Texans toting guns they don't know how to use...
 

The thread title is to draw attention :D

Texans getting concealed handgun permits without ever firing a shot | khou.com | Khou.com - News, Houston news, Texas News, Headlines
Texas concealed handgun law requires range with with an actual gun. However, they have reciprocity with Utah (as does nearly everyone else). Utah does not require any range time at all.

The concern is that there are Texans carrying right now, who think they're qualified to use their firearm for protection, when they have never actually fired a gun. some people seem to think this is wrong, and that Texas should break reciprocity with Utah, and require people here to at least learn how to use that piece of equipment on your hip.

I don't see this being a political, "gun rights" thread, so shove that. Lets' discuss whether reciprocity has gone too far, or whether a state should even have reciprocity with another state who's requirements are significantly laxer. Heck, we could even discuss open carry in Texas and other states, and how someone who open carries also doesn't need training.

Texas should do the reprocity thingy with states that at least meet Texas standards..
Any state (person) that issues these permits without the person firing a shot..
deserves to be shot in the foot at least..

Rika

They should have a competency test for voting too.

In a few weeks we'll no longer need permits to CCW in AZ, so the competency requirement is kind of moot too. But I'll keep mine current for reciprocity with other states. I was a very seasoned shooter before I had to take the BS classes for my VA, AZ and UT permits. Didn't have to take classes for my PA or NH permits and I don't hear about accidental shootings by CCW'ers in those states.

Also as mentioned in the link, the Utah permit is significantly cheaper, and from talking to people, easier to renew/maintain...it's all but designed to draw people in.


I wonder if this is a big conspiracy so that Utah can full the US with gun toting people who don't know how to shoot straight, so the Mormons can take over!

Actually, the UT permit is losing some reciprocity. It's a PITA to get one out of state because the instructors have to travel to UT once a year to keep their instructors license. Obviously, this cost is passed onto those taking the classes in other states, as I did. I think I paid $50 and I was the only person in the class, held at a local cop's house. He fingerprinted me there too. Then I paid $60 or so for the permit app. and got it a month or two later. Then six mos. later NV stopped recognizing UT permits because they want people to have to travel to NV and spend money there to get trained. Several other states only recognize UT permits WITH a UT driver's license. So you have to know the laws where you're going. Non-resident permits are losing some reciprocity. I just keep a stack of permits when I travel to states with reciprocity and will deal them out like cards to a cop who stops me until he finds one he likes.

All 50 states allow a marriage license from the other 50 as well as drivers license.

Things need to change!

Lotsa bad guys carrying that have never fired them either.

I need to check the regulations, but I don't think a Texas Resident can carry on a non-resident Utah permit. Even if this is permissible, I think you'll find that it will amount to only a handful.

"RIGHT to bear arms."

not

"if you're a good shot, right to bear arms."

In some ways, I agree, there should be competency testing before folks can carry a gun. BUT, as soon as you start making a right conditional, it is no longer a right.

It's a fine line, I'd prefer the folks with CCW to be smart, trained, level headed folks, but it is a right for EVERYONE.

Driving is a privilege, there's a test. Having a gun is a right, the only test should be "human and a heartbeat". I guess being a felon means you have lost some of your rights.

I believe you are correct. I think if you're a resident, then you have to get a TX permit.

So, the entire story and the research behind it is false?

Really? So any restriction on a "right" is reduces it to something less than a "right"?

Free speech (slander, libel, shouting "fire" in a crowded venue when no fire is present, etc.)

Voting- (convicted felon)

Pursuit of Happiness - (pedophiles, con artists, etc.)

I just read the reciprocity agreement. The primary check is that the state run a background check on individuals, to make sure they can carry a firearm under the GCA.

The agreement didn't seem to restrict, and in fact states it allows, carry with a non-resident permit.

On the whole, I would say this is a non-issue. At least these people have gone to the trouble to get a permit. I have the Texas, Utah and Florida permits. I should get a NH permit as well. There are several states where you cannot use a non-resident permit to carry. Florida, and I think Michigan. A Texan, carrying a Texas permit can carry. A Texan with a Utah permit cannot carry.

I always carry in TX. Ironically, the only airports I've ever been hassled at for checking a gun are DFW and El Paso.

Those are inuries. Having the right to keep and bear arms doesn't give me the "right" to walk down the street shooting people. The right to free speech doesn't give me a right to lie. I don't think the US presently allows any religion that practices human sacrifice.

Really? I've never been hasseled at an Airport. Even in California, I had no problems. Here in Houston, they regularly give me the wrong form, the form that allows me to carry on the plane...

I do not have a concealed carry permit "yet" for several reasons.

1) I hate the idea of having my name put a govt list.

2) I do not typically find my self in bad locations where I feel I need to carry. (That said, If I know I may be traveling through a bad part of town on a rare occasion for work, rest assured I will have what I need to protect myself in my car. ;))

3) The whole idea that someone other than my dad, granddad or my old drill instructor is supposed to officially train me prior to the govt allowing me to protect myself makes my blood boil.

I'd rather get that form!

Yes, the TSA goon at DFW told me my ammo was not packed properly. It was in two magazines. He said it had to be taped, which I know is BS. He called me behind the line and told me to do it, handed me a roll of "TSA" tape. Took forever to get it off when I landed too. El Paso didn't hassle me, just actually asked me to clear the gun for them at the check-in counter. I was only ever asked to do that at Chicago Midway long ago.

None in Georgia either. You simply walk up to the window, fill out an application, get finger printed and a background check and 5-7 days later, your permit comes in the mail. Nothing what so ever about safety, handling, etc. Have a buddy in Fl who said there at least he had to take some kind of safety/law course before he got his.

Yes, they are restrictions that have been put in place before the injury happens, Ce n'est pas ça?

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.