Are the current requirements to get a CHL sufficient?

[Fisherman777]

Well, many people were not blessed with a father that taught them gun safety and hunting skills. I never had to take a hunter safety course, but looking back I can see where it would have been worth while when I was a kid. At 14 I had my own 12 gauge pump and a Ruger Single Six. Looking back I'm lucky I didn't kill someone. My father was not a gun person, neither was my mother. I was cut loose to learn on my own. I used to ride out to the fields with my 12 gauge in a case across the handlebars of my bike and go blast anything that flew. I am sure there are more kids like that than we would like to believe. So are you saying it is not a good idea to have then take a class ?

Please understand I am not trying to start an arguement, just curious about people's opinions. Like I said , this probably needs to be another topic, so I'll start one in a while, and we can all discuss it there.

I'm not saying that it shouldn't be available. I am saying that it shouldn't be a requirement. For instance, if I am taking my son hunting or shooting for the first time, I'll teach him. For those who don't have the experience, they can go to a class or seek out an experienced friend or relative. It should be a choice.

 

[DoubleActionCHL]

Ok, I think we're spinning wildly out of control here. I agree with KellyAsh, as someone else said, in a perfect world. Yes, EVERYONE needs this training, and much, much more. It should NOT be government mandated. This is where personal responsibility must be factored in and, as much as I hate to say it, Darwin will play a part.

It's simply not feasible in the CHL class. We demonstrate and harp on safety, but safety is a practice and a mindset; not something picked up in a lecture. Teaching what you suggest brings in all sorts of logistics problems, equipment issues, etc. The safety considerations, alone, are enough to scrap the idea.

Most instructors tell students repeatedly that the CHL class is just the beginning; that they NEED more training. Students must understand that ‘instruction’ is not training. Sadly, only about 10% return for more training.

If my class lasts ten hours and one minute, students complain, even though the state requires 10 hours minimum, 15 hours maximum. If I could let them out early, most would jump at the chance. Most people these days want as much as they can get with the least investment. What the hell? They know what they're doing. They watch Jack Bauer on 24, after all!

The futility of this instruction in one session is my major point. Even if we could fit it in, it wouldn't stick. In my private lessons, I'll harp on indexing (finger off the trigger) for an hour in the classroom, then again for an hour during my shooting session. At the end of two hours of one-on-one constant nagging, most are STILL placing their finger on the trigger. This is a skill or habit developed over time and through repetition. In a class of 20 students, how many hours of classroom and shooting, preaching and nagging, would I have to dedicate to this one skill?

 

[Texas42]

I think we need some comic relief about now.

YouTube - DEA Agent Shoots Himself[/URL]

Just to remind everyone about safely holstering a gun. : P

 

[DCortez]

I'm the only one in this room professional enough, that I know of, to accidently discharge this Glock .40

Classic

 

[Seabear1500]

No sound on this one, but just about as funny.
YouTube - Court House Shooting El Paso, Tx[/URL]

I use that first one with the Glock in my classes.

 

[DoubleActionCHL]

I'm the only one in this room professional enough, that I know of, to accidently discharge this Glock .40

Classic

ND! ND!!!!

 

[longtooth]

Sufficeient & more. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand.

 

[jagged97]

i voted, "yes." the current requirements to get a CHL in Texas are sufficient in that they go too far, are unnecessary and certainly could be construed as, and in some peoples' opinions, are unconstitutional.

on a further note, there appears to be a misconception on the part of some who have written here (not all) that because there is a LAW requiring a license (and class/certification process) that it is somehow a privilege granted by the government (local, state, whatever) to be able to carry a concealed handgun.

the fact is an unalienable right is just that, regardless, in spite of and non-contingent upon any laws drafted, passed, confirmed and/or upheld by a court restricting that right. the restriction of a right by law, is just a restriction. the right still exists, unalienable and forever.

the bill of rights is not a list of all of the rights we possess, nor does the constitution stoop so low as to be the be-all-end-all of our freedoms. many of the founding fathers did not want the bill of rights at all for reasons we see today. many thought that the bill of rights would lead, eventually, to the perception that those illustrated are the only rights we have. even still, the bill of rights doesn't state what we, as free citizens, can or can't do, only what the federal government can't do. at least, that seems to have been the intention based on the original 10 amendments.

basically, that we have restrictions on our rights based on past behavior does not turn those rights into a privilege. we have simply removed or restricted the freedoms of some based on their behavior. (of course along the way, we have restricted so many of our freedoms it is difficult to see the freedom for the restrictions.)

the key is that the government can't grant anyone any rights; we have them already. it can only restrict or remove them, and that only by coercion, force and the acquiescence (apathy and ignorance included) of the citizens.

my soapbox is now squared away.

 

[randmplumbingllc]

REQUIRING training is B.S.

Am I any less a citizen because I CAN'T shoot the target in the alotted time ? How about , if I can't stand ? How about , if I can't afford the classes and ammo ?

The 2nd ammendment says "keep AND bear arms" shall not be infringed.

You don't have a constitutional RIGHT to drive a car, so you need a license, but YOU DO have a RIGHT to keep and bear arms.

 

[DoubleActionCHL]

No, owning, possessing, or even carrying a firearm isn't a privilege, in the strictest sense. However, we've allowed our government to turn it into an effective privilege. They've infringed upon our unalienable right to keep and bear arms time and time again. Any time you are required to take a class, pay a fee, carry a license, you're engaging in a privilege, not a right. Until we change things, carrying a gun has been relegated to the status of 'privilege.' When are we going to insist on raising it back to the status of a 'right?'

 

[Fisherman777]

Sufficeient & more. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand.

Thank you!

 

[jagged97]

No, owning, possessing, or even carrying a firearm isn't a privilege, in the strictest sense. However, we've allowed our government to turn it into an effective privilege. They've infringed upon our unalienable right to keep and bear arms time and time again. Any time you are required to take a class, pay a fee, carry a license, you're engaging in a privilege, not a right. Until we change things, carrying a gun has been relegated to the status of 'privilege.' When are we going to insist on raising it back to the status of a 'right?'

well said.

 

[KellyAsh]

Man, you guys have made some GREAT posts! I LOVE those two videos! How about this one? CLASSIC !!!

YouTube - Female Cop

How much training has this officer had? A bunch. How much MORE training would it require to keep this officers finger off the trigger? God only knows but it does reinforce DoubleActions' sentiment about the amount of time available in one CHL class not being sufficient to change an indexing habit.

 

[DCortez]

WTFudge!

 

[Texas42]

If I was a jury, I wouldn't have a problem calling that murder.

 

[DirtyD]

She put one in the asphalt to the side of his head. If I recall he walked out of court with a hefty settlement.....

 

[SIG_Fiend]

The situation is really very simple. The fact of the matter is we have never, do not currently, and will likely never live in a perfect society. The problem with our country in a great many areas is that many have strived to use the law to cater to the lowest common denominator, assuming this is somehow going to help us become a perfect society. Here's a newsflash, real life doesn't work like that. Idiots are idiots plain and simple. You cannot train idiots, but you can certainly die trying. Perfection is simple. Make the laws simple, idiots will seal their own fate. People will still do stupid stuff, go to prison for it, or die from it the same as we currently have. The difference is we will no longer be punishing law-abiding citizens instead, and what we WILL have is a great deal more safety due to more and more law-abiding citizens taking advantage of their rights and learning to defend themselves from all those idiots. Stop catering to idiots, and instead let them figure out all on their own that if they are unsafe, they pose a risk to themselves and others.

Try this analogy on for size. Speed limits are general and do not discriminate based on the driver. I can safely drive above the speed limit in most cases and without posing a risk to myself or others because I am almost always in condition yellow, understand the limits and capabilities of my vehicle, etc. I have known and seen people who can drive 50% under the speed limit, still manage to cause a 10 car pile up, and probably end up flying off the highway into a building BECAUSE THEY ARE FRIGGIN IDIOTS! No need to punish me because someone is too stupid for their own good. And automobiles can cause far more damage than a handful of guns.

 

[Libertarian_Longhorn]

Typical cop. I am not boastful nor proud, but I can handle and shoot better than 90% of the cops out there. As for the CHL. THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS MY CONCEALED HANDGUN LICENSE.

 

[Lmccrock]

Voted "Yes", because I already had the gun handling experience as did most of my class. In fact, my class had a prerequisite of "Required: previous handgun shooting experience, or Basic Pistol or equivalent", and they offer several intro classes, just not during the CHL.

Not sure I would have wanted a basics class during my CHL training, anyway, because it would waste my time.

Lee

 

[Big_Blue]

I voted YES. After reading through all of this, and seeing how everyone feels, the class I took talked about Handgun safety, and indexing, but that was it. We were in lecture the whole time, without free time, between that and the range time needed for the course. After waiting a few months for the license, most of that is knowledge lost, and it is our own responsibility to get extra training on your own. I have also read the Handbook on CHL Laws, and keep it with me at all times, if I need to refer to it.

My thinking is that we all need to take that upon ourselves, and can't rely on someone else to do it for you, or make you do it. Even if it was added to the course, there is no way it would be enough to make you a safer carrier. Good luck to all of you, and be safe.