Jumping Frog wrote:Always have a back-up plan.
Jumping Frog wrote:Always have a back-up plan.
bizarrenormality wrote:Usually lower cost and less risk of being unnecessarily disarmed by a hoplophobe for starters.
Jumping Frog wrote:bizarrenormality wrote:More and more I think the out of state CHL is a better choice.
There is the pretty strong risk that the next legislative session will address TX residents and out of state CHL's, by requiring a TX resident to have a TX CHL.
Always have a back-up plan.
steveincowtown wrote:Jumping Frog wrote:bizarrenormality wrote:More and more I think the out of state CHL is a better choice.
There is the pretty strong risk that the next legislative session will address TX residents and out of state CHL's, by requiring a TX resident to have a TX CHL.
Always have a back-up plan.
Why would the TX legislators keep TX residents from obtaining a license from a state we have reciprocity with?
Not that I want to see ANY reciprocity agreements go by the wayside, but if the license is recognized to have reciprocity, I cannot think of any legitimate reason why a Texan should not be able to hold it.
There are two competing theories that stand up to scrutiny. The first says follow the money. The second says Texas legislators have the emotional maturity of a six year old throwing a temper tantrum.


bizarrenormality wrote:Usually lower cost and less risk of being unnecessarily disarmed by a hoplophobe for starters.

sjfcontrol wrote:Other than officers, what hoplophobe do you think would disarm you, and why would an out-of-state CHL help?
Return to LEO Contacts & Bloopers
Users browsing this forum: anygunanywhere, E.Marquez and 4 guests