Texas: Rep. Burnam files bill in Legislature to restrict recognition of Right-to-Carr

By Anna M. Tinsley

atinsley@star-telegram.com

Texans seeking concealed-handgun permits might soon need to get them in Texas to carry their weapons.

State Rep. Lon Burnam, D-Fort Worth, said he's tired of Texans turning to states with cheaper fees and less training requirements -- some don't even require people to fire a weapon -- to get concealed-handgun licenses.

So he's filed a bill that would recognize only Texas-issued licenses for people who live in Texas. Visitors' concealed-handgun permits issued by other states would still be recognized.

"This would close a loophole," Burnam said. "People are bypassing us, using this loophole to pay half as much money and not get the training they should get. ... I want to make sure they have to get their license here."

Burnam's proposal has drawn criticism from some, including Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson, who, as a state senator, shepherded the concealed-handgun license measure through the Senate in 1995.

"When you start precluding recognition of licenses from other states, you have to be careful you don't have other states saying they won't recognize Texas licenses," Patterson said.

The proposal


Burnam said he learned last year that some Texans are turning to other states, including Utah, for concealed-handgun licenses. Classes for the Utah permit are held throughout Texas.

A Utah permit requires four hours of training with no live shooting, is good for five years and costs $65.25. A Texas permit requires 10 hours of training in the classroom and shooting range, is good for four years and costs $140.

Utah had issued nearly 250,000 permits through June. As of August, more than 6,000 of those had been issued to people living in Texas, records show.

Texas issued 138,768 permits in 2009, including more than 10,000 in Tarrant County, Texas Department of Public Safety records show.

Burnam said Texans seeking out-of-state licenses undermine public safety and have deprived the state of potentially $850,000 in fees over two years.

"I don't think it was ever anyone's intention that people could get this license without going through Texas' training," he said.

Reciprocity


State officials have worked to make sure Texas recognizes dozens of other states' permits -- and that those states recognize Texas permits.

Patterson said he renewed his license in Pennsylvania when Texas faced a backlog in processing license renewals a few years ago.

"It looked like I wouldn't have time to renew my Texas license ... and I didn't want to have a lapse," Patterson said. "Mine was issued by a sheriff in Pennsylvania. ... It was just an interim measure.

"Of course we could fix all this if Congress would pass a law that all states that allow concealed-handgun permits have to recognize all other permits, just like driver's licenses."

Lawmakers in New Mexico and Nevada withdrew recognition of Utah licenses in recent years because of worries about license requirements.

"A lot of states are concerned with what Utah does," said Marsha McCartney, a Dallas volunteer for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. "It just seems to be a moneymaker for them. They're willing to issue a license to anyone.

"Why would Texas put in place these restrictions if you could go elsewhere? If you live in Texas and you're going to conceal carry, you ought to have a concealed license from Texas," she said. "It's common sense."

'Meat and potatoes'


Brad Brasuell, a concealed-handgun-permit instructor from Denton, has been conducting classes for more than three years to help Texans get Utah concealed-weapon permits. Before that, he taught classes for people seeking Texas permits.

"When I was doing the Texas class, I felt they weren't getting enough out of it," said Brasuell, who carries a Utah concealed-weapon permit. "The Utah class sticks to the meat and potatoes of what they need to know in the civilian world, without all the bureaucracy and fluff of the Texas program. People say the Texas program costs too much money and takes up too much time."

Brasuell said he's not worried that the Utah class doesn't include live shooting. "The shooting requirement in Texas is a joke and a falseness of security," he said. "I have seen people who never shot before pass it and feel they can defend themselves. That is not the truth."

Brasuell said Texas is not losing revenue from people getting out-of-state licenses because those people wouldn't carry a license at all if their only choice were to go through the Texas classes.

"It's a law enforcement class for civilians," he said.

Anna M. Tinsley,

817-390-7610

Looking for comments?



Read more: http://www.star-telegram.com/2011/01/01/2738055/burnam-files-bill-in-legislature.html##ixzz19zdOlcJk

Typical democrat. His real purpose in the license is to raise revenue for the state.

This apparently has more to do with A MISTAKENLY perceived LOSS OF REVENUE than "public safety". Isn't the Texas CHL program by law supposed to be NON-surplus administered ? So - What's with the "lost fees" baloney ? I detect a "carpet -bagger" lingers in Texas.

Maybe (???) the Texas concealed handgun program is OVER-REGULATED if all of these other states have enacted LESS ONEROUS, LESS TIME CONSUMING, & LESS EXPENSIVE policies. Why go through all of the trouble and waiting time, just so you can carry a license that can be suspended or revoked for failure to conceal, or carrying a category of handgun other than the license indorsement indicates.

I had my CO CHP WITHIN 12 DAYS from the date application submitted. Application - ONE page - total processing time in the Sheriff's Office - 15 MINUTES.

Can anyone in Texas spell.........Kalifornia ???? Think about it.

Remember, if you reposition the a and the e in texas you get taxes. If the state had not been able to make money on it we would never have gotten CC.

Its` time for you guys down there in Texas to get Constitutional Carry, and bypass the jackwagon, good luck on open carry, I hope Gov. Parry signs it into law, that would be a good start.

Personally, I think it is preferable to require a person to obtain a resident permit, rather than allowing someone residing in Texas to circumvent the intent of the law. Texas (and Texans) have no control over what Utah requires, and we have to recognize Utah licenses to get reciprocity. Our only recourse is to require Texans to get Texas licensure.

That said, if Utah's requirements are truly inferior (which at 4 hrs and no range time they seem to be) then we have no business accepting them as the real deal anyway.

As long as we license carry, it's nice to think that actually being able to shoot the weapon is a good indicator of whether someone could possibly use it if needed.

Actually, the Texas CHL is $140 for 5yrs and renewals are only $70. Half both for over 65.

The Texas CHL is one of the most recognized "negotiable CCW instruments" out there -thanks primarily to Governor Perry's pro-active reciprocity agreement policy and carte blanche unilateral proclamations.

Colorado enacted such a law in 2007 - CO residents must have a CO CHP. There is presently a case in Denver where the CO residency law is being challenged because the petitioner "lives in" Colorado BUT he is not a CO resident. Many people have residency status that is either in-flux or employment related, and for whatever reason it is either not practical, or possible to meet the residency requirements - leaving them in CCW limbo. In Texas such a restriction would effectively disarm many people- which ofcourse it what the anti's want. As long as another state CCW requires a background check that is enough.

The issue of range qualification is just an excuse. If Utah did require range qualification CCW opponents would come up with another excuse - Democrats in Colorado did ! Texas should simplify the CHL application process , and stop trying to compete with Kalifornia for the title of most heavily regulated state in the Union - otherwise Texas may just gain that title some day .

This is a red-herring gimmick proposal introduced by a DEMOCRAT - who I'm reasonably sure would be just as happy if he could get the Texas CHL law repealed altogether. Keep that in mind. Texans don't go there ! Don't buy into this gimmick.

6,000 " people living in Texas" have Utah permits. That doesn't mean all of those 6,000 people are actually Texas RESIDENTS. Even if they are all legal Texas residents- so what - 6,000 out of nearly 400,000 ! How about counting all of the people "living in", or NOT living in Texas - who are NOT TEXAS RESIDENTS - who have obtained the Texas CHL. If you keep the price low - and the quality high -you will have customers. There is plenty of demand for the Texas CHL . I have one , and will most likely renew it again. I would recommend obtaining the Texas CHL even if NOT A TEXAS RESIDENT - because it is excellent CCW currency in other states.

Keep your focus on the fact that this proposed bill is being introduced by an ANTI-CCW DEMOCRAT. Any Democrats in Texas worth their salt have switched to the GOP by now, or at least are RINO's. Reflect on that for a moment or two before you buy into this guy's argument.

BTW the Colorado legislator that introduced the CO version in 2007 was and still is without a doubt the most ANTI-2A Democrat in CO.

Required training is a gimmick at best. I have never attended a state-sponsored training course, and I've been a US Marine for over 4 years now. I have far more firearms experience than probably most people who carry, and with far more weapon systems. But because I have a carry permit without a 'training' program, that means I can't handle myself? Hardly. Government mandating a training program to exercise a Constitutional right is about as good as compulsory public education. Yet, everybody knows public education is also absolute garbage. Nobody ever buys a car and doesn't drive it. Even Jay Leno drives most all of his. In that same vein, nobody buys a gun and doesn't go to the range. Nobody is going to spend $500-$1000 on a carry weapon they have no intentions of training with on their own. It's an enthusiast market, the same as classic cars. Hardly anybody buys a classic car without having a vested interest in them.

I have a Pennsylvania permit which doesn't require 'training' to exercise my rights. What if we license the ability to vote? Do voters have to undergo a federal voter education program to exercise that right as well? We would all say that this is ridiculous, and the same thing goes for religion, freedom or speech and press, assembly, etc.

I realize that most people are not from a military background, but we also must realize that the availability of permits themselves hasn't given rise to a wild west style shootout of people who will go ballistic at the first sign of being cut off on the highway. I, for one, have faith in the American people to exercise their rights responsibly (though after November 2008, it's shaky).

I know that law-abiding citizens who choose to exercise their rights will do so responsibly, because being a law-abiding citizens inherently creates responsibility. People who believe in firearms rights have traditionally been the more responsible section of society anyhow, as they believe in individualism and the right of all people to live according to their own merits and beliefs. This mindset, so typical of gun owners, can pretty often be relied upon.

Sure there are some mistakes here and there, but nobody ever said freedom was free. If the police could inspect our homes every day, I'm sure there would be no wanted fugitives, no terrorists, and no illegal drugs. BUT, we sacrifice that certainty and security for the want of freedom; it's the American way. I say the same applies to carry. Constitutional carry in Vermont and Alaska has never meant that everybody in the state has been pulling their guns out and shooting everything in sight or missing so many shots and hitting innocent bystanders. Quite the contrary, these states are some of the safest in the nation. Arizona's case may be too early to tell, but there's no possible way it could get any worse than the way it is already. It's illegal for a felon to carry a weapon, and the rugged individualism built into our firearms culture guarantees that next to nobody is carrying a weapon who doesn't know how to use it. I am never convinced that the government can mandate or regulate something and fix it entirely.

My point here is, having a mandated training program is wasteful, expensive, and pointless. If it were so needed, there should be an ultra-high first time failure rate amongst those who take it, seeing as how we're all so inept with guns. Certainly everybody knows that the use of lethal force is always the last option. I can't think of anybody I know that carries that hopes they EVER find themselves in such a situation. The point is, you can't always help it, and that's why we carry. If a state wants to regulate carry by issuing permits, it should not be so intrusive and expensive that it is necessarily prohibitive to obtain one. Pennsylvania does a wonderful job of this; it's roughly ~$20 give or take ten bucks depending on the Sheriff, and it's good in about 22 states for non-residents. I've carried in tons of places before with no state-mandated training and I've never had any accidental discharges, injured bystanders, or any other mishaps in any way, shape, or form. This is because I'm always aware of my surroundings, scenarios, weapon status, and legal statutes. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to have a basic understanding of the responsibilities involved with exercising any right.

We're not going to war with each other on the streets everyday, I hardly see the need to restrict the everyday law abiding citizen's right to carry by requiring an overly expensive and time-consuming permit process. I, for one, am a college student, and I don't have $140 to give the government just to save my own life. Would anybody argue that I'm not well-versed in the abilities and responsibilities required to carry a firearm? I should hope not. I would in fact be willing to bet I've spent far more time on a range than most police officers, and have for more tactical training than most of them as well. Am I unqualified to carry because of a prohibitively expensive and time-consuming permit process? Absolutely not. I realize that my own personal experiences are not typical of the average citizen, but my point here is that just because somebody doesn't have a big sum of money to hand out, or the time to pass such a great training course, it doesn't mean they're unqualified to carry. There's a reason so many tactical training courses are hard to get into because the slots are all filled. People are interested in learning for themselves. Nobody is forcing them to take these additional courses at their own expense, they choose to because they choose to be educated, not because they were forced to be. I was lucky enough to have so much of my training paid for by you all, but I am in no way alone in the tactical abilities of your everyday citizens. I'm sure many of you on this forum have attended such courses on a non-mandated status simply because you wished to learn these things. Is it state-approved? Probably not, and they wouldn't care if you took that, which was undoubtedly far more thorough than their own program.

OK I realize I've written a novel here, but hopefully you all take some of these ideas into consideration. Here's the cliffnotes:

• The permit process is prohibitively expensive and time consuming.
• A state-mandated training course is not representative of tactical or self-defense capabilities, it merely fills a bubble on a sheet.
• People who carry firearms are often far more trained than many police officers.
• The inability of an individual to pay out a large sum of money or take a long-winded training program is not indicative of ability to carry.
• These are rights, people, not privileges. Free men do not take their rights at the leisure of others.

Louisiana has already done this. The "lack of training" business is just a smoke screen. With states getting more and more pressed for cash, it's just another way state governments are going to be using as a means to keep money (permit fees) in their state rather than see it go to another.

Emk, are you saying that you have no training with firearms? I didn't think so. Most Texans have never handled a weapon, and weren't raised with them in the household. Even if they were present, very few have fired one, and parents haven't discussed them with the kids. Most Texans are citified and just as clueless about guns as the average New Yorker.

First, Texas government looks at CHL as a license, which means carrying concealed is not viewed as a right. Second, CH licensing is not a business opportunity, it is a regulatory activity. And third, most of the training is to make certain carriers know the law and can actually make the weapon function.

Until each of us have taken responsibility to educate our kids, and the laws are properly simplified, a minimal amount of training may be warranted. I know way too many people who don't understand the responsibility that comes with carrying a firearm... They think "if I had a gun, that wouldn't happen", not realizing it would happen, it would just happen with a gun. (and I'm not talking about things which you and I would consider worthy of shooting someone over.). The training brings them to the reality of the law and maybe a taste of what 30 years of contemplation has brought me about when to not use my weapon.

EMK's commentary addresses the "RIGHT" end of this issue. BTW EMK - I think you SHOULD CONSIDER writing a BOOK on the subject - excellent presentation !

NONAMEISGOOD's perspective addresses the PRIVILEGE of actually being allowed by the State (Texas in this case) to EXCERCISE that RIGHT.

I am squarely inside EMK's "universe" - because this is a matter of an individual's RIGHT to be armed in defense of their person, and property. Justification for more "Reasonable Regulation" doesn't automatically stop at the threshhold of one's home. The state mandated "training" argument amounts to nothing more than a big "BUT - " attached to the end ot the RTKBA "shall not be infringed." Believe me - if you look to Kalifornia you can see that there is virtually no end to its expansion.

The issuance of driver licenses is a classic example of the futility of "training" and "testing" accomplishing absolutely nothing. People get their DL's - get behind the wheel and generally disregard the existence of any "rights" held by other motorists, and pedestrians. Like the RIGHT not to be assaulted, bullied, menaced by another behind the wheel of a MV. If people who carry handguns CC or OC engaged in similar behavior they would be locked up for a long time. Being a safe driver is something a person WORKS AT - constantly trying to improve their odds.

The same goes for being an armed citizen .

NONAMEISGOOD is right about "most" people probably not having ever touched a firearm in their life these days. They need some instruction, but WHO taught "most" of US to drive ? Probably a family member, parent, etc. It wasn't the State - I assure you. My daughter was taught -by me. If a person doesn't have a mentor available THEY WILL SEEK OUT TRAINING. -I believe.

I visited with Lon Burnam's office today about his Bill to restrict Texans Rights to get non residence license. Burnam was not available to take the call so I had to speak with someone in his office named Craig.
I asked Craig " How will this Bill benefit Texans"? The only thing Craig could comment on was the fact that Texas is losing money to other states by allowing Texans to get nonresident license. Craig informed me that Texas will continue to accept firearms license form people who do not live in Texan, but Texans need to get the Texas license. I asked him what's the difference? Why would Texas honor licence form other states, but fail to honor the same license if a Texan posses it. I did not get a answer.
I then asked , " How does this Bill follow the Texas state Constitution" ? When asked to explain, I re sited Article 1 section 23 of the Texas Constitution,
SEC. 23. Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power by law to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime.
This bill does not have anything to do with " A view to prevent crime". The bill is all about revenue for the state and restricting the rights of Texas.

Let Lon Burnam know that we dont want his Tyranny!

I think that the government contrivance of permit to exercise a constitutionally enumerated , pre-existing right is illegal.

SCJ Ginsburg (of all people) on Bearing Arms: At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.” When used with “arms,” however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose--confrontation. In Muscarello v. United States (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, Justice Ginsburg wrote that “urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’ ” . . . Although the phrase implies that the carrying of the weapon is for the purpose of “offensive or defensive action,” it in no way connotes participation in a structured military organization."

The 2A makes no distinction as to mode of carry or arms of choice. Texas has borne burdens imposed during post CW reconstruction for far too long.

nonameisgood said:

Emk, are you saying that you have no training with firearms? I didn't think so. Most Texans have never handled a weapon, and weren't raised with them in the household. Even if they were present, very few have fired one, and parents haven't discussed them with the kids. Most Texans are citified and just as clueless about guns as the average New Yorker.

First, Texas government looks at CHL as a license, which means carrying concealed is not viewed as a right. Second, CH licensing is not a business opportunity, it is a regulatory activity. And third, most of the training is to make certain carriers know the law and can actually make the weapon function.

Until each of us have taken responsibility to educate our kids, and the laws are properly simplified, a minimal amount of training may be warranted. I know way too many people who don't understand the responsibility that comes with carrying a firearm... They think "if I had a gun, that wouldn't happen", not realizing it would happen, it would just happen with a gun. (and I'm not talking about things which you and I would consider worthy of shooting someone over.). The training brings them to the reality of the law and maybe a taste of what 30 years of contemplation has brought me about when to not use my weapon.

Click to expand...

Right, but people who don't handle firearms or have an interest in them aren't interested in carrying them anyway. This is what I meant by the classic car analogy. I understand that most people have not handled a firearm, and in that same vein, most people who have never done so have that 'fear' of guns, and hence choose not to. Those who choose to eventually always start out training themselves. They go with a friend to the range, or out on their farm; they seek instruction in some manner.

I understand the Texas government views this right as a privilege, and that is the problem that we need to change. When we assume that government is the highest authority of mankind, it is they who grant us our rights, not God, and in turn, they are able to remove those rights. We have let them get away with this for too long. There's a reason they are called rights; because they are inalienable.

I would further submit this:

Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 US 105
No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and attach
a fee to it.
"A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by
Federal constitution. at 113, (1943).

Now I don't have a problem with the government doing a carry permit if they feel the need to do so, but arbitrarily having some kind of requirement for a huge fee or weak training course in order to enjoy this right seems backwards to me. No American citizen should be deprived of his natural liberty upon the supposition he may abuse it. I again don't have a problem with them covering their administrative costs involved with doing a background check if they so feel the need. It's entirely redundant and pointless, being that it's the same one you need to buy a gun in the first place, but I'll even let you have that one.

For example in Vermont, Alaska, and other easy to carry states such as Pennsylvania, there are no wild shootings or people carrying that don't know how to operate a gun. I think we need to have some more faith in our fellow citizens and embrace our liberties as fundamental rights. Texas would be no different than any other easy to carry state if we so allowed it to be.

emk said:

Nobody ever buys a car and doesn't drive it. Even Jay Leno drives most all of his. In that same vein, nobody buys a gun and doesn't go to the range. Nobody is going to spend $500-$1000 on a carry weapon they have no intentions of training with on their own. It's an enthusiast market, the same as classic cars. Hardly anybody buys a classic car without having a vested interest in them.

Click to expand...

I disagree with this claim. A car and a gun aren't directly comparable in this context. People buy regular cars for the purpose of using their abilities to achieve travel, which they consider necessary for daily activities. People buy classic cars for the emotional joy of owning them, possibly to show them off, and often for the emotional joy of experiencing driving them. Guns, on the other hand, can be quite different. While many people, possibly even most, who buy guns want to use them, it is wholly realistic (and extant) that people might buy a gun "just in case". Since their use is not necessary for routine activities, many people will only ever buy it, and assume they'll be prepared to use it when necessary. In short, it is absurd to posit that anyone who buys a gun is going to use it routinely.

Does all of this mean I think a training class should be mandated? Not a bit. Don't, however, make baseless claims in support of a view that we share, as it weakens the overall argument in favor of that view.

()pen(arry said:

I disagree with this claim. A car and a gun aren't directly comparable in this context. People buy regular cars for the purpose of using their abilities to achieve travel, which they consider necessary for daily activities. People buy classic cars for the emotional joy of owning them, possibly to show them off, and often for the emotional joy of experiencing driving them. Guns, on the other hand, can be quite different. While many people, possibly even most, who buy guns want to use them, it is wholly realistic (and extant) that people might buy a gun "just in case". Since their use is not necessary for routine activities, many people will only ever buy it, and assume they'll be prepared to use it when necessary. In short, it is absurd to posit that anyone who buys a gun is going to use it routinely.

Does all of this mean I think a training class should be mandated? Not a bit. Don't, however, make baseless claims in support of a view that we share, as it weakens the overall argument in favor of that view.

Click to expand...

I don't think that everyone who owns a gun uses it constantly by any means, but it also doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out how to use one. I don't think anyone's bought one and then locked it away and never touched the thing. I think we're all reasonable people, and I think if you spend $500-$1000 on something you find to be important to your own safety in any capacity, you're going to want to have a fundamental understanding of how to use it. In that idea, I think it's perfectly reasonable to assume that almost anyone who has bought a gun has at least shot one before, or has taken their own to a range. Guns aren't a big, complicated mess of a machine, it's point and shoot. I have faith in people that they can figure it out.

emk said:

I don't think that everyone who owns a gun uses it constantly by any means, but it also doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out how to use one. I don't think anyone's bought one and then locked it away and never touched the thing. I think we're all reasonable people, and I think if you spend $500-$1000 on something you find to be important to your own safety in any capacity, you're going to want to have a fundamental understanding of how to use it. In that idea, I think it's perfectly reasonable to assume that almost anyone who has bought a gun has at least shot one before, or has taken their own to a range. Guns aren't a big, complicated mess of a machine, it's point and shoot. I have faith in people that they can figure it out.

Click to expand...

While not directly contradictory, I think this anecdote of mine is instructive:

When I took my CHL class, there was another guy in the class who told the instructor that the only reason he was getting a CHL was so that he could carry if he ever decided he wanted to. The instructor seemed like he was about to kick the guy out, but instead he just told him that if he didn't carry whenever legally allowed, there wasn't much point. Then, when we went to the range for the Texas-mandated aptitude test, it came to light that he'd brought with him his friend's pistol, which he'd never fired. He just brought it because it looked neat and he figured this was a good chance to try shooting it. Moreover, he didn't own a single pistol. The range instructor clearly wanted to kick him out, but the class instructor, who happened to be his boss, had a private word with him, and no more was said.

Again, this is not directly contradictory to your assertions. However, I think it is clear that people engage in all manner of jackassery. I can readily imagine a person buying a pistol and qualifying for a CHL who then never fires the gun, ever. Furthermore, I can readily imagine a great many people doing the same. If you want proof that there are a shload of jackasses in Texas, take a trip to Austin. Or Plano. Or Farmers Branch. Especially Farmers Branch.

Nobody ever buys a car and doesn't drive it. Even Jay Leno drives most all of his. In that same vein, nobody buys a gun and doesn't go to the range. Nobody is going to spend $500-$1000 on a carry weapon they have no intentions of training with on their own. It's an enthusiast market, the same as classic cars. Hardly anybody buys a classic car without having a vested interest in them.

Click to expand...

I don't know what goes on in your world but I have seen many people buy both cars and guns, especially guns, and never use them. In fact I would say that at least half of the handguns that I know of have never had more than one box of bullets fired from them and many of them not even that much. My Grandfather carried a pistol in his pocket all of his life that I knew him and I never saw him shoot it a single time.

As for classic cars did you ever see Conway Twitty's '57 T-bird? It had 57 miles on it.