ACTION NEEDED: HB1893 Campus Security Act

[eriadoc]

To those that I offended I apologise, now quit wasting your time arguing with me and call, fax and email your representative.

Ahh, a good spirited debate is never offensive! And I have contacted my rep

 

[whit128]

State requires something around 20-25 rounds biannually, about 5 of which have to be duty rounds, last I recall. Department requirements vary greatly, because a lot of times, these officers are spending ammo on their own dime. Or, as you put it, as ammo permits. Most officers I know put a great deal more ammo downrange, but so do the CHL holders I know.

The claim that CHL holders have ten hours of training is as broadly ridiculous as the claim that TX peace officers only have X amount of training per year. I won't divulge what my job is, but I deal with TX peace officers from all over the state daily. I feel supremely confident that I put more rounds downrange per year than all but a small percentage of them. That's partly because I can afford ammunition, but it's also due in part to the state requirements.

This is what the state requires, this is qualification and not training. I do feel that many of the CHL holders on this forum shoot regularly but not the majority of CHL holders. At this point I must say that this is all mute I feel that I have been selfish in not wanting CHL holders on campus. I see that a perp having to avoid incoming fire gives my loved ones time to escape or if she is 21 (3 daughters) it will give her the oppurtuniity to draw her P7 and return fire.

§217.21. Firearms Proficiency Requirements.​

(a) Each agency or entity that employs at least two peace officers shall:
(1) require each peace officer that it employs to successfully complete the current firearms
proficiency requirements at least once each year;
(2) designate a firearms proficiency officer to be responsible for the documentation of
annual firearms proficiency. The documentation for each officer shall include:
(A) date of qualification;
(B) identification of officer;
(C) firearm manufacturer, model;
(D) results of qualifying; and
(E) course(s) of fire.
(3) keep on file and in a format readily accessible to the commission a copy of all records of
this proficiency.
(b) The annual firearms proficiency requirements shall include:
(1) an external inspection by the proficiency officer, range officer, firearms instructor, or
gunsmith to determine the safety and functioning of the weapon(s);
(2) a proficiency demonstration in the care and cleaning of the weapon(s) used; and
(3) a course of fire that meets or exceeds the minimum standards.
(c) The minimum standards for the annual firearms proficiency course of fire shall be:
(1) handguns - a minimum of 50 rounds, including at least five rounds of duty ammunition,
fired at ranges from point-blank to at least 15 yards with at least 20 rounds at or beyond
seven yards, including at least one timed reload;
(2) shotguns - a minimum of five rounds of duty ammunition fired at a range of at least 15
yards;
(3) rifles - a minimum of 20 rounds of duty ammunition fired at a range of at least 100
yards; however, an agency may, in its discretion, allow a range of less than 100 yards
but not less than 50 yards if the minimum passing percentage is raised to 90;
(4) patrol rifles - a minimum of 30 rounds of duty ammunition fired at a range of at least 50
yards, including at least one timed reload; however, an agency may, in its discretion,
allow a range of less than 50 yards but not less than 10 yards if the minimum passing
percentage is raised to 90;
(5) fully automatic weapons - a minimum of 30 rounds of duty ammunition fired at ranges
from seven to at least 10 yards, including at least one timed reload, with at least 25
rounds fired in full automatic (short bursts of two or three rounds), and at least five
rounds fired semi-automatic, if possible with the weapon.
(d) The minimum passing percentage shall be 70 for each firearm.
(e) The executive director may, upon written agency request, waive a peace officer's demonstration
of weapons proficiency based on a determination that the requirement causes a hardship.​

(f) The effective date of this section is June 1, 2004.

 

[txinvestigator]

To summarize, Police Officers only have to qualify yearly with 50 rounds, 5 of those service rounds (left over from when officers carried magnums and shot non-magnums for quals).

50 rounds
15 yards max distance
20 rounds at or beyond 7 yards

***sounds like CHL so far, huh***

ONE TIMED RELOAD



It is a stricter requirement than the CHL course, but not by much. That said, as a former LEO I observed many officer qualify and it was seldom we had anyone shoot as badly as I see in CHL classes. We also shot a much more difficult course than the state required. They carry every day as a matter of routine, and qualify more often than a CHLer.

As an instructor I can tell you that CHLers, overwhelming, only shoot when they have to, once every 4 or 5 years. With the 2007 law, now those on their third and subsequent renewal only have to shoot once every ten years.

That said, I want you to carry everywhere you legally can.

 

[Starker]

I feel that I have been selfish in not wanting CHL holders on campus. I see that a perp having to avoid incoming fire gives my loved ones time to escape or if she is 21 (3 daughters) it will give her the oppurtuniity to draw her P7 and return fire.

Not selfish, just concerned for your daughter's safety. Sometimes it is hard to overcome raw emotion to see the big picture. And the reports of the MSM don't help, either. But it is someone like your daughter that I would want to be next to if there were an incident on my campus. And I assure you that if your daughter's life were in danger in my building, I would do everything in my power to save her.

 

[GI-John]

added security comes at its price

I am extremely pro 2nd amendment just like the rest of us. At the first thought of this new legislation i was skeptic. Scenarios were running through my mind and i was not won over, there are a number of factors.

1) All apts surrounding the area are completely trashed from parties and recreation--this leads me to the conclusion of irresponsible youths

2) A 21-25 yr old doesnt have the Ex of an older wiser self defense advocate such as a CHLer in his 30's or 40's. I openly admit that even though im in my early 20's. hold on dont attack me now im building to a point...

3) Yes supermarkets and malls are highly populated but none compare to a campus university. At every hour change there are severely dense hallways and lobbies. Im talking at any given time 200-300 ppl within arms reach of each other in a single larg hall in a building..they could make a long chain if they wanted. This is a prime target for a Lunatic looking for mass homicide quota.

Now, after just stating an example of density you would find on campus and we all know lunatics love gun free zones. We start to question why responsible of age citizens/students cannot carry concealed. Well, to be honest in a crowd of 450 in the courtyard near the cafe if bullets were flying and our ears were ringing and suddenly we have 20 CHLERS drawing...what then, panic floods the nervous system, expressions on the faces of carriers, where do we shoot? Whos is the perpetrator? Can i hit the perpetrator with people running around all over the place and people running into me. its a touchy topic to where even i as a student find hard to answer. Ive been robbed TWICE AT GUN POINT. I AM VERY MUCH A PRO 2ND AMENDMENT ADVOCATE, But one of the things to realize is that sometimes arming yourself still is'nt enough. There are always going to be odds that do not favor you no matter what your preparation.

One of the times i was robbed it was 4 against me and they were all armed. I would dare say that no matter how well trained and focused i was, I was still at their mercy even though i was armed. We have to accept the fact that while arming ourselves gives us better odds in alot of situations there are still those days where it wont matter how trained or what we are carrying.. Its just the way it is. I have alot more to say but my opinion are'nt really worth much as they are just my thoughts. I'll respect the forum by not flooding it.

I will contact my reps asap and ask for their support as you have requested. I can only pray that my fellow youthful CHLers do as I and up their tactical range visits and prove my concerns wrong in the event of the bill getting signed and such a tragedy unfolding.

I support the legislation full heartedly I guess im just nervous about irresponsible CHLers and the consequences bestowed upon us for their actions.

 

[juwaba98]

GI-John........

GI-John

Don't be afraid to post your thoughts, that's why we're here.

You put some good thought into your post and your thinking is understandable. The points you bring up about crowd density and desparity of force are perfect examples of why we, as responsible CHL'ers, have to train as well as put serious thought into scenarios.

If I am alone and facing a larger group of armed persons and all indications show that simply giving them my wallet will end the situation and I go home to my family safely, it wouldn't matter if I was concealing an Apache helo, I'm gonna give up my wallet and let the cops sort that one out. If my family is with me and directly threatened, the situation changes completely.

If faced with a shooter in a crowd, and there is no immediate way to safely diffuse the situation or immediate threat directly to me, I'm going to be looking for cover, dialing 911, and then maybe I'll look for a chance to do something about the situation. But, in all this, you have to remember I carry to take care of my safety, not yours. That is why you should carry. I'm not going to try and be a hero, but I'm also not going to stand by and twiddle my thumbs if I can prevent someone else from being a victim.

Basically, all that rambling I did is to say that I carry for the safety of my family and myself, not you. That is your responsibility. I won't hang you out to dry, but my priorities are simple and if I don't know you, you may be on my list of concerns, but you're not at the top.

That being said, we should not strip anyone of their right to defend themselves. EVER. I support this bill and have contacted my reps and encouraged them to do the same.

<Flame away if necessary fellows, I'll be out of the office most of the day and will be back on later>

 

[DCortez]

I support the legislation full heartedly I guess im just nervous about irresponsible CHLers and the consequences bestowed upon us for their actions.

They do not concern me. Politicians, courts, police, political correctness, and the media do. That's why you need to take part in communicating your views.

All politics is local -- Tip O`Neill

 

[GI-John]

GI-John


If faced with a shooter in a crowd, and there is no immediate way to safely diffuse the situation or immediate threat directly to me, I'm going to be looking for cover, dialing 911, and then maybe I'll look for a chance to do something about the situation. But, in all this, you have to remember I carry to take care of my safety, not yours. That is why you should carry. I'm not going to try and be a hero, but I'm also not going to stand by and twiddle my thumbs if I can prevent someone else from being a victim.

Basically, all that rambling I did is to say that I carry for the safety of my family and myself, not you. That is your responsibility. I won't hang you out to dry, but my priorities are simple and if I don't know you, you may be on my list of concerns, but you're not at the top.

<Flame away if necessary fellows, I'll be out of the office most of the day and will be back on later>

I completely agree with you, that is a major point in carry. I think too many people are forgetting that. We arm ourselves to defend ourselves not the entire public, and its just like you said obviously if it is an easy option to stop a massacre with out going out of our way or putting ourselves in more danger then it is ok.

 

[txinvestigator]

Now, after just stating an example of density you would find on campus and we all know lunatics love gun free zones. We start to question why responsible of age citizens/students cannot carry concealed. Well, to be honest in a crowd of 450 in the courtyard near the cafe if bullets were flying and our ears were ringing and suddenly we have 20 CHLERS drawing...

20 out of 450 is just under 5%. There is not that percentage of the Texas population who have CHLs. Given that unless you are military you cannot get a CHL under age 21, then that leaves a much smaller section of your 450 people who could be armed legally. AS of 12/31/08 there were 314,574 active Texas CHLs, and the population of Texas is 24,178,180. That means about 1.34 % of Texans have a CHL.

Out of your 450 students, if 100 are eligible for a CHL, only 1 of them is likely to be a CHL holder.


Even IF your numbers were true, the alternative is to have no one armed but the assailant. I don't think that is a viable alternative.

There are always going to be odds that do not favor you no matter what your preparation.

Better than having NO recourse.

 

[GI-John]

20 out of 450 is just under 5%. Given that unless you are military you cannot get a CHL under age 21, then that leaves a much smaller section of your 450 people who could be armed legally.

Out of your 450 students, if 100 are eligible for a CHL, only 1 of them is likely to be a CHL holder.


Even IF your numbers were true, the alternative is to have no one armed but the assailant. I don't think that is a viable alternative.



Better than having NO recourse.

Im afraid you misread my post, I was not only speaking of the chl'ers within the 450 crowd. Furthermore. Every soldier in my unit over 18 but below 21 already became licensed. On my campus there is a soldier in uniform where ever i turn my head, and even more out of uniform from the looks of their high and tight and backpacks. It is from my observation that i concluded that there are more permit carriers on this campus then i had initially thought. You talk as if the statistics you gave were concrete. It is not guaranteed that there will be "1" in a crowd of 100 there could be more there could be less. If you go by statistics alone then i suppose you think that alot of places are safe...when really, there just over due.

 

[txinvestigator]

Im afraid you misread my post, I was not only speaking of the chl'ers within the 450 crowd.

Then to whom are you referring? The new law would only allow CHLers to carry.

Furthermore. Every soldier in my unit over 18 but below 21 already became licensed.

Every soldier between 18 and 21 has obtained a CHL? Really? Call me skeptical.

On my campus there is a soldier in uniform where ever i turn my head, and even more out of uniform from the looks of their high and tight and backpacks. It is from my observation that i concluded that there are more permit carriers on this campus then i had initially thought.

So people who you 'think" are soldiers all must have a CHL? Really?

You talk as if the statistics you gave were concrete. It is not guaranteed that there will be "1" in a crowd of 100 there could be more there could be less.

No, on average there will be 1. There could be none, or could be three or 4. But 20? Please.....

If you go by statistics alone then i suppose you think that alot of places are safe...when really, there just over due.

I don't even know what that means...

 

[GI-John]

i knew this would happen

another wannabe trying to get the best of me.

 

[txinvestigator]

another wannabe trying to get the best of me.

You cannot justify your responses so you resort to name calling? Lame name calling at that.

Wanna be what?

 

[carneyman]

So people who you 'think" are soldiers all must have a CHL? Really? No, on average there will be 1. There could be none, or could be three or 4. But 20? Please.....

I don't even know what that means...

Actually, it is quite conceivable. In one of my classes, there are about 40 students. Of the students in that class, roughly 20 have CHL's. Go figure.

We've had this discussion before, and if we were allowed to carry on campus, most of those would. Another handful of students would get their CHL. The only thing really stopping them is living on campus, or always being on campus, so they don't see the need to get one right now, as long as they can have a handgun while traveling.