If you don't live in Utah, you can't vote in Utah. If you think this will stand long term, I think you are mistaken. Texas CHL instructors are loosing money as is the Texas DPS. The instructor training is no where near equal. I believe this hurts the integrity of the Texas CHL. The crimial issue is just half. What about civil? If Texas or Utah makes a change you won't get a refund and you have no say so in the matter.

The reciprocity isn't really a good reason unless you go to certain states. If you have the RESIDENT Texas CHL, you get reciprocity in 31 states, Utah included. Utah NON-RESIDENT only has reciprocity in 28 states. They aren't all the same states, though. Utah gets you OH, WV, and WA. Texas doesn't get those three, but they get SC and KS. I personally think that the RESIDENT license is a lot better. Some states, including CO, FL, and NM don't recognize the NON-RESIDENT licenses.

I have not seen all the posts in this thread as I just found it. I can't compare the two courses but I'm watching all the local news pieces on it. It's getting attention around the State due to the story. Hopefully those taking the legally recognized Utah plan will also find time to pop some caps.

I am looking into getting mine now. It will be in Texas. As far as I'm concerned if I am a law abiding citizen I should be able to carry one licensed or not. After all, the thug that I get a license to shoot sure as chit didn't have one when he pulled a gun on me.

I carry one in my truck now and it is legal. As crazy as thing's are now that just isn't enough. So I guess I will break down and pay the money to legally be able to defend my family and self.

I have the TX but if I had need to go to OH, WV, or WA the Utah CHL would interest me.

Can you hold CHLs from multiple States? That would be something new to collect!

I'm ok with the Utah non-resident CHL, though I have a Texas CHL. I'm supportive of it from the "Big Picture" point of view. The 2nd Amendment allows (and I say requests) US citizens to be armed. The Utah laws supports more Americans to do what they are constitutionally able to do. That's a good thing! The constitution didn't say anything about marksman's or safety. It doesn't say anything about sound minds or criminals. The constitution gives me a right, and only a change in the constitution should alter that. The consequences of poor markmanship is an individual issue and the consequences of a kook getting a gun is an individual issue. Dealing with that should be the same as the way we deal with bad drivers, drunks, and all criminals. Local authority deal with those sort. Every chance I get I'm gonna protest the fed govt impositions. I want them to stay out of my car (seatbelt use is my option), stay out of my bedroom (use your imagination---it's still your right), and let me protect myself, my family, and my property.

Im all for the Utah chl, as stated above we shouldn't have to pay the state $200 bucks plus class fee and $$$ to keep the license. The constitution states we have the right to keep and bear arms. There are tons of bad drivers on the road, horrible licensed doctors and the list goes on and on. Having a license means nothing to me as I know alot of people who have a TEXAS CHL and dont know which way is up. I could goto medical school to be a surgeon if they gave me all the answers to the test before hand and showed me how to hold and use the instruments during testing.

Interesting logic.

If I am understanding you correctly, you think the Texas CHL class is a joke, so instead you support a Utah non-resident class that is a bigger joke.

I added the Utah CHL for two reasons:
1. It adds additional states (that do not recognize a Tx chl)in which you can legally carry.
2. In Texas, your CHL can be suspended if you are charged with certain offenses whereas with the Utah chl you keep it unless actually convicted. Taking it a step further, as great a state as Texas is, if you are a CHL holder you are quilty until proven innocent. If you are a Utah CHL holder, they follow the constitution and you are innocent until proven guilty. If you have both, worst case scenario for honest law-abiding Texan, your Tx chl is suspended but you can still carry in Tx with your Utah chl.

Grayhawk

Your post is very interesting, and I might even consider taking the Utah class IN ADDITION TO my Texas CHL. You have one of the few, in my view, legitimate arguments in favor of the non-resident Utah CHL.
Thanks!

It only cost me $25 more to include the Utah class with the Tx class. The Utah license is only $65 and if I remember correctly, only $10 to renew. Pretty cheap insurance I believe.

Good to know!

Is there anyone who does the Utah class other than in the metroplex?

Familygunfun.com does the utah outside the metroplex also..call ?brad Brasell..great guy

Both of the classes are a joke IMO. Its just a way for the state to make money on something that our constitution says we have the right do to for free. So why not support the cheaper option?

A CHL is just a Tax with an expiration date on a constitutional right. That being said, I paid it. The Utah license would only interest me if I found myself traveling to a state without Texas reciprocity.

I really couldn't give a rat's [censored] about the quality, training, [censored], etc... of a CHL course. All I want is the cheapest easiest way to get a CHL permit (that's valid in my state), because I should not have to ask permission for what is already my constitutional right. If I could get it for free without having to lift a finger I certainly would.