel that LEOSA should be expanded to include other states carry licenses as well, under the full faith and credit clause. Now with that said in an ideal world you would not need a license to carry a weapon openly or concealed in the United States, but this isn't an ideal world nor do I expect it to become anything close to one in the near future.

[Hoi Polloi]

Would you please define LEOSA for the ignorant (me!) among us?

[WildBill]

Would you please define LEOSA for the ignorant (me!) among us?

Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act. A bogus law that gives LEOs and retired LEOs the right to carry in all 50 states, while denying the same right to all U.S citizens.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_Enforc ... Safety_Act" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Charles L. Cotton]

Texas can't control federal law. Also, Texas recognized NY carry permits, so all a NYC LEO needs to do is get one. So LEOSA isn't even needed in Texas.

I know where you are going with this and it's not going to happen yet again. Texas has reciprocity with several other states and that can't happen if we require non-residents visiting Texas to take a course on Texas law. There's a big difference between a person visiting Texas for a few days and someone living here.

I don't want to see a change in Texas law either, but the marketing tactics of a few irresponsible Utah CHL instructors is going to hurt a lot of us.

Chas.

[cbr600]

According to the Golden Rule, the public servants in NY want Texans to deny their right to carry in Texas.

"If we desire respect for the law, we must first make the law respectable." ― Louis D. Brandeis

[WildBill]

I don't see how the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (LEOSA) has anything to do with Texas CHL, reciprocity or Utah CWP. As I see it, it is a Federal law that makes current and retired LEOs exempt from all state CHL laws.

[cbr600]

So, if Federal law made Mormons exempt from all state CHL laws, you say that wouldn't have anything to do with Texas CHL, reciprocity or Utah CWP?

I beg to differ.

[Charles L. Cotton]

So, if Federal law made Mormons exempt from all state CHL laws, you say that wouldn't have anything to do with Texas CHL, reciprocity or Utah CWP?

I beg to differ.

Bad example; it violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

Chas.

[cbr600]

14th Amendment? I don't think the Mormons are the ones who deny newcomers based on age or physical disability.

In any case, the LDS Safety Act couldn't be any less constitutional than LEO Safety Act.

[Charles L. Cotton]

14th Amendment? I don't think the Mormons are the ones who deny newcomers based on age or physical disability.

In any case, the LDS Safety Act couldn't be any less constitutional than LEO Safety Act.

Yes it would be; it would violate the Equal Protection Clause.

Chas.

[Charles L. Cotton]

I can't imagine this thread isn't going to get locked very soon, but I'll give it a chance. I know the motive for starting it and we're not going down that road again.

Chas.

[Hoi Polloi]

I don't know what kind of history Charles is alluding to, as there clearly is a larger picture that I'm not aware of. Understanding that, and that I do not have any legal training, I think it is a fascinating question and I'm very much looking forward to reading the responses and learning more.

The complaints I've heard on this forum for non-resident Utah CFPs being held by those who are TX residents who do not have TX resident permits are:

1. They will not be taught the TX-specific laws. (This is the one I read most frequently from the everyday populace.)
2. Some instructors are specifically targeting those who are ineligible for TX resident permits (those who had differed adjudication [felonies? I don't recall], for example) and it is the intent of TX law to bar those people from firearms ownership.
3. It reduces the fees TX can collect if the people are going to other states.
4. I can't go get a Utah driver's license and have it work here. If I'm a resident of this state, I'd expect to get a license in this state.
5. Some Utah CFP instructors thumbed their noses at the rest of the community and picked a fight they aren't going to win. (This argument is listed separately from #2 because it is more about politics than law, which is a legitimate issue of its own that cannot be ignored.)
6. I didn't learn enough in my 10-15 hr class. I still have so much to learn here! I can't see how a 4hr class could scratch the surface of what needs to be covered to be a safe concealed carrier.
7. The class and fees weed out the people who aren't serious about living a self-defense lifestyle. I made the time to do it because it was a priority to me. If they cared, they'd make it happen, too. We don't want people with CHLs who can't be bothered with taking one Saturday out of their lives to do it safely.

Any others I've missed?


And the reasons I can remember on the other side, some of which contradict others, and none of which I claim in this context as my own belief:

1. There shouldn't be requirements for classroom instruction in order to exercise this right.
2. There shouldn't be a requirement for a knowledge-based test to exercise this right.
3. There shouldn't be a requirement for a fee to exercise this right.
4. They should offer a test on TX law and if you can pass it, you're exempt from the class.
5. They should look at this through the lens of a free-market economy. If people are going to Utah and we don't want them to, reduce our fees and requirements to be competitive with Utah.
6. If I have a driver's license issued in one state, it's valid in all states. If I have a currently valid CHL issued in one state, it should be recognized by all states.
7. Texas' current laws are unconstitutional as they do not meet the strict scrutiny criteria of the least restrictive requirements to meet the state's compelling interests so the entire law should be overhauled, not built upon.
8. We should all be like Arizona--everyone may carry unless specifically restricted.
9. I didn't learn squat in my Texas CHL class and I seem to be doing OK and avoiding arrest so I can't imagine the Utah people are any worse off.
10. Police officers have higher [I can't recall the stats. ADs? NDs? Crimes with guns? Whatever...] than CHL holders and they're allowed more freedoms. LEOs should be held to the same standards as CHL holders.
11. What happens in Texas is up to Texas. It doesn't matter what other states are doing or what the feds want. We can do whatever we want because this is a states' rights issue.
12. We have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Where does it say pending the state's certification, classes, licensing, fingerprinting, recording, etc?

Any others I've missed?


The discussion I personally am most interested in seeing unfold is #2 from the first list (Texas' intent with its laws is being circumvented) with #7 below (the current laws need overhauling to be in alignment with constitutional norms as opposed to building upon them). I'm sympathetic to both of these positions and would be especially grateful to learn more about both.

[C-dub]

I don't have any problems with LEOSA, but an LEO from another state doesn't have any more power or authority here in Texas than I do, right? That's why I voted that LEOSA should be expanded to include CH licensees from all states.