ExactlyThat pertinent, required learning will be skipped or glossed over.
ExactlyThat pertinent, required learning will be skipped or glossed over.
I'm pulled both ways on the "required" aspects of the CHL. In one respect, it allows those that actually want to learn to be exposed to the rules and regulations (however wrong that may be) that we are required to follow to remain law abiding citizens. But then again, if it's a constitutional right, why do we have to do anything to carry a gun? It's a tax, and it provides education for those that want it but ............. ?
That's all good, except I've seen people who couldn't really operate their firearm pass the CHL proficiency test.
One in my class fired a gun for the first time when qualifying, had very little idea how it worked, and passed.
I think that speaks to how much safer you are for the required course.
I feel that being knowledgeable in the applicable laws is the responsibility of the CHL holder.
For this reason I think the required class could be shortened and the laws could be looked at more in depth by the applicant on their own while waiting for their CHL to process.
If someone would like a more in depth class it could be made available but not mandatory, just as they can do for their proficiency now.
If you can't make time for or sit still through a 10 hour class, you shouldn't be licensed to carry a handgun, in the first place. Sheesh. You have to take mandatory classes now to get your TXDL if you're 25 or younger, too. It ain't gonna kill ya.
That pertinent, required learning will be skipped or glossed over.
Exactly
What is exactly is the "Pertinent, required learning," and why would eliminating it be bad?