TexasCHLforum.com

When I first went to get my CHL, I was interested in only the Utah because I was thinking I could save a couple of bucks (in other words, I'm a cheapskate .) I took Crossfire's class which ran me through all of the Texas class. I soon realized that having just a Utah license was not the way to go as a resident due to things like the GFSZA exemption and other states not recognizing non-resident permits for reciprocity. Luckily, since I was actually taking the Texas class I was able to get both for just the extra fee to do the paperwork.

I am VERY glad that Crossfire required me to take the Texas class and I chose to go this route, as just having the Utah permit would have not been the best option and I would have been sorry in the long haul.

Crossfire wrote:As a Utah instructor in Texas, I feel it is my DUTY to instruct Utah students in Texas CHL law. Anything less is a disservice to the students. If I only tell them about restrictions that apply to Utah, how does that help them in Texas? The Utah thing is a problem. But only because irresponsible instructors have made it a problem.

This brings to mind the hackneyed, but true, expression, "ignorance of the law excuses no one".

chuckybrown wrote:Charles, if you do teach the class, add my name to the list. I have my Texas CHL, and want the Utah CFP for reciprocity reasons.

CB

Please send me an email. That's how I'm keeping up with people who are interested.

Chas.

Purplehood wrote:If I were an LEO and I ran your plates and it came back with a Suspension, I would probably totally discount the UT CFP.

I hope you wouldn't totally discount the Motorist Protection Act.

jester wrote:

Purplehood wrote:If I were an LEO and I ran your plates and it came back with a Suspension, I would probably totally discount the UT CFP.

I hope you wouldn't totally discount the Motorist Protection Act.

I always wonder about the contradictions between the two...I guess the holder of a CHL has a deeper civic-duty than anyone simply carrying under the MPA. Keep in mind that the motorist under the MPA umbrella is not carrying on his/her person concealed. Or they shouldn't be.

Purplehood wrote:

jester wrote:

Purplehood wrote:If I were an LEO and I ran your plates and it came back with a Suspension, I would probably totally discount the UT CFP.

I hope you wouldn't totally discount the Motorist Protection Act.

I always wonder about the contradictions between the two...I guess the holder of a CHL has a deeper civic-duty than anyone simply carrying under the MPA. Keep in mind that the motorist under the MPA umbrella is not carrying on his/her person concealed. Or they shouldn't be.

They could be -- as long as they're in their car. (Civic duty???)

sjfcontrol wrote:

Purplehood wrote:

jester wrote:

Purplehood wrote:If I were an LEO and I ran your plates and it came back with a Suspension, I would probably totally discount the UT CFP.

I hope you wouldn't totally discount the Motorist Protection Act.

I always wonder about the contradictions between the two...I guess the holder of a CHL has a deeper civic-duty than anyone simply carrying under the MPA. Keep in mind that the motorist under the MPA umbrella is not carrying on his/her person concealed. Or they shouldn't be.

They could be -- as long as they're in their car. (Civic duty???)

Bad turn-of-phrase...'held to higher standards' would probably be a better term.

Purplehood wrote:Keep in mind that the motorist under the MPA umbrella is not carrying on his/her person concealed. Or they shouldn't be.

MPA allows someone to carry a handgun "on or about his or her person" and requires it to be concealed (not "in plain view")

jester wrote:

Purplehood wrote:Keep in mind that the motorist under the MPA umbrella is not carrying on his/her person concealed. Or they shouldn't be.

MPA allows someone to carry a handgun "on or about his or her person" and requires it to be concealed (not "in plain view")

In the car.

I thought they were in the car if you ran their plates.

jester wrote:I thought they were in the car if you ran their plates.

Not necessarily. The LEO can order you out of the car, and then run your plates. So if you are minus permitted authority to carry, you can carry concealed on your person while in the vehicle, but when the officer tells you to exit the vehicle, you would have to disarm and conceal from plain view before exiting the vehicle... ...which opens up a whole 'nuther tactical can of worms. And it gets worse if you are dragged out of the car before you can disarm.

I'd also be interested in picking up the Utah CHL (and I *do* already have my Texas CHL). Hope Charles' announcement gets posted in the Texas CHL board so I won't miss it - I rarely check 100% of the boards on the forum. Missed the annual PSC event registration because of that :-(

RHENRIKSEN wrote:I'd also be interested in picking up the Utah CHL (and I *do* already have my Texas CHL). Hope Charles' announcement gets posted in the Texas CHL board so I won't miss it - I rarely check 100% of the boards on the forum. Missed the annual PSC event registration because of that :-(

Did you see THIS THREAD? Your wish is my command.

Post deleted as I allowed my emotions to lead my thoughts rather than my head.

Starvin wrote:I will be contacting my state rep to introduce legislation that would require a Utah instructor to teach the TX course before teaching the Utah. Utah requires this as should Texas.

Can you show me where Utah law requires this? Utah BCI says "If a certified instructor chooses to teach multi state permits, the Utah permit must be completed separately." It doesn't say Utah has to be taught first. It also doesn't seem to preclude a Utah instructor from teaching another state's class without teaching the Utah class to the students, nor does it prevent someone who isn't a Utah instructor from teaching a class for a different state in Utah.