Exercise your Constitutional Right??

[tomharkness]

The fact of the matter is: the CHL is nothing more than a program designed to allow for local law enforcement to collect information about us that is inaccessible without a warrant. Our government, from its inception, has set this as a Nation that recognizes no owner of the man other than God. I respect Man's law as it was written in a document that is called the United States Constitution... and have pledged a loyalty to defend it with my (human) life.

In this land, Government is from the people to the leaders and not from the leaders to the people. "We the People" are the government that this country is supposed to be all about. By distortion and deception, we have been lead to believe that these leaders are the government.

With that said: (just in case you are not familiar with it) The Supreme Law of this land is this: "We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure the domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessing of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity, Do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America".

It was not the intent of our forefathers to allow "for tyrants to form a more organized Union (AFL-CIO), establish superiority of the credentialed, insure innocents as based on your wealth, provide for the defense of the elite, promote the welfare system, and secure the control of the masses and their posterity." The Supreme Law of the land still stands.... I still have an oath to defend it against all enemies (Osama or Obama).


Therefore: The American Citizen should NOT have to ask permission to "Keep and Bear Arms", nor sign Concealed Handgun License Affidavits that allow for the leaders to collect information that is only allowed under the Constitution with that of a Warrant and "Due Process". This is why I teach an NRA Class that does not require a Passport Photo, Fingerprints, and the aforementioned affidavits. I do, however, teach the CHL program for those that voluntarily wish to participate in the program after being properly informed that they do not need to have a license in order to carry in the State of Texas (in most circumstances). I have a license because I don't care if the Leaders know who I am.

I do not advocate that those that carry without a license are "Free Carriers" or that having a Concealed Handgun License is in some way, form, or fashion, an acceptable way to "Exercise your First or Second Amendment Rights". But rather a sneaky attempt by our leaders to acquire information that is not normally accessible without a warrant (and make the victim pay for the inconvenience).

The Second Amendment does not give us the right to keep and bear arms. It only prohibits the Leaders from taking away that Right already established through the Constitution for a people that are FREE. Therefore, if you get your CHL because you want to exercise your Constitutional Right, you might want to get a clue. You should get a Gun because it is your Right as a FREE person to secure your liberty…. And that of your posterity!!

Remarkably, I still have a large number of students in my CHL program!?!?!?!?!?.
..... my bank account thanks you.

Don't get me wrong, I do suggest that you get your CHL, but not for the reasons you might think. See "Peelian Principles" for more information on this.

 

[bikerbill]

"... for those that voluntarily wish to participate in the program after being properly informed that they do not need to have a license in order to carry in the State of Texas (in most circumstances). I have a license because I don't care if the Leaders know who I am."

Can you explain the above? How do I carry in Texas without a license? Texas doesn't allow open carry, and as far as I know, except for vehicles, doesn't allow concealed carry without a CHL. The philosophy that the 2nd Amendment is all the license I need is nice in the abstract, but I don't think it will hold much water with the cop arresting me or the judge at my trial.

 

[Texas42]

The philosophy that the 2nd Amendment is all the license I need is nice in the abstract, but I don't think it will hold much water with the cop arresting me or the judge at my trial.

+1

EDIT: I don't mean to be disrespectful, but I think it is important to be mindful of reality. I firmly believe that the United States of America is the most free country in the world because of the basic system of limited government that came about by people who distrusted government. But it is 2010 and most Americans do not have the same distrust of government and do not have the same desire for freedom. They want security. They don't know what the constitution is or what it means. The idea of limited government is getting dimmer and dimmer.

You can say that requiring a CHL is an infringment of our rights, I agree with you to a point, but it isn't anything to get into a war over. I think it is a little paranoid to say that they are using it to gather information on all the gun owners for the "next step." The law enforcement and military are more from "the people" than the government.

I'm not saying that it will never happen, I'm just saying that day is not today.

Vote your conscious. Teach your kids right and wrong. Send money for good people to run for office. Expose ignorance with truth. Be a leader in your community. Show others why your right.

What else can one do?

 

[TheDan]

I agree that the CHL is an infringement, but I'm glad that the option is available to me for the moment. If you don't agree with a law you basically have two choices... civil disobedience by openly not following the law (this often makes life very difficult for people), or lobby and campaign to change the law. If the damn progressives can "nudge", then so can we. Lets start nudging people towards the constitutionally limited government we'd all like to see.

..and yes, please explain your comment about not needing a CHL. I know that if I stay in my car in public places and only visit property where I have permission from the owners to carry that I don't need a CHL, but that's a bit unrealistic. I don't want dinner at Sonic everyday, lol.

 

[cougartex]

You can say that requiring a CHL is an infringment of our rights, I agree with you to a point, but it isn't anything to get into a war over. I think it is a little paranoid to say that they are using it to gather information on all the gun owners for the "next step." The law enforcement and military are more from "the people" than the government.

+1

 

[KellyAsh]

tomharkness, what I dont understand is you seem to abhor the CHL and its "victimization" of us to about the same degree that most of us abhor thieves and rapists yet you take advantage of this system to line your own pockets.

This, to me, is along the lines of me giving thieves and rapists the info they need to select their next targets for my own profit. If you truely believe these convictions, then you are worse than the thieves and rapists themelves.

A shepherd does not give his flock over to the wolves for a few pennys.

 

[tomharkness]

jump to conclusions.

+1

Well, I see that my statements did create a controversy. However, just like the Liberal Leap to Conclusions Concepts, you guys actually fell for it. It is amazing how people automatically think the worse of everything. I once had a college student ask me if I owned a cat. I did not go into the fact that I had once owned one, but no longer had the facilities for a pet… I only told her, ‘no, I don’t’…. to which she replied, “so you like to kill cats? Do you like to swerve your car to run them over? Do you like to tie them up, pore gas on them and lite them on fire?”…. to which I replied, “lady, you are scaring me. Get the hell away from me.”

I never said that I thought the “CHL is an infringement”. I only stated that the CHL did nothing more than allow local Law Enforcement the opportunity to collect information that is not accessible without a warrant. I never even insinuated that they were using this information inappropriately. In fact, TxDPS has set a specific rule that they will notify you if any Agency asked for this information.

Second; I did not intend for you to think that I abhor the CHL program. I am disappointed in how the program is set up, run, and administered, but that is a separate issue. Many instructors do not take it serious. Many DPS officer take it even less serious. I actually asked a few DPS officers to take the exam that we give to our students and they all failed that exam; meaning that they probably do not understand how to properly administer the rules as written by their own department.

The Victimization of the people with the CHL program is not necessarily from the Leaders. Many instructors fail to notify the student that there is an additional fee for the license (cost for teaching is separate) until after they have paid and completed the program.

“you can say that requiring a CHL is an infringment of our rights, I agree with you to a point, but it isn't anything to get into a war over. I think it is a little paranoid to say that they are using it to gather information on all the gun owners for the "next step." The law enforcement and military are more from "the people" than the government.”

This is one of those “jump(s) to conclusions” that I was expecting. I never said that the CHL was infringement of our Rights… Our leaders have every right to ask for this information… and if you are willing to provide it, or sign an affidavit to allow for its gathering without a warrant, than there is nothing wrong with that. If you are gullible enough to blindly give it up…. Or like me, if you really don’t care if they have it or not… then there is not any infringement of Rights.

Lastly, let me point out to the first response to this post. Yes, you have the right to keep and bear arms, and do so concealed: in your car, in your home, on your personal property, on any property or land that is under your legal control, or on any property that is under the control of someone that tells you that you may carry your firearm concealed. (i.e. if you are in my home, have no license, and I know that you have a concealed handgun, and I tell you that I approve… then that is legal [excluding those that are legally prohibited from carrying a firearm]) The 2005 Texas Legislation that stated that all men are innocent until proven guilty and therefore it is the officer that must prove guilt and not the citizen that must prove their innocents is paramount to this discussion. Of course, many of you do not know about that decision because the media has successfully buried it from access. The CHL only covers the taking of your handgun into places that are not legally under your control or where those that are in control don’t know that you have a concealed handgun (i.e. Walmart, restaurants, etc). The CHL allows you to enter with a concealed handgun without having to identify that you have it and ask permission. Still, there are Texas Laws that clearly state that you may use as a “Defense to Prosecution” the fact that the firearm, although carried illegally, was used for the appropriate purposes as listed in the Texas Penal Code. Therefore, the CHL is mostly about gathering information about the citizen that is not normally accessible without a warrant.

As for local law enforcement and judges; you are right that they may not act or react appropriately. I have seen many officers that were somewhat “clueless”; making judgments that were inappropriate out of arrogance or ignorance. And I have seen many liberal judges state clearly from the bench, “I know that it is unconstitutional, but I am going to do it anyway!” These individuals do not have to respect your rights or honor you as a citizen… you can always fork out tens of thousands of dollars to have it appealed…. Just remember that under today’s standards, innocence is directly proportional to that of wealth.

However, if you are being arrested by an officer, I would bet that it has nothing to do with having, or not having, a Concealed Handgun License… but more likely because you should not have one.

 

[TheDan]

This is one of those “jump(s) to conclusions” that I was expecting.

 

[jagged97]

FYI, it's "innocence."

 

[Texas42]

lol

yeah that about sums it up.

 

[tomharkness]

Did I misspell innocence? Sorry, I need to use that spell-checker more often. As for the rest, it was a fun exercise. Just like telling teachers that they don't deserve any more than babysitter wages... after they are finished picking up rocks to throw at you... tell them that $2/hour per child for a classroom of 30 children equals $60/hr. Then see if they still want to stone you.

DPS really does not care if you have a Concealed Handgun or not. Some officers believe that no one but an officer should have one. Some department heads believe that a poor and second rate program will be the best way to "Give us enough rope to hang ourselves". Some officers believe that the more guns in the hands of the law-biding will make their lives a lot easier (I think so too). Some of them could care less about the whole issue. Some believe that all guns are bad (had one officer actually tell me that, "If I did not have to wear it as a part of my uniform, it would be locked up at home in my safe". Another Deputy once told me that, "anyone that is married should be prohibited from owning a firearm because.... well... they might go through a divorce".... **that sheriff [Williamson County] really needs to start paying his guys more so that he can hire a better class of thinkers**.

Just watching some CHL instructors will show you that DPS really does not put a lot of emphasis on quality... or good citizenship. One instructor [in the County of Burnet] would spend most of his class bashing Fagots, Ni***rs, and Pig Cops; while insisting that graduation from his program required the purchase of "logo laden baseball caps". Others push for the entire 15 hour course with extra emphasis on marksmanship and Civil Rights [for everyone]. One female instructor prefers to focus on women and how they need to be safer at home and work.

In any of the cases above, the instructors’ ability to teach is left up to the individual instructor. Anyone that can pass the background check and pay the $100 can be an instructor. DPS does reserve the right to sit in on and review an instructor’s class; however, there is no “quality control” program in effect to make sure that the instructor is competent in teaching before they start teaching. This leads me to believe that the real emphasis on the program is nothing more than getting students to sign the three affidavits.

By the way.... can any of you tell me what these three affidavits are for or say?????

 

[tomharkness]

Projectionism is a liberal trait: [see Democrat]

 

[radioflyer]

The government is not the only entity to blame, though it is the biggest. Assuming that there is SOME hint of democracy still evident in today's America, a good chunk of America's citizens are more scared of guns than they are of the enemies they would defend against. The media has twisted the use of guns to show that firearms are the cause of violence, not the solution as a method of prevention.

There are three primary reasons for the anti-gun movement among the population that i can see:

a) The responsibility of owning, operating a firearm. (especially if there are children in the house) Considering the irresponsibility of the average noob today just by how many drunk drivers there are, it's not a far stretch to think that many people don't want the added responsibility of being a firearm owner (proper use, secure storing etc)

b) The "gun-crazy" mentality. Somehow an armed citizen is viewed as some kind of crazy paranoid individual who could snap on a moment's notice and is himself a danger to society. the unarmed population views the armed individual as a possible catalyst in any situation. Essentially nobody trusts anyone else to be armed.....IMO all the more reason to be armed.

c) The Gun (unlike any other weapon) is a force multiplier giving even a relatively weak individual superior power over a stronger one. This goes against all evolutionary and biological expectations for "survival of the fittest". The presence of a firearm in any situation is guaranteed to be a key factor in whoever has the most "negotiating" power. This idea scares the average person that doesn't care to own a firearm themselves into thinking that nobody else should have one either. After all, nobody wants to be in a inferior (unarmed) position around a bunch of "gun-toting lunatics"

If the entire population were avid shooters, no gun-regulating law could be enforced. Unfortunately, this means that the voting majority has officially given their consent to surrender their firearms.

ALTERNATIVELY:

If the MAJORITY of Americans are 2A supporters, and the US government does not reflect their desires, this presents an entirely new situation whereby America is no longer a representative democracy and those on power need to be removed and significant legislation needs to be changed. The founding fathers believed empowered and armed citizens not only had the right but the responsibility to ensure that their government operated according to the expressed desires of the moral majority.

 

[DoubleActionCHL]

Wow! Interesting thread.

Yes, I know what's in the three affidavits. Do you? What's your point???

As far as the three instructors you mentioned, the state of Texas gives instructors the latitude to build their own lesson plan. With the exception of the instructor that appears to be an absolute moron, I have no problem with CHL instructors specializing, as long as they cover the required material. What's wrong with a 15 hour class if the instructor wants to do it and he can actually get students to sit through it? The state requires between 10 and 15 hours for the original CHL. And regarding the woman who focuses on women and safety in the home or at work; what's the problem? This sounds like valuable information provided in an otherwise dry and pedantic government-developed lesson plan.

I talk about the 2nd Amendment and how important it is for people to be politically aware and involved. Are you going to castigate me on this because I'm not sticking to the DPS lesson plan like a good little automaton?

Yes, the CHL instructor's ability to teach is left up to the instructor. I know of instructors who flatly tell their students that the program is a joke and they don't care anymore. He gives them the answers to the test, fills out the paperwork, and they BS the rest of the day. I know of an instructor who has recorded his class and plays the tape for a room full of students. Then there are instructors who fill their classes by scaring students with their Chicken Little routine... the sky is falling! The laws are changing in March! It's BS! We know it. He knows it, but the students don't, and he's making a killing.

Teaching CHL classes is not a calling. It's a business (at least until DPS takes it away from us). Ultimately, the free market will weed out the bad instructors.

I don't get you, Tom? You're a CHL instructor, yet you question and decry the entire program. What's your goal? You emailed me about creating a group with a single voice to lobby DPS to improve the program, but it sounds more to me that you want to dismantle it; eliminate it.

I'll be the first to agree with you that the CHL is an infringement, of sorts, on our 2nd Amendment rights. But we part ways when it comes to the purpose of CHL. I don't believe this is some sinister plan to collect information and keep an eye on gun owners. The CHL program is simply a compromise. It's our bad luck to have a legislature that doesn't have a spine and will not fight for our unimpeded right to keep and bear arms, so this is what they give us. With a wink and a nod, we take a class which involves a shooting "proficiency" test and a final exam that a one-eyed dyslexic chimp could pass. The proficiency test should be called an adequacy test, in my opinion.

It is what is is. And without significant changes to the Texas PC and GC, the program isn't going to change. And when we start fooling the the statutes, there's the distinct possibility that the left side of the aisle will squeeze in language that effectively offsets any gains we might have won.

 

[tomharkness]

The government is not the only entity to blame, though it is the biggest. Assuming that there is SOME hint of democracy still evident in today's America, a good chunk of America's citizens are more scared of guns than they are of the enemies they would defend against. The media has twisted the use of guns to show that firearms are the cause of violence, not the solution as a method of prevention.

There are three primary reasons for the anti-gun movement among the population that i can see:

a) The responsibility of owning, operating a firearm. (especially if there are children in the house) Considering the irresponsibility of the average noob today just by how many drunk drivers there are, it's not a far stretch to think that many people don't want the added responsibility of being a firearm owner (proper use, secure storing etc)

b) The "gun-crazy" mentality. Somehow an armed citizen is viewed as some kind of crazy paranoid individual who could snap on a moment's notice and is himself a danger to society. the unarmed population views the armed individual as a possible catalyst in any situation. Essentially nobody trusts anyone else to be armed.....IMO all the more reason to be armed.

c) The Gun (unlike any other weapon) is a force multiplier giving even a relatively weak individual superior power over a stronger one. This goes against all evolutionary and biological expectations for "survival of the fittest". The presence of a firearm in any situation is guaranteed to be a key factor in whoever has the most "negotiating" power. This idea scares the average person that doesn't care to own a firearm themselves into thinking that nobody else should have one either. After all, nobody wants to be in a inferior (unarmed) position around a bunch of "gun-toting lunatics"

If the entire population were avid shooters, no gun-regulating law could be enforced. Unfortunately, this means that the voting majority has officially given their consent to surrender their firearms.

ALTERNATIVELY:

If the MAJORITY of Americans are 2A supporters, and the US government does not reflect their desires, this presents an entirely new situation whereby America is no longer a representative democracy and those on power need to be removed and significant legislation needs to be changed. The founding fathers believed empowered and armed citizens not only had the right but the responsibility to ensure that their government operated according to the expressed desires of the moral majority.

The problem here is that the government that you talk about is not the true government. We are the government and they are merely the leaders for the government (of the people, by the people, for the people). Second, I would hope that democracy dies completely… we were supposed to be a Representative Republic, not a democracy. There are a large number of individuals scared of guns, but many more afraid of what their “government” will do to them if they use these guns to protect themselves or their family. Last, the Media is a problem… because we allow it. We put too much faith in what they teach us and not enough effort into teaching ourselves the truth. The media is a profit related money grab that wants to cause controversy… kind of like what I did with this threat… however, my intention was to get people thinking, not tell you what you need to think.

There are three primary reasons for the anti-gun movement among the population that i can see:

The real reason for the anti-gun movement is “Control Freaks”. It is about making others do what you think should be done. They do not want to make you do what they want, they want to do what they want through you. You are irrelevant in their eyes… other than a nuisance to be manipulated to accomplish what they desire: The theory of “Ralph”… or the antithesis of God. It is about performing and exercise in futility in order to prove that the Constitution gives you the right to express yourself by gathering together as a free people and voting to take away your right to gather together as a free people to vote. (i.e. making the Constitution into a suicide pact). If they stop you, then the Constitution is a lie. If not, then the Constitution is dead. This comes from teachings by academia professors that God is a lie because he cannot make a rock so big that even he cannot move it… which means that he is not all powerful. If he can, then he is still a failure because now the rock is more powerful.

The point is that Anti-gun movements don't need a point. They only need a platform to spew their stupidity.

 

[tomharkness]

Wow! Interesting thread.

Yes, I know what's in the three affidavits. Do you? What's your point???

As far as the three instructors you mentioned, the state of Texas gives instructors the latitude to build their own lesson plan. With the exception of the instructor that appears to be an absolute moron, I have no problem with CHL instructors specializing, as long as they cover the required material. What's wrong with a 15 hour class if the instructor wants to do it and he can actually get students to sit through it? The state requires between 10 and 15 hours for the original CHL. And regarding the woman who focuses on women and safety in the home or at work; what's the problem? This sounds like valuable information provided in an otherwise dry and pedantic government-developed lesson plan.

I talk about the 2nd Amendment and how important it is for people to be politically aware and involved. Are you going to castigate me on this because I'm not sticking to the DPS lesson plan like a good little automaton?

Yes, the CHL instructor's ability to teach is left up to the instructor. I know of instructors who flatly tell their students that the program is a joke and they don't care anymore. He gives them the answers to the test, fills out the paperwork, and they BS the rest of the day. I know of an instructor who has recorded his class and plays the tape for a room full of students. Then there are instructors who fill their classes by scaring students with their Chicken Little routine... the sky is falling! The laws are changing in March! It's BS! We know it. He knows it, but the students don't, and he's making a killing.

Teaching CHL classes is not a calling. It's a business (at least until DPS takes it away from us). Ultimately, the free market will weed out the bad instructors.

I don't get you, Tom? You're a CHL instructor, yet you question and decry the entire program. What's your goal? You emailed me about creating a group with a single voice to lobby DPS to improve the program, but it sounds more to me that you want to dismantle it; eliminate it.

I'll be the first to agree with you that the CHL is an infringement, of sorts, on our 2nd Amendment rights. But we part ways when it comes to the purpose of CHL. I don't believe this is some sinister plan to collect information and keep an eye on gun owners. The CHL program is simply a compromise. It's our bad luck to have a legislature that doesn't have a spine and will not fight for our unimpeded right to keep and bear arms, so this is what they give us. With a wink and a nod, we take a class which involves a shooting "proficiency" test and a final exam that a one-eyed dyslexic chimp could pass. The proficiency test should be called an adequacy test, in my opinion.

It is what is is. And without significant changes to the Texas PC and GC, the program isn't going to change. And when we start fooling the the statutes, there's the distinct possibility that the left side of the aisle will squeeze in language that effectively offsets any gains we might have won.

Yes, I know what the three affidavits are about and say… I would not have brought it up if I had not.

As far as the three instructors I mentioned, I was simply making a point that DPS give way to much leeway. The one that does 15 hours will loose students to the 10 hour class because it is more convenient to take the shorter class. The woman that teaches her program to women is going to make great money because that is a high needs demographic. The moron from Burnet County lost his license to teach… better late then never.

Every instructor talks about the 2nd Amendment… but very few actually know what it is all about. The second Amendment does not give you the right to keep and bear arms. Can you tell me what the subject of the 2nd Amendment really is? Do you know what the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is? Can you tell me what Article 1, Section 23 of the Texas State Constitution says or is about????? Can you even tell me what Article 1 of the Texas Constitution is referred to as???

I don’t mind that the CHL instructor is given a wide birth to establish his or her training program… only that DPS does not do anything to make sure that the instructor can communicate on more than a 4th grade level. The NRA, TCFP, TPSB, and other organizations require that an instructor know the basics of developing a lesson plan, organize training material, and prepare student handouts. They also provide structured manuals for presenting these materials to students. The CHL barely provides any structure to the program for teaching instructors; Much less any type of structure for the instructor to use for presenting the material to the student.

This is one statement that I do appreciate you making!!!

“Teaching CHL classes is not a calling. It's a business (at least until DPS takes it away from us). Ultimately, the free market will weed out the bad instructors.”

However… this one was off base.

“I don't get you, Tom? You're a CHL instructor, yet you question and decry the entire program. What's your goal? You emailed me about creating a group with a single voice to lobby DPS to improve the program, but it sounds more to me that you want to dismantle it; eliminate it.”

I do not want to create a group with a single voice to lobby DPS. Neither do I wish to dismantle it or eliminate it. I want instructors to communicate and conspire to develop better training. I want discussion that does not start out with “Jumps to conclusions” that purport paranoia that everyone that has a different opinion is somehow an anarchist that wants to either dismantle the system or have every citizen writing tickets and putting red lights on their vehicles.

As for the CHL being some type of “Sinister plan” to collect information and keep an eye on gun owners… that too was an extreme “Jump to conclusion”. I never said that or even insinuated that it might be. Unfortunately, it could be used as such, and that is why DPS does not allow it to be distributed, as well as, written rules and regulations requiring that they inform the licensee if any other agency requests that information.

The information that you allow to be collected with these affidavits cannot be obtained without a warrant or warrantless arrest (or you signing an affidavit giving permission). This is a fact. To think that I was saying that there is some type of government conspiracy is more than a simple jump to conclusion, but more of a “drive like hell into the abyss of a conclusion”… much like the reference to the school teacher getting nothing more than babysitters pay. Oh, and the CHL is not an infringement on the 2nd Amendment as long as it is voluntary.

 

[DoubleActionCHL]

Every instructor talks about the 2nd Amendment… but very few actually know what it is all about. The second Amendment does not give you the right to keep and bear arms. Can you tell me what the subject of the 2nd Amendment really is? Do you know what the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is? Can you tell me what Article 1, Section 23 of the Texas State Constitution says or is about????? Can you even tell me what Article 1 of the Texas Constitution is referred to as???

Ask my students.

I don’t mind that the CHL instructor is given a wide birth to establish his or her training program… only that DPS does not do anything to make sure that the instructor can communicate on more than a 4th grade level. The NRA, TCFP, TPSB, and other organizations require that an instructor know the basics of developing a lesson plan, organize training material, and prepare student handouts. They also provide structured manuals for presenting these materials to students. The CHL barely provides any structure to the program for teaching instructors; Much less any type of structure for the instructor to use for presenting the material to the student.

Well, my knee-jerk response is, "Why should DPS demand more than 4th grade communication skills when they administer a written test that a blind, geriatric, constipated, dyslexic chimp could pass?"

This is one statement that I do appreciate you making!!!

“Teaching CHL classes is not a calling. It's a business (at least until DPS takes it away from us). Ultimately, the free market will weed out the bad instructors.”

Well... I appreciate that you appreciate that.

However… this one was off base.

“I don't get you, Tom? You're a CHL instructor, yet you question and decry the entire program. What's your goal? You emailed me about creating a group with a single voice to lobby DPS to improve the program, but it sounds more to me that you want to dismantle it; eliminate it.”

I do not want to create a group with a single voice to lobby DPS.

Your words from an email you sent me: "I have met and talked with several of the individuals up at the CHL HQ there in Austin as I was an Austin Firefighter up until I retired in October 2009. They are overwhelmed... but catching up quickly. They would be happy to see a coalition of Instructors coming together to improve the program. The problem is that it needs to be a "coalition", not an instructor or two."

"If the Instructors Unite, DPS will have to listen... and, if we do not hang together, we will surely be hung together."

Neither do I wish to dismantle it or eliminate it. I want instructors to communicate and conspire to develop better training. I want discussion that does not start out with “Jumps to conclusions” that purport paranoia that everyone that has a different opinion is somehow an anarchist that wants to either dismantle the system or have every citizen writing tickets and putting red lights on their vehicles.

You plainly state you are opposed to the entire concept, yet you are a part of it. Indeed, you are capitalizing on it.

As for the CHL being some type of “Sinister plan” to collect information and keep an eye on gun owners… that too was an extreme “Jump to conclusion”. I never said that or even insinuated that it might be. Unfortunately, it could be used as such, and that is why DPS does not allow it to be distributed, as well as, written rules and regulations requiring that they inform the licensee if any other agency requests that information.

Once again, your words... from the original post: "The fact of the matter is: the CHL is nothing more than a program designed to allow for local law enforcement to collect information about us that is inaccessible without a warrant."

The information that you allow to be collected with these affidavits cannot be obtained without a warrant or warrantless arrest (or you signing an affidavit giving permission). This is a fact.

Other than telling us something we already know, I'm not sure I understand your point.

To think that I was saying that there is some type of government conspiracy is more than a simple jump to conclusion, but more of a “drive like hell into the abyss of a conclusion”… much like the reference to the school teacher getting nothing more than babysitters pay. Oh, and the CHL is not an infringement on the 2nd Amendment as long as it is voluntary.

You might want to reread your statements. If you're not going somewhere with this and just stating the obvious, then I don't even understand the purpose of this conversation. And to say that the CHL is not an infringement as long as it's voluntary is inaccurate. When licensing and fees are required to exercise a right, your rights have been infringed. (See MURDOCK V. PENNSYLVANIA)

 

[Texas1911]

So what do you propose we do to fix this solution?

Do you realize that the majority of our "Government", aka "the People", are gun shy and completely uneducated? Ergo the reasoning for licensing as some sort of blanket program for the masses.

I think alot of gun people are completely blind to the fact that when you are exposed to firearms and become accustomed to them you really see things in a different light, and you lose the ability to understand the rest of society; however illogical their argument may be.

 

[tomharkness]

Ask my students.



Well, my knee-jerk response is, "Why should DPS demand more than 4th grade communication skills when they administer a written test that a blind, geriatric, constipated, dyslexic chimp could pass?"



Well... I appreciate that you appreciate that.



Your words from an email you sent me: "I have met and talked with several of the individuals up at the CHL HQ there in Austin as I was an Austin Firefighter up until I retired in October 2009. They are overwhelmed... but catching up quickly. They would be happy to see a coalition of Instructors coming together to improve the program. The problem is that it needs to be a "coalition", not an instructor or two."

"If the Instructors Unite, DPS will have to listen... and, if we do not hang together, we will surely be hung together."



You plainly state you are opposed to the entire concept, yet you are a part of it. Indeed, you are capitalizing on it.



Once again, your words... from the original post: "The fact of the matter is: the CHL is nothing more than a program designed to allow for local law enforcement to collect information about us that is inaccessible without a warrant."



Other than telling us something we already know, I'm not sure I understand your point.



You might want to reread your statements. If you're not going somewhere with this and just stating the obvious, then I don't even understand the purpose of this conversation. And to say that the CHL is not an infringement as long as it's voluntary is inaccurate. When licensing and fees are required to exercise a right, your rights have been infringed. (See MURDOCK V. PENNSYLVANIA)

Oddly enough, I think you actually made my point. Are you even listening to what you are typing above? And, no... the CHL is not an infringement of our rights as we are not required to have a license or pay a fee to exercise that right... That too was pointed out in previous post. I can see that this will be more painful than originally anticipated. Well, at least you are willing to converse. For that, I thank you.

 

[tomharkness]

So what do you propose we do to fix this solution?

Do you realize that the majority of our "Government", aka "the People", are gun shy and completely uneducated? Ergo the reasoning for licensing as some sort of blanket program for the masses.

I think alot of gun people are completely blind to the fact that when you are exposed to firearms and become accustomed to them you really see things in a different light, and you lose the ability to understand the rest of society; however illogical their argument may be.

I don't really think that the majority of our Government of the people is that gun shy... only that the media proudly struts the ones that are gun shy... on the boob tube to make it look that way. In reality, the majority of the government of the people are afraid of the illegitimate government of the elite and how their cronies in the media will react toward gun owners... and, yes, the licensing is a sort of blanket program for the masses. I like the fact that people get involved by attending the CHL program and the NRA programs that I present. However, I am concerned that many of them do it for the wrong reasons. Many of them think it is really cool to have that license, as well as, think it is a way of exercising their constitutional right. What they need to be thinking is that they should be learning to use a gun properly in order to protect their right to be a free people.

As for the response to DoubleAction above: The Second Amendment does not give you the right to keep in bear arms. The subject of that amendment is that of "Security of a Free State". It is the point of the Declaration of Independence that we are "free", and therefore, do not have to ask anyone for permission to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment; recognizing that a well regulated militia is necessary for providing that security (of a "Free State"), clearly prohibits this new federal legislature from allowing its representatives to make any law that would infringe on this concept.

Also, DoubleAction above notes that DPS clearly administers a test that is questionable (at the very least) for which some of its own officers don't even know the right answers. Again, a point that makes my point.... that DPS really does not take it that seriously. Then he points out that, "When licensing and fees are required to exercise a right, your rights have been infringed", but the laws, if read correctly, state that you do not have to have a license or pay fees to exercise your right to keep and bear arms... only so that you can carry those arms into public in such a manner that Texas can regulate the carrying with respect to preventing crime (Article 1, Section 23, Texas Constitution). In this case, you would have to be licensed and pay a fee. Texas does not require that registration of a firearm or require you to be licensed to carry a concealed handgun in your vehicle, on your land, or in places that are under your control.

DoubleAction: Ask your students what? Who are your students? Why ask them... don't you know the answers to those questions?