Not surprised, LTC permits drop a lot after permitless carry goes into effect

[Axxe55]

You don't need a passport to go into Canada...

Umm...yes you do. Read and learn.

We couldn't find that Web page (Error 404) - Travel.gc.ca

Government of Canada's official one-stop-shop for comprehensive international travel information.

travel.gc.ca

 

[majormadmax]

Umm...yes you do. Read and learn.

We couldn't find that Web page (Error 404) - Travel.gc.ca

Government of Canada's official one-stop-shop for comprehensive international travel information.

travel.gc.ca

Read it yourself....

"Yes, as a United States Citizen, you must present a valid passport book, passport card or Enhanced Drivers License when traveling to Canada by car or crossing border on foot."

Sources: https://www.passportsandvisas.com/travel-blog/do-you-need-a-passport-to-go-to-canada, https://www.dhs.gov/enhanced-drivers-licenses-what-are-they

I have done so driving into Canada from North Dakota.

 

[majormadmax]

Actually after 9-11 we required Canadians to have a passport to get into the US, so they returned the favor. Unless that has been lifted , which it may have because I haven't been back there in a lot of years, it still applies.

Not true, as stated EDLs work (certain Canadian provinces issue them as well).

 

[Txhighlander]

Not true, as stated EDLs work (certain Canadian provinces issue them as well).

At the time I was crossing the border the enhanced dl hadn't come about just yet, only drivers with Passport book or Passport card was used. The company I worked for put out the request for drivers with passport to cross. Later on they sent us the paperwork to apply for the enhanced dl. I had quite crossing before that point . I was hauling chemicals when 9-11 hit. I forget how many drivers got caught in Canada setting at the border because everything locked down.

 

[majormadmax]

It's been a few years since I've driven into Canada, but the DoD has a document called the Foreign Clearance Guide which outlines travel requirements for every country via ground, air and sea. We have to submit a formal request to enter country and theater clearance, and cannot leave until it has been approved. I had 47 missions overseas since 2011, and was my old organization's travel specialist. Just to add, I didn't obscure my face because I care if anyone on here recognizes me. It's common practice to defeat online facial recognition efforts. Plus, I was in bad need of a haircut!

Now, requirements change on a constant basis, which is why the FCG program exists. Note the one for Canada was modified just over three months ago. COVID has caused most of the latest changes, but entry requirements also regularly change. I would advise anyone going overseas to do their due diligence before traveling, as back in August I saw a US couple in Frankfurt denied boarding on a flight back to the US as they didn't have the required COVID documents. In fact, I've found in many cases it's tougher getting into this country than many others I've visited, and I've got Global Entry!

 

[Txhighlander]

View attachment 301596

It's been a few years since I've driven into Canada, but the DoD has a document called the Foreign Clearance Guide which outlines travel requirements for every country via ground, air and sea. We have to submit a formal request to enter country and theater clearance, and cannot leave until it has been approved. I had 47 missions overseas since 2011, and was my old organization's travel specialist. Just to add, I didn't obscure my face because I care if anyone on here recognizes me. It's common practice to defeat online facial recognition efforts. Plus, I was in bad need of a haircut!

Now, requirements change on a constant basis, which is why the FCG program exists. Note the one for Canada was modified just over three months ago. COVID has caused most of the latest changes, but entry requirements also regularly change. I would advise anyone going overseas to do their due diligence before traveling, as back in August I saw a US couple in Frankfurt denied boarding on a flight back to the US as they didn't have the required COVID documents. In fact, I've found in many cases it's tougher getting into this country than many others I've visited, and I've got Global Entry!

It definitely has been years so I figured things have changed a lot since I last crossed. I went from hauling chemicals to orange juice. Big difference but border crossing very similar. I will just stay home for now.

 

[Sasquatch]

So, you think it is OK for the government to dictate what happens on private property?

They already do - I want the two-tiered system eliminated so that *all* who carry do so under the same rules state wide. I also don't want carve-outs for certain types of businesses or locations - mostly private - you can't carry into a hospital, but why? Its stupid, and hospitals are not immune from gun violence and there are plenty of cases where violence occurred at a hospital and armed people intervened, or were the target of the hostiles and had to defend themselves.

Same with the prohibition on nursing homes, polling places (hmm, a place that draws large crowds engaging in the democratic processes, a perfect target for someone deranged and bent on violence - lets disarm everyone there except special people with government badges!)

If you want an LTC because it is a fast-pass around NICS, great. If you want an LTC to carry in states that require it for reciprocity - great. But to have LTC holders and permitless carriers fall under different rules just because one has given the king his due is bullshit.

 

[pbratton]

I will keep mine due to crossing state lines. The not having to run a background check is a perk as well. Other than that I probably wouldn't renew. I never thought the LTC range portion was near enough to prove how competent you were with a firearm due to the number of people who passed who shouldn't have. Each to their own.

You know, that range portion is pretty similar to what most of our LEOs go through for their qualifications...

 

[nickgibson72]

You know, that range portion is pretty similar to what most of our LEOs go through for their qualifications...

The range portion of the LTC process is NOTHING like the police qualifications or recerts. Not even close.

 

[majormadmax]

Well, I mentioned another good reason for a LTC is it may be required to keep a weapon in your vehicle on JBSA installations, that turned out to be a correct presumption.

For those who scream about gun rights, check out what is required to simply store a gun in your car on base!

Also note this "permission" is not extended to retirees or contractors.

 

[Sasquatch]

Well, I mentioned another good reason for a LTC is it may be required to keep a weapon in your vehicle on JBSA installations, that turned out to be a correct presumption.

For those who scream about gun rights, check out what is required to simply store a gun in your car on base!

Also note this "permission" is not extended to retirees or contractors.

You seem to argue a lot *for* regulation.

It could be argued that you know when enlisting you are giving up a lot of your rights. It can also be argued that making someone give up their rights just for the pleasure of serving their country is bullshit. Personally I don't think there should be any regulations or rules against soldiers/airmen/sailors/Marines having personal weapons on base. If the person cannot be trusted with a weapon, why are they there? You go through basic training - you should come out with basic safe firearms skills and marksmanship. Not everyone graduating is going to be a "gun guy" but every single one should at least be safe with firearms.

You can argue the security standpoint - and maybe have a valid argument. But then again - as we've seen now more than once - a determined killer or would-be killer won't be stopped by regulations. Officers, enlistees, or contractors - if they want to bring a gun on base and kill people, they will. Every uniformed member of the service should be able to lawfully carry a weapon on them just for those events. The military isn't that special - its not like there's an MP posted in every building or in every office. The MP's and DOD cops are still minutes away, and someone has to call them first. Just like civilian cops. And just like in the civilian world - those minutes matter when there's an active killer doing his deed.

Your right to have a personal firearm in your home - even on a military base - should not be left up to any bureaucrat - be it civilian or officer. Just like in the civilian world - if a person can't be trusted with a firearm - maybe that person shouldn't be out among the public. If they're that dangerous - lock 'em up. If they're that incompetent - discharge them and send them back to the civilian world or get them trained up to be safe.

 

[majormadmax]

You seem to argue a lot *for* regulation.

It could be argued that you know when enlisting you are giving up a lot of your rights. It can also be argued that making someone give up their rights just for the pleasure of serving their country is bullshit. Personally I don't think there should be any regulations or rules against soldiers/airmen/sailors/Marines having personal weapons on base. If the person cannot be trusted with a weapon, why are they there? You go through basic training - you should come out with basic safe firearms skills and marksmanship. Not everyone graduating is going to be a "gun guy" but every single one should at least be safe with firearms.

You can argue the security standpoint - and maybe have a valid argument. But then again - as we've seen now more than once - a determined killer or would-be killer won't be stopped by regulations. Officers, enlistees, or contractors - if they want to bring a gun on base and kill people, they will. Every uniformed member of the service should be able to lawfully carry a weapon on them just for those events. The military isn't that special - its not like there's an MP posted in every building or in every office. The MP's and DOD cops are still minutes away, and someone has to call them first. Just like civilian cops. And just like in the civilian world - those minutes matter when there's an active killer doing his deed.

Your right to have a personal firearm in your home - even on a military base - should not be left up to any bureaucrat - be it civilian or officer. Just like in the civilian world - if a person can't be trusted with a firearm - maybe that person shouldn't be out among the public. If they're that dangerous - lock 'em up. If they're that incompetent - discharge them and send them back to the civilian world or get them trained up to be safe.

Ah, another genius who feels they have to explain the obvious to everyone else!

Don't bother replying, I've got a place for people whose posts aren't worth reading.

 

[Kar98]

in the class I took I recall 2 shooters that repeatedly missed the paper target and I don't recall them being booted so assume they still passed.

Not sure if an instructor would "shame" them or just let them know in private they failed.

I brought a couple of spare boxes of 50 each for whatever reason, and a couple of people who failed the shooting test the first go-around bought off me for a silly amount.

 

[pbratton]

The range portion of the LTC process is NOTHING like the police qualifications or recerts. Not even close.

basic yearly re-certs, yup. pretty much the same.

 

[DoubleDuty]

They already do - I want the two-tiered system eliminated so that *all* who carry do so under the same rules state wide. I also don't want carve-outs for certain types of businesses or locations - mostly private - you can't carry into a hospital, but why? Its stupid, and hospitals are not immune from gun violence and there are plenty of cases where violence occurred at a hospital and armed people intervened, or were the target of the hostiles and had to defend themselves.

Same with the prohibition on nursing homes, polling places (hmm, a place that draws large crowds engaging in the democratic processes, a perfect target for someone deranged and bent on violence - lets disarm everyone there except special people with government badges!)

If you want an LTC because it is a fast-pass around NICS, great. If you want an LTC to carry in states that require it for reciprocity - great. But to have LTC holders and permitless carriers fall under different rules just because one has given the king his due is bullshit.

I absolutely agree. I believe they should only be allowed to ask you to leave or be trespassed.

 

[cycleguy2300]

This is just one thing that needs fixing with the permitless carry law - doing away with the other restrictions on location also needs fixed. Its a bullshit second-class citizen type system for those who elect not to pay the king his dues to exercise a right.

Where is the subject to arrest for .01bac under CC vs .08bac coming from?

You are subject to TXPC 46.03 (a-6) for both permitless carry and carry under a LTC

Texas Penal Code defines being intoxicated two ways.

1: The loss of normal mental and physical facilities due to the introduction of ANY substance into the body.

2: A statutory presumption of the above if your BAC is .08 or greater.

Sec. 46.02. UNLAWFUL CARRYING WEAPONS

(a-6) A person commits an offense if the person:
(1) carries a handgun while the person is intoxicated; and
(2) is not:
(A) on the person's own property or property under the person's control or on private property with the consent of the owner of the property; or
(B) inside of or directly en route to a motor vehicle or watercraft:
(i) that is owned by the person or under the person's control; or
(ii) with the consent of the owner or operator of the vehicle or watercraft.


Sent from your mom's house using Tapatalk

 

[Sasquatch]

Where is the subject to arrest for .01bac under CC vs .08bac coming from?

You are subject to TXPC 46.03 (a-6) for both permitless carry and carry under a LTC

Texas Penal Code defines being intoxicated two ways.

1: The loss of normal mental and physical facilities due to the introduction of ANY substance into the body.

2: A statutory presumption of the above if your BAC is .08 or greater.

Sec. 46.02. UNLAWFUL CARRYING WEAPONS

(a-6) A person commits an offense if the person:
(1) carries a handgun while the person is intoxicated; and
(2) is not:
(A) on the person's own property or property under the person's control or on private property with the consent of the owner of the property; or
(B) inside of or directly en route to a motor vehicle or watercraft:
(i) that is owned by the person or under the person's control; or
(ii) with the consent of the owner or operator of the vehicle or watercraft.


Sent from your mom's house using Tapatalk

I re-read the law after that article - there's no where its coming from - author seemed to yank that stat right out of his ass. There are plenty of other real things to rectify with the law.

 

[cycleguy2300]

The one thing it does prove is that you are not a criminal, and you have never been treated for mental illness.

Actually, folks who have been treated for mental illness can get and keep an LTC. Even if they are placed into custody under a Police Officer's Emergency Detention (POED) and taken to a mental health facility.

Being treated for mental illness is not a disqualifier unless you had been to court and a judge committed (sentenced) you there. Which out of my many, many POEDs has NEVER happened to my knowledge. You have to be CRAZY to get a full on commitment.

Sent from your mom's house using Tapatalk

 

[cycleguy2300]

So you're an expert on every subject?

Well, he is right...

If he is wrong, drop the relevant law in us brother

Sent from your mom's house using Tapatalk

 

[rogerdmillerco]

From the Bearing Arms blog some stats on the drop in permits. As the article says out I am one to keep getting it renewed for travel to other states.

I am too. The only way you can legally carry in states with reciprocity is with your CHL.