TexasCHLforum.com

the new tsra sportsman newsletter arrived today. i was reading the article titled "weapons permit vote missed mark." the article referenced seems to state that it is illegal to carry a concealed weapon across state lines with no qualification for reciprocity. it has been my understanding that i'm allowed to carry into any state having reciprocity with texas. i know carrying into or through states that do not have this agreement with texas can be a problem but it seems like tsra should have set this straight in the newsletter.
maybe just another way for anti's to confuse the issues?

TDPS has a list of states that we are legal to carry in. Both those with "reciprocity" which is an official agreement between the two states or "recognition" that is one or both states allowing carry without an official agreement. What TSRA was talking about was the attempt of the national Congress to have all states recognize a CCW license like they do a drivers license. I did not read the piece but nothing has changed to affect our carry. We just didn't get the "Universal Recognition" law passed. I don't think it is any big loss as a matter of state powers trumping federal power as well as that anti-self defense states are going to make everything off limits if it ever does pass.

What would be better than this is if the governors get together in one of their groups and organize to recognize to spite differences in state laws and requirements. We are required to obey the law of the state we are in so not recognizing another states CCW is just dumb. Maybe, those states with agreements should make a requirement that a license holder must obey the other states laws as part of the states requirement to get a CCW. Even if it is only a form that is signed reading that the holder understands they must obey the law of whatever state they are in. I would even think this would work with A.G.s or departments looking to expand recognition of their states CCW license. More out of state CCW recognition means more money for the state. I do not spend money in a state I cannot legally carry on my person in. That means I don't stop for gas or food or visit tourist areas. My wife has pushed me to do so since we were married but I refuse. It would be nice not to have to deal with that in knowing the state does not consider me untrustworthy simply because I crossed into their state. It is within their power not to recognize my CHL and my right to drive on their roads without paying for them with my money.

shootthesheet wrote:Maybe, those states with agreements should make a requirement that a license holder must obey the other states laws as part of the states requirement to get a CCW. Even if it is only a form that is signed reading that the holder understands they must obey the law of whatever state they are in.

That's a horrible idea. I can just see some antigun AG demanding that someone's CHL be revoked because they were speeding in the AG's state.

Better to keep it the way it is now. Or fix LEOSA to include CHL.

IMHO, until all the A.G.'s of all the states that issue CC, adopt similar perquisites and testing standards, we will always have the hodge podge patchwork method of reciprocity. The requirements for many states(and testing standards) are to far apart right now.

For example, I read somewhere that Mississippi, HAS no proficiency test(shooting test). Personally I think that's inadequate, but that's just me. And Nevada(from what I hear) rescinded reciprocity with Texas, because Texas will license(in some specific cases) an 18 y.o.(military veteran, or currently serving), and Nevada' minimum age is 21.

I'd think there are MANY states whose CHL licensing requirements come very close to ours, but that's just an assumption on my part.

i had intended to add this link to my post so you could all read it. sorry for the omission.

http://www.rapidcityjournal.com/article ... 634520.txt" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

what they seem to be adressing, and tsra does not contradict is not the legality of carrying in reciprocity states but the carrying of a weapon across state lines. we should all be concerned if this is a new movement to restrict our second amendment rights.
i think it is reasonable to expect the tsra to adress such an issue.

I take BIG issue with the opinion in that link. From the NFA:

"Sec. 926A. Interstate transportation of firearms
Notwithstanding any other provision of any law or any rule or regulation of a State or any political subdivision thereof, any person who is not otherwise prohibited by this chapter from transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm shall be entitled to transport a firearm for any lawful purpose from any place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm to any other place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm if, during such transportation the firearm is unloaded, and neither the firearm nor any ammunition being transported is readily accessible or is directly accessible from the passenger compartment of such transporting vehicle:Provided, That in the case of a vehicle without a compartment separate from the driver's compartment the firearm or ammunition shall be contained in a locked container other than the glove compartment or console."

That opinion if full of errors, and I discount its accuracy.

joe817 wrote:That opinion if full of errors, and I discount its accuracy.

What errors specifically?

The URL is about someone with a concealed weapon permit carrying a concealed firearm. It has absolutely nothing to do with transporting unloaded hunting rifles locked in the trunk.

The URL is also for a newspaper in South Dakota. That state honors permits from any other state but its permits are not honored by half of its neighbors. Of the six states with a shared border, three do not honor South Dakota permits. That sounds like a good reason to encourage caution for readers driving across state lines.

cling wrote:

joe817 wrote:That opinion if full of errors, and I discount its accuracy.

What errors specifically?

The URL is about someone with a concealed weapon permit carrying a concealed firearm. It has absolutely nothing to do with transporting unloaded hunting rifles locked in the trunk.

The URL is also for a newspaper in South Dakota. That state honors permits from any other state but its permits are not honored by half of its neighbors. Of the six states with a shared border, three do not honor South Dakota permits. That sounds like a good reason to encourage caution for readers driving across state lines.

You are correct, and I am wrong. In the opening sentence of the article I missed the crucial "concealed weapons" words:
Gun owners allowed to carry a concealed weapons in their home states can't legally carry them across state lines despite the efforts of Sen. John Thune."

That's what I get for trying to get these tired old eyes to read faster than the brain can comprehend. Thanks for the correction.

Well then! Never mind.

boomerang wrote:

shootthesheet wrote:Maybe, those states with agreements should make a requirement that a license holder must obey the other states laws as part of the states requirement to get a CCW. Even if it is only a form that is signed reading that the holder understands they must obey the law of whatever state they are in.

That's a horrible idea. I can just see some antigun AG demanding that someone's CHL be revoked because they were speeding in the AG's state.

Better to keep it the way it is now. Or fix LEOSA to include CHL.

I am sorry I was not clearer in my first post. What I am suggesting is that the governors or issuing authority have an agreement set in place that their states CCWs be required to prove they understand they must obey the laws of whatever state they are in. This does not give anyone any authority to do anything more than they currently have.

As it is now and would be under my suggestion a state may make any law they want to be punishable to the point a CHL or even gun ownership rights be forfeited under law. That does not mean it will stand or the CHL holders state will recognize the law but they can make any law they wish. We are required now, to obey the law of the state in which we find ourselves. That is the law as it stands so nothing would change if the states issuing authorities make an agreement on recognition. I hope you simply misread my post and it was not that you didn't know that you must obey the laws of the state you are in and not follow Texas law in another state. I am sure the latter is not the case since that should have been covered in your CHL class.

Again, I am sorry I was not clearer in my first post.

As far as the requirements to get a CCW I am all in favor of no class and no shooting requirements. The less the state has to say about CCW the closer to an actual right it is. If a person can buy and own a gun they should not be restricted from carrying it how and where they please by the local, state or federal government except for secure areas like prisons.

shootthesheet wrote:I am sorry I was not clearer in my first post. What I am suggesting is that the governors or issuing authority have an agreement set in place that their states CCWs be required to prove they understand they must obey the laws of whatever state they are in.

Traffic laws are different in other states but we don't require drivers "to prove they understand they must obey the laws of whatever state they are in."

That sounds like extra hassle with no benefit. We can bend over backwards so far it would make Cirque du Soleil jealous but NY and CA still wouldn't honor a TX CHL.

Cling

We don't have to do this with a DL because every state is forced by law to recognize any state issued DL as well as those from some foreign countries. As well, most people do not look at a car as a dangerous weapon like they do handguns and CCW cannot be looked at as the same as a DL.

This is about selling and allowing the politicians to sell the idea to their states people. The whole point of the requirement would be so self-defense friendly states would be able to call up that signed paper to prove the CCW holder understood they must obey the laws of other states while carrying there. The primary argument from states that have CCW but do not recognize or only recognize a few other states is their fear of people carrying there who do not know the laws of their state. This allows them to prove a visitor knew they are required to know the law and has no excuse. Knowing and obeying the other states law is a requirement now for any state a CHL holder visits. All we would have to do is sign-off on it as part of the application. And no, it isn't really a hassle since I suggested it be done as part of issuing.

Personally I think if we could gain states we could carry in it would be worth it. Especially since that would give no federal employee anyway to claim any power over CCW which is the primary concern of supporters of CCW against National Right to Carry legislation. We already have to bend over and twist in order to pay for the privilege to have a CHL. I don't think signing a paper or having this as part of the application is going to really affect a CHL that much. I think we should have no CHL requirements at all except for out of state carry but as long as we do I would like the State to work out our agreements and not have it forced on us by the feds.

And no we will not get to carry in places like CA and NY. Even if National Right to Carry passed we would be so restricted by those states that it would do no good to try. It is possible we will be allowed to carry there one day but it won't do us any good until we get the 2A recognized as an inherent right. This is something pro-self defense states can do until then.