Brain just clicked on.... PA isn't recognizing the OH CHL. All they do is accept it (and $20) to give us a PA license. I'm guessing that PA takes the info we send in and runs an NICS check. In short, PA is accepting our education and OH-level background, plus whatever they feel like doing, in order to issue a PA license. TX will accept that, I guess, because the final checks match their needs. I'm guessing that TX ignored the "education" requirement, which seems odd, but an OH CHL would be in excess of PA's requirements anyway.jgarvas wrote:The probelm here is that TX isn't conducting a background check at all in the process of granting reciprocity. To grant Ohioans reciprocity means that the minute you cross their border with an Ohio CHL you're as legal as if you had a TX license or permit.
I don't recall how PA is getting around it. My guess is that they're conducting a federal background check of some sort. Either NICS or when they "run" you through their law enforcement system.
We're asking TX to recognize the OH CHL, which means that all the checking has to be done on our end....
That's pretty much the way I got it.In Ohio you're run through the Ohio BCI unless you've been in the state for less than five years. Since the Ohio BCI isn't tapping the federal government for a background check, TX can't reciprocate unless they have a way around that. (This is the situation as I understand it).
Rather than issuing non-resident licenses to all comers (like FL), TX uses the same sort of rule for non-residents as PA, but backwards - "if your state has a CHL, we won't give you one; good luck on reciprocity."Now, if the Ohio process was modified to either a) include a NICS check or b) rely solely on a NICS Check (If you can buy one you can carry one), then I believe TX would be a sure bet.
I understand that the prior AG (or whatever title applies) in TX was not interested (or downright against) reciprocity, but the new one will talk about it.
Tell him I said to get it moving or I'm siccing my Jack Russell Terrier on him....I don't know if that is coming or not, but I can assure you that we're in discussions with Rep. Aslanides.
The AG might be able to do this without legislation if TX could be talked into just issuing non-resident CHL's for us and running their own NICS check. We don't really need reciprocity for OH CHL's but could choose to honor TX without any problems, IMHO.
My guess is that Taft would veto anything that lands on his desk that doesn't ban guns, but who knows. He may feel safer to go with us rather than against us if he wants that Senate job, and I think a year of general peace & quiet in terms of problems with the law - even with the poison pills - might do that. Meantime, Toby & friends have been so completely discredited by now that supporting them (Columbus City Council excepted) may not be too sharp. (Would have been nice if he'd been up for election last year.)The real question in my mind is how quickly will this legislation move through the House and Senate, and what role Taft will play in this legislation moving forward or getting stuck in a veto threat.
The only downside here is that we may be asking for too much at one time. The Columbus mess has to be killed before it multiplies, and we still have to worry about vehicular carry and the worst of the CPZ stuff, including the utterly silly restaurant carry problem. Getting all that at one time may be a problem, and Columbus may have to take priority. Getting Taft to sign off on that in Toby's face may be difficult. And, we still need the others....
I'll be looking for that .In the next day or so, we'll have a new letter on our website so that folks can contact their representatives about this issue.
Regards,