TexasCHLforum.com

greggtex wrote:. . . Hopefully none of the new bills will pass! . . . The only reason it will pass if it does, is money. State is suffering right now and might shut it donw, but that only helps the criminals in my opinion.

I'm not sure if you're talking about money to the State of Texas or Utah, but either way you are mistaken. If the Utah bill passes, and I believe it will, then Utah will loose money. The number of Texas residents with a Utah CFP has been reported by Utah to be 6,000, but that does not tell us how many of those 6,000 Texans also have a Texas CHL. Even if every one of the 6,000 held only a Utah CFP, then the total loss of revenue to Texas is somewhere between $210,000 and $420,000 over 5 years ($42,000 to 84,000 annually) depending on how many of those 6,000 are entitled to the 50% discount. Your money theory doesn't seem plausible.

If Texas passes Lon Burnam's HB356, it won't have anything to do with money. It will be the direct result of irresponsible advertising by Utah Instructors. Make no mistake, those instructors didn't merely advertise a cheaper license, they strongly and aggressively advertised the facts that Utah 1) doesn't require a written test; 2) doesn't require shooting; 3) will give a CFP to persons with deferred adjudications for any felony, past due child support, or past due Texas taxes. As I've said before, the Utah "problem" wasn't the license, it was the in-your-face advertising by irresponsible instructors that amounted to nothing more than thumbing their collective noses at the Texas Legislature.

greggtex wrote:If you're for more govt. control, then I can see you being against the Utah CHL, but if you stand for people protecting themselves, well, that's me.

It's difficult for me to respond nicely to this ridiculous accusation. To globally categorize anyone who has concerns about the Utah CFP in terms of irresponsible advertising and a resulting backlash that harms reciprocity as being "for more govt. control" is to adopt the tactics of Sarah Brady. It smacks of "if you disagree with me, you have evil motives." You have only made four posts here on TexasCHLforum and every single one has been in defense of the Utah CFP.

Chas.

The way i see it is i already have permits from 5 other states but can't get a Texas permit.When and if these new laws pass i will have a excuse to move.

SWAMPRNR wrote:The way i see it is i already have permits from 5 other states but can't get a Texas permit.When and if these new laws pass i will have a excuse to move.

I think Utah will pass their bill, but I don't think Burnam's HB356 will pass. I may be wrong about Burnam, but it's hard for anyone to sign on to an F-rated Representative's bill or to vote for it in a record vote. The best scenario would have been that no bill would have been filed (almost impossible), but the next best scenario is that Lon Burnam would file it.

Chas.

Some people complain they can't get a Texas CHL because they have a criminal record. I'm not sure it's a bad thing for Texas to have that requirement. Like the song says, "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time."

You can't get a Utah CFP with a crimnal record either. Utah just defines "convicted" a little differently than Texas when it comes to deferred adjudication.

In Texas, you can't get a CHL if you've even been CHARGED with a crime (Prior to being adjudicated). (Guilty until proven innocent.) In Utah, you have to be convicted of the crime before they'll deny/revoke the license. Disorderly Conduct charges, which will prevent the issuance of a CHL in Texas can take YEARS to resolve.

I seem to remember my logic for getting the UTAH CHL was the factor of ARRESTED for something vs. CONVICTED of something...and how the two states have differing opinions about when to yank your CHL...but I DO hold a Texas CHL, as well...I figured it would be like a belt and suspenders kind of thing. Will these bills change that?

cbr600 wrote:The Texas bill might impact the "belt and suspenders" idea. There's a discussion for that bill @ viewtopic.php?f=111&t=40727&hilit=burnam" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Texas bill would impact that as your Utah license would not be valid to carry on in Texas if you are a Texas resident. You would only be able to use it in other states that accept a non-resident Utah license. And, there are more and more states that are moving to not accept non-resident licenses.

Well, I guess that Texas code needs to be "fixed" so that a person who hasn't been found guilty of a crime isn't treated as such...I understand that there are a lot of varying situations out there, but a lot of them put a generally law-abiding person in a bind over some possibly minor issues...I will certainly "stay tuned" to this station for further information...

Heartland Patriot wrote:Well, I guess that Texas code needs to be "fixed" so that a person who hasn't been found guilty of a crime isn't treated as such...I understand that there are a lot of varying situations out there, but a lot of them put a generally law-abiding person in a bind over some possibly minor issues...I will certainly "stay tuned" to this station for further information...

Which law needs to be fixed. How does it need to be fixed. I understand your complaint but do not understand the why.

Heartland Patriot wrote:Well, I guess that Texas code needs to be "fixed" so that a person who hasn't been found guilty of a crime isn't treated as such...I understand that there are a lot of varying situations out there, but a lot of them put a generally law-abiding person in a bind over some possibly minor issues...I will certainly "stay tuned" to this station for further information...

I'm not picking on you. Your post was just easy to use as a starting point.

I don't understand what people are saying about being arrested. Texas Government Code 411.172 (4) reads "(4) is not charged with the commission of a Class A or Class B misdemeanor or an offense under Section 42.01, Penal Code, or of a felony under an information or indictment;" Is that what is being referred to? Because this doesn't refer to being arrested. It refers to being charged with the commission of a crime. So is the complaint that you should still be able to obtain a CHL even if you are charged with a crime but the charge has not yet been adjudicated?

If that's the case, I would have to respectfully disagree. If someone has been charged with a crime, the verdict of guilty which would preclude receiving a CHL, then I think the charges should be cleared first, before the person becomes eligible to obtain a TX CHL. If the state issued the CHL and then the person was later found guilty, they would have to give up the CHL anyway. It makes no sense, then, to issue the CHL before the issue is resolved, in my opinion.

baldeagle wrote:

Heartland Patriot wrote:Well, I guess that Texas code needs to be "fixed" so that a person who hasn't been found guilty of a crime isn't treated as such...I understand that there are a lot of varying situations out there, but a lot of them put a generally law-abiding person in a bind over some possibly minor issues...I will certainly "stay tuned" to this station for further information...

I'm not picking on you. Your post was just easy to use as a starting point.

I don't understand what people are saying about being arrested. Texas Government Code 411.172 (4) reads "(4) is not charged with the commission of a Class A or Class B misdemeanor or an offense under Section 42.01, Penal Code, or of a felony under an information or indictment;" Is that what is being referred to? Because this doesn't refer to being arrested. It refers to being charged with the commission of a crime. So is the complaint that you should still be able to obtain a CHL even if you are charged with a crime but the charge has not yet been adjudicated?

If that's the case, I would have to respectfully disagree. If someone has been charged with a crime, the verdict of guilty which would preclude receiving a CHL, then I think the charges should be cleared first, before the person becomes eligible to obtain a TX CHL. If the state issued the CHL and then the person was later found guilty, they would have to give up the CHL anyway. It makes no sense, then, to issue the CHL before the issue is resolved, in my opinion.

Be aware that the "class B misdemeanor" that is charged could be for something as innocent as flipping off a driver, or swearing in public. These are Disorderly conduct charges, and can take YEARS to resolve thru the court system. They are also OFTEN used by people to "punish" someone else who hasn't actually committed ANY crime. Don't like your neighbor? Accuse him of "mooning" you. In the meantime, no CHL for you. In fact, if you move around a lot, you can even have your CHL revoked by forgetting to inform DPS of you new address within 30 days, three times.

And besides, why NOT issue the license in the meantime? You haven't been convicted of anything.

Getting back to the Utah bill.

Status Updates:
2/2/2011 House Comm - Favorable Recommendation
2/3/2011 House/ return to Rules due to fiscal impact

Link to substitute bill: http://le.utah.gov/~2011/htmdoc/sbillhtm/sb0036s01.htm

Link to Amedned Pages Only: http://le.utah.gov/~2011/bills/sbillamd ... 1.amdx.pdf