My concern is that two people here have permits. One went through the TX class, and one went through the Utah class. Both are considered "qualified" to carry, even though only one has done what the state considers "qualification". So, are the both still qualified in the eyes of the state? If so, why not change the TX rules to match the laxer Utah rules?

I am missing something, because those seem to conflict. Unless you mean the reciprocity agreement states that a Utah resident can carry in TX on a Utah permit, but a TX resident cannot carry in TX on a Utah permit.

If that's the case, then (1) why even recognize the Utah permit for Texans, and (2) why was this story even written? I sincerely got the impression that they were saying that a Texan can carry in Texas, on a Utah permit received while in Texas, despite not fulfilling the Texas permit requirements.

I have no permit and have never read nor studied the requirements, so I'm not sure how the wording would be. Your post confused me.

Same in PA, fill out a form they do a background check pick up your permit a week or 2 later. No range time or classes required.

Bernie

Pazuzu, don't get your panties in a bunch over the training requirement. Even IF someone has gone through the class, it does not mean they're necessarily competent to be carrying. And I could probably have outshot most cops before I ever took one of those silly classes. The training requirement started out as some political horsetrading concession to get someone else to vote for a shall-issue law and then took on a life as its own for reciprocity between states with varying levels of difficulty for obtaining permits. Rest assured, most folks with CCW's are gun enthusiasts and keep the chops up, most probably more than cops.

FWIW, in my first class in VA, which I was forced to take after I argued at length with a Commonwealth Atty. as to why my PA permit should get me out of it, eveyone in that class was a near expert. Two women in there were idiots, but their husbands were cops, so I figure they'd get plenty of practice later. When we left the classroom to do the range qual., I asked the instructor if I could use my own gun. He said, "Sure. Does anyone else want to use their own gun?" And everyone in the class went out to their cars to get their guns. Don't worry about CCW'ers. You are exponentially more likely to be killed by a bad driver who's never had a ticket and probably got 100% on their driving test.

Oh, and the Sheriff of Allgheny Co. who signed my PA CCW was himself later arrested for shooting at his neighbor's house because they made too much noise. Yes, really. Again, CCW'ers are the least of anyone's cause for concern.

Not the case at all. I simply wanted to start a discussion on the news article at hand, which made it seem like people were getting certain rights from a state, without following all of the rules. To carry here, you must earn the right to carry (that's a whole other issue, I'm not a fan of CCW at all). Therefore, if the state decides that you must do A, B and C to carry, then someone finds a loophole to only do A and B, then there's an issue. That's it. If a state want to allow concealed carry by simply signing your name, then let them, I'm not asking for any minimum requirements (again, I'd rather see none, since I find CCW laws wrong).

Eh, rereading my first post, I might see how you *might* get that. I didn't mean it. I do think that if someone is going to carry a gun, they should, as part of civil society, learn how to use the thing properly, but I cannot say that they must be trained. I have no legal issue with that, and I keep my emotional issue in check, since it's not an emotional subject.

Gun control is eliminating speech. Anti-murder laws are like anti-libel laws.

Mike, if you want to carry in Florida with a permit not issued in Florida, you must be a resident of the state which issued the permit. So a non-resident Utah permit will not allow me to carry in Florida. Most states are NOT like this. If they accept a permit from state "X", it is any issued permit.

You have to understand. There is no classroom training on firearms. The only thing they do is take you down to the range and verify safe handling of a firearm AND that you can hit the target with your pistol. I don't know what the actual requirement is, but I passed both times.

The training in the Texas CHL is focused on the Texas carry laws and the Laws for Lawful use of Deadly Force.

X number of shots into the paper in Y seconds, something like 5 shots in 12 seconds. And knowing which end is the bitey end...

Should be trivial for anyone who has handled a gun for any amount of time.

I must be having a bad day, I cannot see how someone is misunderstanding my interest for making this thread. Something isn't getting translated properly to the forum.

50 shots over a period of about 5 minutes. Most of it is shots of 2 or 3. I think the max at any time is 5 shots. Distance? Pretty short.

So are you saying restricting someone under the age of 18 or a convicted felon or someone judged to be mentally incompetent from having/purchasing a firearm is just like eliminating free speech?

No I'm not, and you know that. Try again.

Don't you two mess up this thread, I'll have to slap ya into next week if ya do...

Are not my examples restrictions placed on the "right" before injury happens? I am not trying to be argumentative here, but the original statement I responded to was that any restriction on the right to gun ownership was wrong.

Is that your position? If not then please explain your replys.

Whatever they are, the range qual. requirements are a joke, I mean, ridiculous. I could have passed that test left handed, using a mirror and facing away from the target. What they should really test or screen for is temperment.

I'm looking at this from the other end. I had no idea that ANY state had a class/course or target requirement of any kind until i read this thread. (as i mentioned, there is NOTHING in Ga. or La.) I'm glad some states do! But i understand the point of this thread being the loophole issue.

Every law abiding American should have the right to protect themselves with a handgun whether they can hit a chest sized target at 3 yds or 75 yards.

Pa has no range test requirement either. I'm perfectly fine with that.

Nope, you need to try again.