Texas exploring increased CCW reciprocity

[jsalcedo]

http://www.tsra.com/CHL_Rcprcty.htm

Texas Senator Craig Estes, Witchita Falls, addressed the Texas State Rifle Association annual meeting in Mesquite on February 7, 2004 and reported progress by the Attorney General's office on Concealed Handgun Reciprocity. Senator Estes was the author of SB 1406 in the 78th Session of the Legislature. SB 1406 effectively transferred the responsibility of establishing reciprocity with other states from the Department of Public Safety to the Governor and Attorney General.

The Attorney General's office has sent exploratory letters to other states and reported to Senator Craig as being very close to achieving reciprocity agreements with Colorado, New Mexico, North Carolina and Utah. Other states that applied and expressed an interest in achieving reciprocity with Texas are: Ohio, Idaho, Alabama, New Hampshire, South Carolina, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Pennsylvania.

As a side note, Senator Craig's basic philosophy towards legislation is that less government means more freedom.

 

[Pendragon]

neato.

 

[Selfdfenz]

Hot Dog.

The more reciprocity the better.

S-

 

[Shooter 2.5]

I'm still trying to get the TSRA and my elected officials to lower the price of the license. My Congresswoman said it was impossible until we balance our budget.

 

[Sam Adams]

I'm glad to see that more reciprocity is on the way. I hope that there is much more in the future than just the states listed - for example, Mississippi. As things stand now, we have reciprocity with Louisiana and Florida. Alabama is on the list of hopefuls, but not MS. Even IF we get AL, we still won't be able to drive to Florida while carrying the whole way.

And how about Michigan? Minnesota? Maine? Connecticut, Massachusetts?

I have an application for a FL non-resident CHL (or whatever they call it). I hope that our state can do more to forstall my need to waste money on that application by coming to an agreement with many more states. The ones listed above are a great start, but had better not be the final list.

 

[Sam Adams]

Oh, I forgot one state on my previous list: The great state of Cheesecake Factory. Yeah, it seems like those jokers have a 51% sign up on the parking lot entrance to their location in Northstar Mall in San Antonio, or so I've been told (but no sign in the mall entrance, so I always enter through there ). How can that be? There is no way in Hell that they do >50% of their business in alcohol sales, so why the sign? Does anyone know?

 

[hd1.]

Delete

 

[jsalcedo]

The great state of Cheesecake Factory

The 51% only applies to their bar. You can't sit and drink in that area while carrying. The Fire hut at 281 and 1604 is the same way.

Entering from the mall is a good call even though it probably doesn't make a bit of difference.

At first I was thinking amaretto cheesecake......

 

[Watchman]

Wouldnt it be easier for everyone just to reconize ANY states permit?

Its already done for the drivers liscence.

All they would have to do is tell everyone that matters that ANy permit is good and vise versa.

As a matter of fact, its already being done by several LE agencys, my own being one of them.
Our sherrif recently put out that ANY valid CCW permit would be honored.
If anyone objects, he just chalks it up to officer discretion.

Lets face it, the folks that have jumped though the hoops to get the permits are'nt part of the problem. Just because they may happen to have some antigun governers or attorney generals that refuse to acknowledge any other states permits dosent mean that theirs should be null and void in other states.

As a part time deputy, if you have one from any state I will honor it.
That takes care of it and nullifys the personal vendetas that some people exercise against the right to bear arms.

 

[Sam Adams]

jsalcedo

The 51% only applies to their bar. You can't sit and drink in that area while carrying. The Fire hut at 281 and 1604 is the same way.

I'm not sure that this is correct - I thought that the CHL statute says that you can't legally enter ANY part of ANY establishment while armed if that sign is present, not just specific areas. And it makes sense (if you accept the limitation in the first place, that is). Anyone could inadvertantly walk into the "bar area" of an establishment....speaking of which, where EXACTLY does the "bar area" start and end? Is it at the bar itself, or where the seating for the bar is, or somewhere else. What would happen, for instance, if the "bar area" happened to be between where you were sitting and the restrooms? You're screwed if you have to take a leek.

If the law says otherwise, please direct me to the chapter and subsection, or else some letter from the AG's office exempting "non-bar" areas of an establishment with a 51% sign.

 

[Sam Adams]

watchman

Wouldnt it be easier for everyone just to reconize ANY states permit?

Its already done for the drivers liscence.

The correct answer is: it shouldn't matter, because the 2nd Amendment protects your right to bear arms anywhere in the country, WITHOUT a permit.

The next most desireable answer is: Yes.

The realistic answer is: Sorry, Mr. Watchman, you just don't seem to understand that not only does the 2nd Amendment have little meaning anymore, but that the Full Faith and Credit clause is meaningless when it comes to firearms in general (and carrying weapons, specifically).

I very much respect what your department has done, and what other officers across the country do, in recognizing as valid ANY carry permit from ANY state. You folks are a credit to the law enforcement community. However, I don't see too many departments that would even think of doing such a thing. Imagine, for example, someone from a relatively free state (i.e. one that graciously takes your money in order to give you permission to do that which is constitutionally-guaranteed) being released by a NYC officer after said officer finds a loaded weapon on him/her. Sorry, but that isn't going to happen. Ditto for DC, Chicago, NJ, and many other jurisdictions that DON'T recognize carry. Heck, NJ arrested a NYS trooper who was carrying on the way from his house to his job! Also, lots that DO will arrest anyone carrying if their permit doesn't have reciprocity in that jurisdiction. If you can picture an Atlanta officer letting some CHL-bearing Texan who's carrying a gun on his waist leave the scene of a speeding ticket, then you have much more of an imagination than I do.

 

[tiberius]

re 51% signs:

It's trickier than that. They are obligated by law to post the 51% sign, but a failure by them to post is NOT a defense for the CHL holder if caught carrying on the premises. In other words, if a restaurant receives >51% of its revenue from alcohol consumption, but does not post the sign, then you are both potentially in trouble. Conversely, if they DO post a 51% sign even though they do NOT receive >51% of their revenue from alcohol consumption, then you (the CHL holder) are free to ignore it. (for instance some members have reported seeing 51% signs posted outside of convenience stores).

The 51% signage is treated VERY differently than the 30.06 postings, which are completely at the owners discretion.

 

[tiberius]

Sam Adams, you are correct regarding not being allowed to carry on premeises. Below is a cut and paste from a previous post I made on this subject.

For total clarification regarding posting of signs, also refer to Texas Admistration Code which is where I got the rest of my info.

http://info.sos.state.tx.us/pls/pub/readtac$ext.ViewTAC

Below is a quote from Title37 Part 1 Rule 6.43
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A license holder may not carry a handgun on or about the license holder's person under authority of the Act in the following places:

(1) On the premises of a business that has a permit or license issued under Alcoholic Beverage Code, Chapters 25, 28, 32, 69, or 74, if the business derives 51% or more of its income from the sale or service of alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption. Posting is required by the Act, but an establishment's failure to post is not a statutory defense to the license holder. Violation is a third degree felony under Texas Penal Code, §46.035.