What do yall think about the CHL shooting test?

[JKTex]

I am kinda coming around to some of the points made about responsibilities and 2nd Amendment rights, but this correlation to driver licenses begs another question. You have to pass a test before you can get a driver license. Based on your stance, I can't help but wonder if you'd support having to pass a test before you can buy a gun. The mere fact that you are purchasing a gun, even without having a CHL, implies that you might use it to defend yourself at some point. So, playing devil's advocate, why would you not support a testing process for purchasing a gun?

I used the comparison as general and almost tongue in cheek just to make a point but your questions is a good on since I brought it up.

However, that question requires both scenarios be leveled out. If you have to pass the Drivers test before you get your license, you'd have to pass a CHL test before you get your license as well.

I say CHL because I can't and won't support having to have a license to buy a gun. But if you take the road that says, if you succumb to the State's process of having to getting a State issued license to be able to exercise what most believe to be a 2A right, to carry a gun, I think we've given that up that right and accepted it as a privilege in order to actually practice what is/was a right.

So if we've given up the right in exchange for making it a privilege, and the State controls that process, the state should then own the responsibility of doing more, as they do with a driving test, to make sure anyone given a license has proven not only hands on use, but knowledge of the laws as well.

Just like a driving test where you have to pass the "written" portion before taking the active hands on portion.

If the CHL was administered in a similar manner, some people may not make it through the first time, but once they've learned enough to pass, they'd be safer.

I know that's far fetched I'm not saying that's what I want to see and it's certainly not through completely through, but if the State is going to control it, why should the State not be more effective?

If it's truly still a right then the State has no need to take any action. Those who want to carry do, those who do not, don't and we rely on people being responsible.

 

[40Arpent]

I understand where you're coming from, JKTex, and no longer disagree as I emphatically did.

Something just struck me as I reread my post: Do you have to have a driver license in order to buy a car? I have bought 3 cars in the last 4 years, and I can't remember if that was a purchase requirement. Don't worry, I won't use the answer as further argument or otherwise. It's just something I should have known before I made that previous post of mine. LOL

 

[JKTex]

I understand where you're coming from, JKTex, and no longer disagree as I emphatically did.

Something just struck me as I reread my post: Do you have to have a driver license in order to buy a car? I have bought 3 cars in the last 4 years, and I can't remember if that was a purchase requirement. Don't worry, I won't use the answer as further argument or otherwise. It's just something I should have known before I made that previous post of mine. LOL

That's funny, as I was thinking and typing earlier, I was thinking the same thing. I sold cars back in the day too and I had to think about it.

When you buy from a dealer, they usually get a copy of your DL for ID purpose and that stays with the deal but isn't needed for title transfer, registration or tax purposes. Think about private sales and doing a title transfer at the DMV also. Nothing requires a DL.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

What do I think of the test? Well, my arthritic 72 year old frail mother shot a 248 out of 250 using a Glock 26. Because of the arthritis and a couple of wrist issues with one hand, she doesn't have a "proper" grip. Her fingers don't quite move as far as needed in the directions required and her wrist hurts during recoil if she has a proper firing position and so she just doesn't quite look like she has a clue. Of course, compared to most folks who get their CHLs, she shoots a lot. She goes shooting 4 or 5 times a year. She went through a whole case of Blazer ammo in just under 2 years, LOL! Mind you, that is compared to all those folks who unload their carry ammo from the gun they last loaded when they left their last CHL qualification class years before.

I think what I find bothering is that mom outshot nearly everyone in her class, including some self-professed "shooters."

Mom isn't quick on the draw, but if she can get her sights on target, she can hit her target.

How does the joke evaulation saying go..."sets low standards and fails to achieve them." I think the CHL shooting quals are low standards and way to many folks seem to barely be able to achieve them.

 

[txinvestigator]

Let's set a standard that I choose. It will not be easy, but will be one I can pass. If YOU can't, then too bad for you.

Anyone game?

 

[DoubleActionCHL]

I'm amused at the seemingly contradictory views on this subject. On one hand, we're hardcore 2nd Amendment supporters. "What part of 'shall not be infringed' do you not understand?" we'll exclaim. On the other hand, we'll balk at the minimal requirements for a CHL shooting test.

Fascinating...

 

[txinvestigator]

I'm amused at the seemingly contradictory views on this subject. On one hand, we're hardcore 2nd Amendment supporters. "What part of 'shall not be infringed' do you not understand?" we'll exclaim. On the other hand, we'll balk at the minimal requirements for a CHL shooting test.

Fascinating...

atriot:

 

[JKTex]

I'm amused at the seemingly contradictory views on this subject. On one hand, we're hardcore 2nd Amendment supporters. "What part of 'shall not be infringed' do you not understand?" we'll exclaim. On the other hand, we'll balk at the minimal requirements for a CHL shooting test.

Fascinating...

I'm not sure where that's aimed or if I fully understand what you're saying, but my point (and it's all just been talking points and discussion, not what I necessarily believe) is that if you are that "...hardcore 2nd Amendment supporters. "What part of 'shall not be infringed' do you not understand?" we'll exclaim..." person, you lay all that down when you walk over the line and succumb to the State licensing process in order to carry a handgun.

By doing so, have you not accepted the ability to carry as a privilege and no longer as a right?

It's something to make you go hmmmmm", anyway.

 

[JKTex]

Let's set a standard that I choose. It will not be easy, but will be one I can pass. If YOU can't, then too bad for you.

Anyone game?

I agree with where you're coming from. But if we're comparing it to the drivers license testing and requirements, driving requirements are not at the level of a professional racer or stunt car driver nor does the written part equal that of a lawyer or DPS, but the State comes up with a basic test to prove reasonable proficiency. Of course we all see drivers every day that could never have actually passed any kind of test!!

 

[DoubleActionCHL]

I'm not sure where that's aimed or if I fully understand what you're saying, but my point (and it's all just been talking points and discussion, not what I necessarily believe) is that if you are that "...hardcore 2nd Amendment supporters. "What part of 'shall not be infringed' do you not understand?" we'll exclaim..." person, you lay all that down when you walk over the line and succumb to the State licensing process in order to carry a handgun.

By doing so, have you not accepted the ability to carry as a privilege and no longer as a right?

It's something to make you go hmmmmm", anyway.

I agree that, to a degree, we have to go along to get along. The alternative would find us in a cell up in Huntsville, or worse. I fully believe that carrying a handgun is a right. Our government has framed it as a privilege, but as Malcolm and Quannel are fond of saying, "A cat can hab kittens in a ubben, but dat don't make 'em biscuits."

And my original statement was designed to be thought provoking, not insulting. We all fall into the trap of taking what we can get, rather than what we own as human beings. If only there was a way that like-minded individuals could act as a group.

 

[JKTex]

And my original statement was designed to be thought provoking, not insulting. We all fall into the trap of taking what we can get, rather than what we own as human beings. If only there was a way that like-minded individuals could act as a group.

I agree completely. Imagine what could be achieved.

 

[DoubleActionCHL]

I agree completely. Imagine what could be achieved.

Obama supporters did it. Why can't we?

I saw a bumper sticker on a VW that said:

got hope?

I'm thinking that about this time next year, that VW driver will be on a street corner with a cardboard sign that says:

got change?

Hope and change... gotta love it!

 

[txinvestigator]

I agree with where you're coming from. But if we're comparing it to the drivers license testing and requirements, driving requirements are not at the level of a professional racer or stunt car driver nor does the written part equal that of a lawyer or DPS, but the State comes up with a basic test to prove reasonable proficiency. Of course we all see drivers every day that could never have actually passed any kind of test!!

Why would I compare a CHL to a DL? Again, apples and oranges. I MAY use my handgun once. MAYBE. I drive everyday with others who are on the same roadway. I use taxpayer roads.

How is carrying a firearm like that?

But I'll play. Some say the test is too easy. Then to what standard do you make it? I guarantee I can make it where many would not pass but I can. Then there are those who could create one they can pass, but would eliminate me.

You who want tougher standards will be screaming as soon as that standard eliminates you.

 

[Shorts]

I see several sides of this. From practicality, safety and skills, the test is very easy. For consitutional sake, there shouldn't even be a test, much less a fee. But right now, it is what it is.


As said above, the state can make the test where the top percentage of marksman would pass. But then that would leave us ordinary folks out of luck in regards to being able to attain a CHL. Kind of defeats the whole 2A thing.


The people who are interested in carrying and doing so with skill and ready will take the time before or after CHL to get training. Both skill wise and preparedness. Those that truly take it seriously will train and learn on a constant basis from here on out. They will carry every day, regardless. There is a percentage of CHL holders who will not carry often and will probably leave their gun in a drawer or safe at home and only take it on road trips. That's just the way it goes with anything.

 

[JKTex]

Why would I compare a CHL to a DL? Again, apples and oranges. I MAY use my handgun once. MAYBE. I drive everyday with others who are on the same roadway. I use taxpayer roads.

How is carrying a firearm like that?

But I'll play. Some say the test is too easy. Then to what standard do you make it? I guarantee I can make it where many would not pass but I can. Then there are those who could create one they can pass, but would eliminate me.

You who want tougher standards will be screaming as soon as that standard eliminates you.

You're missing the gist. This has gone beyond reality into hypothetical land.

I said "if" based on the previous replies which again have gone beyond reality.

There is no requirement for how much or if you even drive once you have a license. However, yes, I agree in reality use is very different. Cars are generally driven on taxpayer roads and the handgun may be used in SD on a taxpayer.

We took the perspective of the CHL and carrying a handgun, and brought it past the point were we're no longer considering it a right to carry, but a privilege because we are accepting that we can only carry if that privilege is bestowed upon us by the state. From that perspective, the comparison of a drivers license, or any license to be able to legally do anything, HVAC Licence, Irrigation License etc. etc. and are saying the State could do more with the test to make sure a CHL applicant can actually handle and operate a handgun at the most basic level.

Again, it's just rambling and hypothetical to pass the time and think.

 

[txinvestigator]

. This has gone beyond reality into hypothetical land.

I said "if" based on the previous replies which again have gone beyond reality.


We took the perspective of the CHL and carrying a handgun, and brought it past the point were we're no longer considering it a right to carry, but a privilege because we are accepting that we can only carry if that privilege is bestowed upon us by the state.

Why would I argue such a point?

Hard headed, ain't I?

 

[JKTex]

Why would I argue such a point?

Hard headed, ain't I?

The way the thread has gone, it would be a perfect script for "That 70's Show" for the basement round table scene.

 

[SIG_Fiend]

In principle, I feel there shouldn't be any test or license, it should simply be a right to carry however you see fit. Since things aren't currently that way and It's doubtful if we could ever change the law to reflect something of that nature, IMO at the very least the state should legislate some changes so that there is no burden whatsoever in obtaining a license. As far as I'm concerned, class fees and license fees should be state funded, and a resident should not have to pay one single dime to attend a class, apply, and receive their license. I mean it is a right after all. To some people, paying nearly $300 for a class and then the application fee may be somewhat cost prohibitive. It certainly is cost prohibitive for those less fortunate and with lower income levels. Just because someone may be at a lower income level, do they have any less right to defend themselves, and should they really be subject to possibly tough financial obligations to even take advantage of those rights? Of course not. Roughly $200-300 probably doesn't sound like much to many of us, though also factor in the cost of a carry gun and holster. Even on the low side, figure $200 for some cheapo handgun, and $10 for a cheapo holster. That still can add up to roughly 400-500 or so just to get a handgun, holster, and the license to carry it. For some people, that may be 50% of their monthly income and too expensive to afford. So I think the least the state could do is pay for all costs associated with it. If they are going to tell me I need a license to prove I can safely exercise my right, my response would be that I will go along with that since those are the current "rules", but that they should pay my way because it is in fact a civil right. Either way, principally I consider licensing ANY civil right to be an infringement to some degree. Right now we have to work with what we've got.

I would sure like to see Texans reactions if the state legislated some sort of licensing requirements in regards to exercising "free speech", holding protests, and rallies. Mandatory 10 hour class to inform and test people on proper grammar skills and etiquette, proper conduct, etc and the class would typically cost $75-140, plus the application fee would be $140 with discounts available for certain types of people. You know how strongly people would oppose that because such a thing would be time and cost prohibitive, and it simply should be no one's business what someone does with their own mouth. Funny how someone being able to open their big mouth is given more vehement public support than them being able to save their own damn life. Maybe I'm crazy but, I would think surviving would be just a tad more important than being able to speak one's mind.

 

[fm2]

Either way, principally I consider licensing ANY civil right to be an infringement to some degree. Right now we have to work with what we've got.

I would sure like to see Texans reactions if the state legislated some sort of licensing requirements in regards to exercising "free speech", holding protests, and rallies. Mandatory 10 hour class to inform and test people on proper grammar skills and etiquette, proper conduct, etc and the class would typically cost $75-140, plus the application fee would be $140 with discounts available for certain types of people. You know how strongly people would oppose that because such a thing would be time and cost prohibitive, and it simply should be no one's business what someone does with their own mouth. Funny how someone being able to open their big mouth is given more vehement public support than them being able to save their own damn life. Maybe I'm crazy but, I would think surviving would be just a tad more important than being able to speak one's mind.

Let's get a petition going for licensing free speach, and run it up the flagpole..........

 

[SIG_Fiend]

Let's get a petition going for licensing free speach, and run it up the flagpole..........

You know, that would be pretty funny, and maybe getting together such a fake bill with no intention to get it passed would at least get it out there so we could make the comparison to gun control and help everyone see how ridiculous it all is. The only problem is, with all the idiot politicians out there as well as all the sheeple, I could see a bill like that accidentally passing and becoming law. lol