Are the current requirements to get a CHL sufficient?

[Acetone]

Hey y'all. New member here. I just moved here from the People's Republik of New Jersey. I say that the requirements are too strict. I am licensed to carry by both FL and CT, states that TX at least unilaterally recognizes, but now I move here and have to take a CHL class by a DPS certified instructor. Doesn't really make sense to me. Anyway just wanted to weigh in and say howdy.

 

[KellyAsh]

Some very interesting opinions! So far it's made for a great debate. Keep 'em coming!

 

[M. Sage]

It goes beyond sufficient. It's too much. We need to ditch the whole CHL requirement all together and do what Vermont has always done and what Alaska is also doing.

I will say that we're on the verge of this already with our laws on carry in a vehicle.

 

[TexasRedneck]

Kelly - I don't "try to look good" for "these people". I speak my mind. I also find it amusing that you say I call you names...and then you do so.

 

[TxEMTP69]

I also voted no, only because I think it is way more than it needs to be. I think on the side of safety responsible gun ownership plays into this. You can'pt make someone be responsible, they have to want to be and be diligent in doing so.

as a point there are alot of traffic laws provided for safety and if one is responsible he/she should not be involved in a collision, etc etc.... but there are other factors to be seen such as other drivers or the fact that there alot of irresponsible people out there

You can't buy certain cold medicines without providing a picture ID because irresponsible people use them to make meth, etc...

No matter how much you want people to be, or they should be, you can't make them responsible.

A responsible gun owner who (by requirement at this time) takes a class to get his/her CHL would also have sought training in safety, holstering, concealment (whether it be formal or not) and continue training with said weapon and not just take a class every so many years and pray they pass it again.

 

[KellyAsh]

...No matter how much you want people to be, or they should be, you can't make them responsible.

A responsible gun owner who (by requirement at this time) takes a class to get his/her CHL would also have sought training in safety, holstering, concealment (whether it be formal or not) and continue training with said weapon and not just take a class every so many years and pray they pass it again.

Great point !

 

[DCortez]

My wife and I recently finished our CHL class. As for safety, the instructor did a fair job of talking about it, but it was only talk.

I paid for an NRA safety course for me and my family back in Feb or March. My guns, my family's safety, and knowledge of the law are all MY responsibility.


People, we have to take the bull by the horns.

 

[Texas42]

On principle, I don't think there should be any requirement to carry , openly or concealed.

I've paid my 240 dollars in classes and fees because I'm a law abiding citizen.

I think you are totally off base when you say that "times were different when they wrote the constitution." (not your exact words, but close enough in meaning)

That idea is liberal BS. It gives politicians the ability to erode the people's rights and freedoms. The Bill of Rights is not a "living document." My rights haven't changed because someone else is uncomfortable.

I think that gun safety is essentially 20 minutes being shown how your gun works -or- 45 minutes with the manual.

On top of this, a nice dose of common sense.

You can't make people not be stupid. You can't teach common sense.

You are responsible for your actions with a gun, even accidents.

I think it is just plain wrong to try and make (regulate and legislate) people safe. It won't work, and it will simply erode the people's rights.

PS- I wouldn't call people names on this forum because they make strong opinions that are different than yours.

 

[KellyAsh]

I see alot of people here saying, basically, that it is every Americans RIGHT to carry a firearm.

Let me get this right so we're all clear. When you all are saying that it is every Americans right to purchase/own/carry/bear a gun does this include criminals as well?

It sounds like a rediculous question but I feel like it should be asked given the number of flat out, "Its a right, not a priveledge" comments.

 

[Texas42]

Felons lose rights. (and domestic violence misdemeaners)

They also don't have the right to vote.

I think they, given a special set of criteria, many felons should be given the opportunity to regain their rights back.

The only problam I have with the misdemeaner domestic violence thing is that different states have different statues for DV misdemeaner.

As to the CHL class being a tad weak on gun safety. . . . it is.

It is also a tad weak on gun laws. A lot of them are simple, but many are not. It takes a lot of work to be really comfortable. I don't think ten hours should make anyone feel comfortable.

I think that anyone who can't pass the shooting section of the CHL has some serious problems, but I don't think that the test should be any harder. I don't think a CHL should be for those select few individuals who have the proficiency that comes of being able to hit a nail at 25 yards.

I'd also call anyone who goes though the CHL class, and then stops training is an idiot. It happens.

It annoys me that there are few shooting ranges that will let you do any basic kind of real training.

I guess to summerize, I think the Texas CHL requirements are weak. If I were to only stay with these minnimums, I'd be a fool.

I don't think they should be harder. I believe in personal responsibility.

(sorry for the misspellings and rambling : ) )

 

[Hoji]

I'll bite,

Yes, felons absolutely should be allowed to have guns. If it is safe to return them to society{ ie, they have paid their debt} then restore their rights and seal their records so the only ones who will have access are the courts, and then only if they reoffend.

That being said, some felons{ even first offense} should never see the light of day as a free citizen.

If their debt to society is paid, why would we want to keep punishing them for the rest of their lives? Just keep them in prison.

 

[KellyAsh]

Felons lose rights. (and domestic violence misdemeaners)

They also don't have the right to vote.

I think they, given a special set of criteria, many felons should be given the opportunity to regain their rights back.

The only problam I have with the misdemeaner domestic violence thing is that different states have different statues for DV misdemeaner.

As to the CHL class being a tad weak on gun safety. . . . it is.

It is also a tad weak on gun laws. A lot of them are simple, but many are not. It takes a lot of work to be really comfortable. I don't think ten hours should make anyone feel comfortable.

I think that anyone who can't pass the shooting section of the CHL has some serious problems, but I don't think that the test should be any harder. I don't think a CHL should be for those select few individuals who have the proficiency that comes of being able to hit a nail at 25 yards.

I'd also call anyone who goes though the CHL class, and then stops training is an idiot. It happens.

It annoys me that there are few shooting ranges that will let you do any basic kind of real training.

I guess to summerize, I think the Texas CHL requirements are weak. If I were to only stay with these minnimums, I'd be a fool.

I don't think they should be harder. I believe in personal responsibility.

(sorry for the misspellings and rambling : ) )

LOL, thank you for your input. I agree with most everything you said here.

 

[KellyAsh]

I'll bite,

Yes, felons absolutely should be allowed to have guns. If it is safe to return them to society{ ie, they have paid their debt} then restore their rights and seal their records so the only ones who will have access are the courts, and then only if they reoffend.

That being said, some felons{ even first offense} should never see the light of day as a free citizen.

If their debt to society is paid, why would we want to keep punishing them for the rest of their lives? Just keep them in prison.

Im unclear about what if they reoffend...only if they reoffend... what happens then?

 

[DirtyD]

Castration, both legally as far as their rights and physically.....

 

[KellyAsh]

Castration, both legally as far as their rights and physically.....

LOL...for starters depending on the crime.

 

[Starker]

I'll bite,

Yes, felons absolutely should be allowed to have guns. If it is safe to return them to society{ ie, they have paid their debt} then restore their rights and seal their records so the only ones who will have access are the courts, and then only if they reoffend.

That being said, some felons{ even first offense} should never see the light of day as a free citizen.

If their debt to society is paid, why would we want to keep punishing them for the rest of their lives? Just keep them in prison.

I totally agree with you! Case in point, sex offenders. We let them out of prison and brand them for the rest of their life. If they are so dangerous, why do we even let them out? Why mess with all of the registration and bans from where they can live to where they can work? Are they dangerous or are they not? If they are dangerous, don't let them out.

 

[DirtyD]

Actually want to ammend my post above. What I should have said was, they should be castrated, lobotomized and then make a registered Democrat sponsor them in their own home for the rest of their natural life....

 

[SIG_Fiend]

First off, I put this poll in the wrong section. Im good a that but I can claim noob as a defense. LOL

Secondly, I would like to say that this polls intention is to encourage healthy debate and not condemnation of anyone.

Since I started this poll, I will give my 2 cents first.

I believe the current requirements fall short of ensuring safe handgun carriers in the general public.

I believe people should be required to prove safe firearm handling which was not part of either CHL class I took.

We never had to demonstrate keeping your finger off the trigger nor did we have to demonstrate, or were allowed to, unholster or holster our firearms on the range.

The 3 basic firearm safety rules were not required, that I remember. Please correct me if this is a requirement.

Basically, it seems that the guys making my burgers and fries have more training than Texas requires its CHL applicants to have.

Let the debate begin!

No amount of legislation or regulation in the world, no matter how difficult, will ever prevent idiots from committing acts of idiocy. No offense but, such methods of thinking are a logic trap. You simply cannot control people in a free society. The best you can do is your best to encourage people to seek out safety and self defense training. People have to make their own choices, whether you, I, or the government likes it or not, and that is a truly free society. As far as I'm concerned, no license should be necessary for a law-abiding citizen to conceal or open carry a firearm. I sell guns for a living, and a deal with all manner of Darwin award candidates all day long. I do my best to try and educate people with the time available to me, and to try to open their eyes and encourage them to seek out training. It's not my business and it's not the government's whether they do something about that or not.

Another argument you will commonly here for stricter carry laws is that people carrying guns in public should have to prove something, to prove they won't cause mayhem in public. Again, this line of thought is completely meaningless. Idiots seal their own fate, and no matter how strict the laws they will inevitably fall through the cracks regardless. It is completely 180 degrees contrary to the American ideal of personal freedom to be catering laws towards the lowest common denominator.

How about this. Instead of this mindset of government forced "responsibility", how about we start doing things to encourage people to do stuff on their own? You know those PSA commercials you used to see on TV about talking to your children about drugs, adopting a pet, etc? Well how about we start running PSA's, privately sponsored TV ads, newspaper articles, radio ads, etc encouraging people to attend firearms training schools, go to the shooting range and practice, etc etc? How about that? There are plenty of positive things we could do, that usually aren't being done currently, without falling into the improper mindset of having the government force people to do stuff. We need to stop worrying about what everyone else is doing in this country, and rather focus on ourselves instead and being the best we can be.

 

[KellyAsh]

Some great points made Sig Fiend, and I agree with you on many.

I would totally agree with you on all points IF we lived in a truely free society and one where personal responsibilty was actually taken by people. Unfortunately we dont live in a free society and too many people have been taught that they should rely on laws and the courts to take responsibility out of their hands and the courts have acquiesced thereby confirming peoples beliefs, in their own minds, that they dont have to be responsible, however untrue you and I know this to be. So in a better world, my thinking might be flawed and pointless but in this world, I cant agree. I think the best answer for our woes lies somewhere in between my and your thinking.

While we might not be able to force responsibility on people we are forced to try to do so by the incessant lawsuits in order to cover our hineys.

I agree with you on the idea that we are all each, individually responsible for our own part in keeping people safe through our own training. I think the vast majority, if not all, on this forum believe this way also. I do, however, recognize how things are out in the rest of the world.

Until we do have a truely responsible society I think your ideas of PSAs and simply encouraging people to seek out adequate training for themselves is a great idea and could help create the society we all have envisioned. Until then, I believe we have to work with what we have and work towards what we want.

Thanks for the great post Sig Fiend!

 

[GI-John]

True but

I totally agree with you! Case in point, sex offenders. We let them out of prison and brand them for the rest of their life. If they are so dangerous, why do we even let them out? Why mess with all of the registration and bans from where they can live to where they can work? Are they dangerous or are they not? If they are dangerous, don't let them out.

I think everyone agrees that there is no punishment harsh enough for a sex offender. You are right, if the courts deem the person unfit to be around law abiding citizens why release them? The reality is the prison system is a failure, actually it is worse its almost a complete backfire in some cases. i guess one of the more obvious reasons is Prison capacity.... There are alot of $#!t bags out there and only so much room for them.