85 replies to this topic

[SakuranoSenshi]

MegaMasher, on 16 September 2012 - 10:53 AM, said:

Source? There are no federal laws with such a restriction. I am unaware of any states with such a mandate (though it is possible a few may have such a requirement).

Yes, there is. That you're unaware is interesting but not relevant, I am afraid. It's the well-known 'Brady Act' which requires that a person be resident in a US state when they are attempting to purchase from the FFL for the preceding 90 days. This does, in fact, mean that a US citizen who has been abroad without a US residence cannot purchase until they satisfy that.

Edited by SakuranoSenshi, 16 September 2012 - 07:54 PM.

[Ducks Guts]

I'm in Arizona. Very similar laws as Texas. Here, you can carry a gun anywhere, revealed or concealed, unless the establishment to which you are entering posts a "No weapons allowed" sign. You used to have to take a course for concealment through DPS and get a permit/license. Recommended, take a course and learn the legalities. This will sound weird but shooting is the easy part, dealing with the courts afterwards is the hard part. My theory, better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it. Just remember the phrase, "My life was in danger and I want to talk to my lawyer".

[SakuranoSenshi]

BellatorMonk, on 16 September 2012 - 11:11 AM, said:

Texas CHL process is expensive ($140) and requires a 10 hour class that includes qualifying with a handgun at range.

http://www.txdps.sta...d/chl/index.htm

Here is the best part. Virginia has a Non-Resident CHL process that allows you to qualify for a permit with a longer list of possible items that qualify you instead of the Texas mandatory 10 hours of training. The fee is $100.

Most states of a reciprocity agreement with other states. Meaning if you have a CHL from Virginia you can carry in Texas for example and only have to be holding that Virginia Permit.

http://www.vsp.state...tConcealed.shtm

Well, as I said, my wife and I have already qualified for a Texas CHL. That aside, the primary reason to not use an out of state licence as a resident of your state is this:

Consider that you have to use your pistol, you kill your opponent in an entirely justified manner and you're pretty shook up but you know the law is on your side, right? Oh, wait... the family of the bad guy is less happy and your city's DA is looking for a major case to make his name. You circumvented your state's licencing by using another state's non-resident system because it was cheaper and easier... can you imagine how well that will play out in court?

"Ladies and gentlemen, this man was so arrogant he didn't think he needed the ten hours of instruction that Texas requires, or the shooting proficiency test that the Department of Public Safety mandates. No, he felt he was perfectly qualified by answering online and paying $100 to another state and he went out on our streets with his pistol and this arrogant, dare I say, vigilante, attitude. Mr X paid the price. I'm not saying Mr X was innocent of wrongdoing, but did he really deserve to die at the hands of a vigilante? Did his family deserve to be deprived of a father and husband? etc, etc."

Good luck with that.

[Ducks Guts]

Whatever you do, do NOT shoot the bad guy in the back.

[SakuranoSenshi]

Ducks Guts, on 16 September 2012 - 08:19 PM, said:

Whatever you do, do NOT shoot the bad guy in the back.

There are situations where you absolutely should... but expect to have a hard time explaining it and expect to go to a full trial not be cleared by Grand Jury (here in Texas). In short, unless you can make a convincing case for him going to for a weapon or otherwise escalating the confrontation and turning his back to do so, you're going to end up facing and likely being convicted of murder charges. If he turns his back, run the hell away.

[MegaMasher]

SakuranoSenshi, on 16 September 2012 - 07:53 PM, said:

Yes, there is. That you're unaware is interesting but not relevant, I am afraid. It's the well-known 'Brady Act' which requires that a person be resident in a US state when they are attempting to purchase from the FFL for the preceding 90 days. This does, in fact, mean that a US citizen who has been abroad without a US residence cannot purchase until they satisfy that.

Sak, the Brady act makes requirements for background checks, it does not create a residency requirement for citizens as you claim. But don't take my word from it, straight from the ATF:
http://www.atf.gov/f...state-residency

If you want to know what the Brady act does http://www.atf.gov/firearms/brady-law/

The 90 day thing is for aliens, not citizens.

SakuranoSenshi, on 16 September 2012 - 08:03 PM, said:

Well, as I said, my wife and I have already qualified for a Texas CHL. That aside, the primary reason to not use an out of state licence as a resident of your state is this:

Consider that you have to use your pistol, you kill your opponent in an entirely justified manner and you're pretty shook up but you know the law is on your side, right? Oh, wait... the family of the bad guy is less happy and your city's DA is looking for a major case to make his name. You circumvented your state's licencing by using another state's non-resident system because it was cheaper and easier... can you imagine how well that will play out in court?

"Ladies and gentlemen, this man was so arrogant he didn't think he needed the ten hours of instruction that Texas requires, or the shooting proficiency test that the Department of Public Safety mandates. No, he felt he was perfectly qualified by answering online and paying $100 to another state and he went out on our streets with his pistol and this arrogant, dare I say, vigilante, attitude. Mr X paid the price. I'm not saying Mr X was innocent of wrongdoing, but did he really deserve to die at the hands of a vigilante? Did his family deserve to be deprived of a father and husband? etc, etc."

Good luck with that.

Ducks Guts, on 16 September 2012 - 08:19 PM, said:

Whatever you do, do NOT shoot the bad guy in the back.

The most important matter legally is that it is a legit shoot. An anti-gun/self-defense/left wing DA can always make your life awful. See the case in Arizona (may have been NM) about a decade ago where a man was attacked, convicted (the judge refused to let pretty much any defense be used) and spent around 6 years in prison before the appeals courts corrected the travesty. I haven't looked at other states self-defense laws in the last few years, but the last time I looked Texas had better than avergae laws if you had to protect yourself.

BellatorMonk, on 16 September 2012 - 06:48 PM, said:

It is to the discussion of Texas CHL.

http://www.txdps.sta...iaagreement.pdf

Bell, that is a copy of the agreement, and that is nice. However, some states have a seperate law pertaining to a resident of that state using another license while in their resident state. I am not going to search Texas codes, but any Texan ought to make sure it is not against their rules. Having a reciprocity agreement does not in anyway preclude states from having different rules, which can be a real PITA for us carriers.

Edited by MegaMasher, 16 September 2012 - 09:06 PM.

[Nacon]

Easier to have no weapon at all... In price what you needed it for anyway.

[harrified]

"Better to be tried by twelve than carried by six."

[SakuranoSenshi]

MegaMasher, on 16 September 2012 - 09:01 PM, said:

Sak, the Brady act makes requirements for background checks, it does not create a residency requirement for citizens as you claim. But don't take my word from it, straight from the ATF:
http://www.atf.gov/f...state-residency

If you want to know what the Brady act does http://www.atf.gov/firearms/brady-law/

The 90 day thing is for aliens, not citizens.

No, not entirely. I wasn't just shooting my mouth off here and if you re-read your own link you'll see what I mean, too. You can also go and read the actual law as adopted into title. Your link discusses different states, moving and so on but the underlying assumption is always that you'll have been resident in a state (note, a state, any state) for the previous 90 days. If that is not the case, you really cannot purchase. I know this because I know individuals who have run into it, aliens such as myself, obviously but also citizens, often military, without a US residence within that time frame. It really does and did make that a requirement and the intent was to prevent people casually buying firearms even if the constitution says nothing about someone needing to have been in the country before they can exercize their rights. It's my personal opinion that this probably makes it unconstitutional in a literal, legal sense but at present it is certainly (Federal) law and it's unlikely to be challenged in my lifetime. The link talks about aliens because they will commonly come up against it and it's a frequent question (and your link is their FAQ).

Legitimate shooting or not, the ride afterwards will not be fun and you set yourself up for a much harder time (and make your lawyer's job harder) if you say or do anything that comes across as cavalier, vigilante, etc. Get licenced in your primary state (if possible), abide by the state's laws, don't post 'funny' signs about shooting survivours, etc. Do you have the right to do most of these things? Sure. You have the right to do a lot of potentially unwise things.

Texas honours licences from other states and absolutely doesn't prohibit its residents from holding a permit from another state and carrying in accordance with Texan law, however; many police do not like it, so it can make your time harder if you're stopped and present it and should you end up using it, you better believe that your motives will be questioned.

Edited by SakuranoSenshi, 17 September 2012 - 04:57 AM.

[SakuranoSenshi]

Nacon, on 16 September 2012 - 09:52 PM, said:

Easier to have no weapon at all... In price what you needed it for anyway.

Not a question of need, it's a question of rights. I also don't think that logic works; spending time in prison and being bankrupted, with neither a reversal of the verdict nor any compensation, is pretty much the most severe penalty possible (if you are found guilty of murder, I question the legitimacy of the shooting - it's quite hard to get a murder conviction even when the facts seem clear) and it's still better than being dead, surely?

I don't look for opportunities to use my pistol, which I've been carrying (legally in my vehicle) for many months now, but I wouldn't hesitate to defend my own life with it or that of my wife. I like to think I wouldn't let possible legal hassles prevent me from defending someone else, either but I'm not blind to the serious problems I might run into if I ever fire it at anyone for any reason, legitimate or not.

It's a truism in the CCW community that if you ever do shoot your firearm, the lives of everyone involved will be changed, yourself included. Once we have the CHLs, my wife and I will also be taking a law firm on retainer so that in the event of any legal problems relating to firearms or use of force, we will have immediate legal counsel.

[Catamount]

So, have you made a decision yet on just keeping the Glock 20 for CCW or buying something smaller? I always like keeping up with what people are buying (same with the hardware forum, of course)

[SakuranoSenshi]

I am looking at having something smaller for, at the very least, a backup gun. I'm seriously considering a compact 9 mm platform but haven't decided which one, other than that it almost certainly won't be a Glock, as it happens. In essence, I want a 'pocket gun' and with that in mind I also want a manual safety on it that cannot be easily accidentally disengaged.

At the class we discussed issues of concealability and Texas is actually pretty clear on this; concealed is concealed even if it makes an odd bulge and strange shapes through your clothes. Now, it's not a good idea to 'print' in this way but it's certainly perfectly legal for it to occur, so long as the pistol actually remains concealed; somewhat ironically, if you acknowledge that your bulge is in fact a pistol (even when it plainly is) you're potentially in actual legal trouble (you're no longer concealing it because you just declared that you have a weapon on your person). With all this in mind, I can foresee situations where my clothes will not make it practical to carry the Glock 20, even allowing for some printing, so I want something smaller. Specifically, when wearing a (business) suit, I cannot really conceal the pistol and even were Texas to have 'open carry' I wouldn't want to wear it holstered with those clothes, so something smaller is on the cards and I'm open to suggestions, actually, preferably based on experience owning that firearm. :-)

[BellatorMonk]

All in all it's sad that Americans have to resort to such debate and concern about owning much less carrying a gun for defense. The law is pretty clear.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

If the state law says I can carry a CCH using a permit from another state I don't care what lawyer wants to try an argue otherwise. If some cop doesn't like it when he stops me and tries to harass me as a law abiding citizen we will see who gets the lawyer to harass who.

When you compare some of these state laws to the over arching 2nd Amendment it's pretty clear of lot of the laws are simply designed to suck money from the populace and generally make it a pain in the *** for law abiding people to carry a weapon.

As I said in the case of Texas versus Virginia's CCH requirements, take a look at the list of VA qualifications versus TX. The point is VA makes more sense than TX just in principle. Texas basically says "We don't care what gun experience you have, take this mandatory 10 hour test and range time". VA says "If you have one or more life experience skills related to guns then all you need to do is take a written test".

Gun owners need to start making the system work for them not jumping through hoops for the system.

Edited by BellatorMonk, 17 September 2012 - 06:20 AM.

[Mister Blastman]

SakuranoSenshi, on 16 September 2012 - 08:24 PM, said:

There are situations where you absolutely should... but expect to have a hard time explaining it and expect to go to a full trial not be cleared by Grand Jury (here in Texas). In short, unless you can make a convincing case for him going to for a weapon or otherwise escalating the confrontation and turning his back to do so, you're going to end up facing and likely being convicted of murder charges. If he turns his back, run the hell away.

In a Stand your Ground state, if you are say in a store/gas station/restaurant and someone is there trying to commit a forcible felony (armed robbery for example) and they have their back to you, you have zero obligation to identify yourself and have every right to shoot them, even in the back, to stop the crime.

Edited by Mister Blastman, 17 September 2012 - 06:18 AM.

[SakuranoSenshi]

Mister Blastman, on 17 September 2012 - 06:18 AM, said:

In a Stand your Ground state, if you are say in a store/gas station/restaurant and someone is there trying to commit a forcible felony (armed robbery for example) and they have their back to you, you have zero obligation to identify yourself and have every right to shoot them, even in the back, to stop the crime.

Sure. I wasn't trying to give a comprehensive list of situations. :-) (Wrong forum for that)

BellatorMonk, on 17 September 2012 - 06:17 AM, said:

As I said in the case of Texas versus Virginia's CCH requirements, take a look at the list of VA qualifications versus TX. The point is VA makes more sense than TX just in principle. Texas basically says "We don't care what gun experience you have, take this mandatory 10 hour test and range time". VA says "If you have one or more life experience skills related to guns then all you need to do is take a written test".

Actually, no. Texas has much the same list, you must always do the the ten hours of classroom time, however.

Edit: Okay, Virginia is more permissive but Texas will recognize various ways of establishing competency, too. This is often an issue with reciprocity, incidentally.

Edited by SakuranoSenshi, 17 September 2012 - 06:26 AM.

[BellatorMonk]

Sakurano where do you keep spouting this misinformation from?

Texas http://www.txdps.sta...orms/CHL-16.pdf in section 411.188 clearly states you may only qualify for certification and competence with a handgun from a qualified range instructor which requires range time, classroom time and a written test.

Virginia http://www.vsp.state...tConcealed.shtm states in the section titles "Documentation of Competence with a Hangun" a multitude of qualifications which do not include range time with an instructor or 10 hours of classroom time.

[Catamount]

SakuranoSenshi, on 17 September 2012 - 05:58 AM, said:

I am looking at having something smaller for, at the very least, a backup gun. I'm seriously considering a compact 9 mm platform but haven't decided which one, other than that it almost certainly won't be a Glock, as it happens. In essence, I want a 'pocket gun' and with that in mind I also want a manual safety on it that cannot be easily accidentally disengaged.

It depends on how "pocketlike" you want it (I know you like having a larger grip) We had discussed it briefly once before, and not much has changed. If you just want a slightly smaller version of a full-sized gun, I'd really suggest you give the Ruger SR9c a shot. I have the full-size, and it's quite nice (doesn't break the bank, either). The grip is great, it's incredibly accurate, and it goes without saying, given the company, that it's a very strong and reliable gun regardless of what you shoot through it (overbuilt, in some ways). It uses a 10 or 17 round magazine, depending on how far down you want the grip to extend.

If you want a smaller, single-stack type pistol, the S&W M&P Shield has been getting a lot of good reviews. I haven't tried it myself, but Guns and Ammo really liked it. Only 8 rounds, but it's light and small.

Edited by Catamount, 17 September 2012 - 11:06 AM.

[MarshmallowRampage]

SakuranoSenshi, on 22 August 2012 - 10:15 PM, said:

Seriously, though, do you know what the restrictions are, in Texas?

Any place that has a 30.06 sign posted near an entrance, few others, the class will cover them all.

[SakuranoSenshi]

Rizartha, on 17 September 2012 - 11:11 AM, said:

Any place that has a 30.06 sign posted near an entrance, few others, the class will cover them all.

Not familiar with a rhetorical question? LOL Go back and look at the context (I already know the restrictions, but thanks).

[SakuranoSenshi]

Catamount, on 17 September 2012 - 11:05 AM, said:

It depends on how "pocketlike" you want it (I know you like having a larger grip) We had discussed it briefly once before, and not much has changed. If you just want a slightly smaller version of a full-sized gun, I'd really suggest you give the Ruger SR9c a shot. I have the full-size, and it's quite nice (doesn't break the bank, either). The grip is great, it's incredibly accurate, and it goes without saying, given the company, that it's a very strong and reliable gun regardless of what you shoot through it (overbuilt, in some ways). It uses a 10 or 17 round magazine, depending on how far down you want the grip to extend.

If you want a smaller, single-stack type pistol, the S&W M&P Shield has been getting a lot of good reviews. I haven't tried it myself, but Guns and Ammo really liked it. Only 8 rounds, but it's light and small.

I believe I have handled one of these, actually and it does look like a good choice. I'll have a proper look next time I go down south (which will probably be soon). I do like Ruger quality, I have to admit and my wife actually wants one of their Mark III target .22 LR pistols to play at the range with.