shorten chl class?

[Code3GT]

I don't have "private fears", nor do I think we should have to have the classes/licenses to carry a firearm. The fact is, we do, until we pass legislation that rids the books of laws stating we must take a class, pay a fee, and jump through the hoops. All I put forth was the fact that I personally am glad I took the class and gained knowledge that makes me more responsible. I don't see that part as a negative and its worth my time and money since it could mean the difference in a SD scenario. My suggestions were under the assumption that the state would continue to require the hoops, therefore if I could theoretically change them, I would by taking power away from the state/fed and putting it back in the hands of citizens. Good discussion, great topic!

 

[GaryH]

Becasue all of those are state granted privileges

What business is it of the State what we do? You give them the right to limit you on one or two things, and they try to limit you on other things as well. There are cameras everywhere. Have you seen a drone overhead yet?

I'm not trying to hijack this thread, and leaving it at this is fine with me.

As far as the long class being required, if I'm going to take a class I want to get as much info as possible, and if it takes all day to do it I'll go along just because I'm as interested in finding out what will keep my ass out of a sling as I am in carrying concealed. Ignorance of the law is no excuse I've been told.

 

[Bone]

In my class, somehow people with no prior firearm experience were allowed to take the class and barely pass the range requirements. It sounds pretty common from what I hear, for some people to treat the CHL class as an introductory firearms course.

The old lady who brought her never-fired LCR proceeded to muzzle the entire classroom at the range. She did get yelled at. But for that reason, I think the class should remain at the current length or lengthened to increase range time. There really are some idiots who shouldn't have a gun in their hand without proper training and maybe this is the only way for that to happen.

 

[V-Tach]

The old lady who brought her never-fired LCR proceeded to muzzle the entire classroom at the range. She did get yelled at. But for that reason

She should not have passed for having a major safety violation, imho.....

 

[OLDVET]

I read all of the chest beating and bravado on this matter here.
To me, the reason the state requires a person to take a CHL class is to acquire at least some basic knowledge of the laws concerning the use of deadly force and to have some practical range time. I am fully aware that most people that post on this site have experience with some type of firearm, or at least claim to have experience.
You must get past the end of your nose, and realize there are a large number of people out there that have the same 2nd amendment right as we do, but do not have the understanding nor skills required to do so. These are the people that should benefit the most from the CHL training.
It is scary these days when you go to a public shooting range and see the new people that are shooting. The common rules of firearm safety go out the window once they open the box and take out their firearm.
I personally have over 45 years of firearms experience starting with my service in the Army through today. Do I mind having to go through an initial CHL class or renewal class, not some much. I have learned something each time I have attended a class.
I had to get a license to legally drive, even though my uncle taught me to drive on his farm when I was 12. I had to get a marriage license to get married, which should have been between my wife, me, and God. Licenses and classes are just part of the norm these days.
CHL classes are a good thing for the uneducated shooter, and don't hurt us "old pros" either when you really think about it..

 

[Vaquero]

It ain't about the training, or exprience. It's about havint to pay for a license to exercise a right spelled out in the constitution.
Like needing a license to write a congressman or senator.

 

[Big Dipper]

Perhaps people should also be trained and licensed in order to vote.

I look around and see a lot of ignorant people who do not educate themselves, voting for morons that promise them things they cannot deliver.

Alas that is also a right (the right to be stupid and incompetent at the polls) that cannot be infringed upon.

 

[OLDVET]

Big Dipper, we can't argue with mental midgets.
The second amendment states we have the right to keep and bear arms. The Supreme Court narrowly defended that idea here recently. In a side comment he Supreme Court gave the Government (both Federal and Local) the right to legislate how and where we can keep and bear arms.
If you don't like it, vote the bastards out. If you didn't vote, then shut the "F" up.

 

[GrandpaOf18]

It ain't about the training, or exprience. It's about havint to pay for a license to exercise a right spelled out in the constitution.
Like needing a license to write a congressman or senator.

Shhhhh!!!! Don't give them any Ideas

 

[Acera]

Question to you OLDVET, why do some states require it and others don't??? Explain to me why Texans are different please.



BTW there are a lot of folks that don't have the benefit of the 2nd amendment like we do.

I guess with your logic about marriage licenses, drivers license, the norm these days' etc. if the rest of the folks are doing it why should we not do it.........kinda like the lemming thing right??

You can have your desire along with your "old pro" attitude, but don't place your inadequacies on me, the class for me is a waste of time, money and insulting to me as a citizen (IMHO). I am however glad they are out there for you folks that feel you need them. So is law school if you want to really learn about the firearm laws, and it's a joke if you think you get fully informed in a CHL class, so are NRA sponsored classes and others (few good instructors on this board) that will teach you all aspects of firearm safety and operation if you want to exercise you choice to go to those.

It is scary these days when you go to a public shooting range and see the new people that are shooting. The common rules of firearm safety go out the window once they open the box and take out their firearm.

Please explain how a CHL class will solve this problem. (Especially if some of those people have no interest in having a CHL)

 

[OLDVET]

Acera, Answer to your first question is - because they can.
I can see the rest of my thoughts are going to be wasted on a person as narrowed minded as you are.
I never said I liked any of the fees and classes and such we have to deal with. I am sorry you feel insulted by a CHL class that tries to ensure you learn at least something about the laws governing Texas. I assume you may have been one of those wonder children that just jumped into your mother's car and started driving, or you didn't go to school because you already knew more than the teachers.

Some friends of mine are CHL instructors. Their view is that Texas wants people to understand the conquensces for using your firearm and have a basic idea of the laws governing the use of deadly force.

As far as new gun owners at the range, these people are attending CHL classes in increasingly larger numbers each year. The largest group of new shooters is women.


I have said my piece and you have opined your position. I try to be constructive on this website, so I am finished with this subject. I suggest you do the same.

 

[Acera]

I understand your adolescent attempt at insults OLDVET, but you still don't answer the question why are Texans treated different? The line 'because they can' is as big a cop out as any I have heard in this thread. I feel insulted because they don't think I am as smart as those folks in other states, and want to require me to do things that others are not for no other reason than the place I choose to live.

Most of the CHL instructors I know are in it for the money, not many do a lot of free classes for the poor or because they believe it's their civic duty to educate the ignorant masses.

Really how much of a correlation is there between people at a range and CHL classes? Two separate things in the majority of instances. Yeah, some go because they believe they need to practice prior to the class, but many go to the ranges just to shoot.

I have said my piece and you have opined your position. I try to be constructive on this website, so I am finished with this subject. I suggest you do the same.

No, don't try that chicken shit approach for some ego boosting last word crap. You put words out there, deal with them.

 

[GaryH]

Acera, you keep asking why are Texans treated differently from people in other states? I guess because Texans are governed by Texas laws, and people in other states are governed by their states' laws. I suppose I'm kinda asking the same question, because I'd like to know why Texas doesn't allow real constitutional carry like Vermont where there seems to be no restriction at all. Do Vermonters have more freedom than Texans? In Wyoming there's no gun restrictions unless you're a non-resident. Why aren't Texans as unrestricted as those in that state?

Now Acera, why aren't we allowed the same freedoms as those in Vermont and Wyoming?

 

[inceptor]

Most of the CHL instructors I know are in it for the money, not many do a lot of free classes for the poor or because they believe it's their civic duty to educate the ignorant masses.

I'm with you on this one comrade. CHL instructors, mechanics, HVAC techs they are all in it for the money. Burns my butt they charge for these services. Maybe Obummer can fix this too.

 

[Bone]

I am all about our constitutional rights, but just like a driving license, there are just some people too stupid or careless to be trusted with dangerous machinery.

I wish the old lady had failed our class but she managed to get just enough lead in the torso-sized target to pass. It makes me nervous to this day that she walks around with that LCR floating around in her purse.

 

[Shorts]

It makes me nervous to this day that she walks around with that LCR floating around in her purse.

I don't think she's firing it each time she carries. The point of even having a gun is use it as a last resort, not firing on a whim while walking around the grocery store.

Besides, if she's aiming at you, you'll likely live if she's as bad a shot as you imply she is.

 

[Acera]

Now Acera, why aren't we allowed the same freedoms as those in Vermont and Wyoming?

I guess it's because we are just a bunch of dumb rednecks who cling to our guns and religion, plus we don't know any better. Thank god we have extra laws in Texas to govern us or we might go hog wild. Our laws must be written so we are treated as children, hot weather makes us forget shit, and we will run with scissors if not warned against that regularly. Those other states must obviously breed smarter folks, that coupled with the little known fact that cold weather keeps stuff frozen in your brain better, makes their citizens safer to be trusted with basic freedoms.

Or could it be that Vermont, Wyoming etc. do not have large, diverse, urban populations that must be kept under tight control? I guess this thread should not delve into how gun control has a history of blatant racism..........

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate and cherish the freedoms we do have here in Texas where exercising my 2nd amendment rights are not nearly as restricted as in NY, IL, CA, NJ, etc.

I am all about our constitutional rights, but just like a driving license, there are just some people too stupid or careless to be trusted with dangerous machinery.

That sentiment scares me, because I know the anti's would love us to have to prove competency before ownership.





(You have no idea how hard it was not to write this 'because we don't know any better' as 'cause we don't no no better' to see if I could get a rise out of the grammar nazi's, and get in the pet peeve thread. LOL.)

 

[Shorts]

That sentiment scares me, because I know the anti's would love us to have to prove competency before ownership.

Pretty much the gist of "rights for me but not for thee".


"I don't think you are good enough to _____. So I will make a test for you to pass so I can feel comfortable."

I think I heard something similarly disgusting:

 

[GaryH]

Acera, regardless of how you or I or anybody else feels about it they do have laws on the books. Some of which, if we disobey, will land us in prison. You almost sound as if you might consider yourself a sovereign citizen. In principle I don't disagree with that line of thinking, but all that seems to do is get one killed by the popo.

When we are growing up just about all we heard from our parents (previous generation) is the word NO. No, you can't do this or you can't do that. In school, many of us heard the word no pretty often.....no, you can't wear mirrors on your tennis shoes, etc. Now, as adults, we find there are as many things we can't do as we can do. We can't call a bitchy female co-worker a ****. We can't tell some young chick at work that she has nice cleavage, and legislators can't tell 17 yo girls that are testifying about something reptile related that he has a snake under the desk for her. We still hear the dreaded NO. It's a fact of life, and unless we live on an island somewhere out in the ocean where we are the only inhabitants, there is going to be someone to tell us what to do. Temper tantrums won't help us.

 

[GaryH]

Shorts, so what's more important, people on campus feeling safe or a rape victim being safe? How can an assailant take a gun away from you if he has blood from a head wound running in his eyes?

I know it is terrible for me to say this, and I pray I'm some day forgiven for what I'm about to say, but I hope that old woman and the wife and daughters of those voting away rights of people to defend themselves find themselve on the wrong end of a dick.