Are the current requirements to get a CHL sufficient?
- Thread starter KellyAsh
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Texas
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
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!
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!
When I took my class a few years back, and sat through the class with my girl friend, I got the feeling the classes where body shops. However in my GF's class safety was a major part of it. The instructor was all over the other range users for the infractions they where committing. The requirements are in place, I am not sure the instructors have the proper time to dedicate the safety part of it.
Myself as well as everyone else I have known that has taken the class sat around trying to find ways to fill the time. My class had an in class lunch after our regular lunch to fill time.
The range we went to for qualification would not permit holstering or unholstering your firearm, which is the #1 thing done most by a CHL holder and it is not a requirement to obtain a CHL.
KellyAsh, do you consider the abillty to have and carry firearms a right (as in the 2A right to bear arms) or a privelege? If it is a right, then we should not be required to even take the CHL class or get a license, etc, etc. in the first place. If it is merely a privelege, then by all means, let the government make more rules and requirements. I understand that alot of people think for example that the shooting portion of the test is far too easy. After doing it myself yesterday, I agree that it is easy. However I also think it is violation of our rights as American citzens for them to even have the test in the first place. BTW, look at the requirements of other states. Many other states only require 2-3 hours class time and NO shooting test. What is required here in TX is above and beyond many other programs. Personally, I think that if I can legally purchase and own a gun, I should be able to keep it on me for the protection of myself and my family at all times.
It's like getting a driver's license, marriage license, fishing license, or high school diploma. It's a beginning, not a guarantee of expertise.
I'd like to see stoves regulated. The stuff some of my relatives have cooked up has to be criminal.
I'd like to see stoves regulated. The stuff some of my relatives have cooked up has to be criminal.
atriot:LMAO !!!
As of right now, purchasing a handgun and obtaining a CHL is a priveledge under Texas law. If you've been a bad boy or girl, ie Class B misdemneaor or greater among other things, your priveledge to purchase a firearm and obtain a CHL is taken away.
My interest in this is purely public safety. I want people to prove that they arent likely to shoot themselves or others on accident to what I consider a reasonable degree. Holstering and unholstering is the #1 activity a handgun carrier will participate in and argueably one of the most likely times to have a negligent discharge, yet it is not a required proficiency.
When the 2nd Ammendment was written guns were far more pervasive and parents, as well as people in general, were far more responsible in the rearing of their children. Firearms were considered tools and not made into toys like they are today. Changing times require changing rules.
Kudos to the instructors that take their job one step further than the state requires and teaches more gun safety. They see the value in additional training.
What prompted this thread was a story I read about a guy who accidentally killed a man he thought was stealing from him because he had his finger on the trigger when the guy was laying face down.
Would one life saved be worth the extra requirement? I think so. I do know there is plenty of time to add this in the classes and into the curriculum without further incumbering the process.
Even if you expose people to more information, it doesn't guarantee anything. How many people have been to driver's school, defensive driving, and seen all the news coverage an accident gets but still are bad drivers?
Education does not equal responsible.
You're absolutely right. We do, however, owe it to the rest of society to not give people excuses for not being safe.
How many people do you think would actually take responsibility for a negligent discharge vs how many people would claim its the systems fault or their instructors fault for not providing enough training.
I can just hear it now, "sue the state because they didnt make sure Im safe, sue the instructor, sue the gun maker, sue everyone but me because Im not responsible." This is the world we live in today. Otherwise we wouldnt have single crack headed mothers on welfare who refuse to get a job becasue that would make them ineligible for the 4 bedroom apt the govt is paying for and we wouldnt be accosted by the barrage of lawyer commercials on TV in the middle of the afternoon.
A Right for Law Abiding Texans
Almost anybody in the US can buy, beg, borrow, or steal a firearm. Sadly, many do the latter. The types who rob, gangbang, and other illegal activities are exactly whom CHL holders are carrying to protect themselves, their families, other innocents, and property from. Government can't keep people from posessing firearms, even if illegally but Government can prevent lawless types from carrying legally. Who needs a disarmed lawful population and an armed thuggery as Austrailia ? I prefer
concealed carry but have no objection to open carrly also as in Arizona.
Almost anybody in the US can buy, beg, borrow, or steal a firearm. Sadly, many do the latter. The types who rob, gangbang, and other illegal activities are exactly whom CHL holders are carrying to protect themselves, their families, other innocents, and property from. Government can't keep people from posessing firearms, even if illegally but Government can prevent lawless types from carrying legally. Who needs a disarmed lawful population and an armed thuggery as Austrailia ? I prefer
concealed carry but have no objection to open carrly also as in Arizona.
While I'd like some assurance that people walking around with loaded firearms are competent with them, I'm not in favor of government, be it state for federal, imposing more restrictions.
I think most competent chl instructors will stress the value of proper gun handling, although they are not charged with giving such instruction. I'm under the impression they can fail someone if they are completely out of whack in gun safety. The fine gentleman I took my class with specifically addressed that issue, strongly recommended that those that have not had instruction, or were new to guns should seek professional level courses. That was discussed at length.
I think most competent chl instructors will stress the value of proper gun handling, although they are not charged with giving such instruction. I'm under the impression they can fail someone if they are completely out of whack in gun safety. The fine gentleman I took my class with specifically addressed that issue, strongly recommended that those that have not had instruction, or were new to guns should seek professional level courses. That was discussed at length.
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. Range restrictions prevented any kind of handling practice (holster/reholster). The shooting portion was just to show that we knew how operate our weapon, not that we were safe or particularly competent.
This is all very comparable to driver training in Texas. Kids take a driver training course and then go take a state test. The state test does not have to include a demonstration of safe or competent driving skill. Driving incidents kill many more people every year than shooting incidents. Yet no one thinks anything about our current requirements for getting/renewing a drivers license.
This is not meant to be a rant about driver training. My point is that if the woods are full of bears and lions you can't be concerned only about the dogs.
Ideally, basic operation and safe handling of firearms should be a course in high school (an elective just like driver training). CHL training later should have emphasis on the legal aspects of carrying/using your concealed weapon (including the IMPORTANCE of getting competent training and practice).
This is all very comparable to driver training in Texas. Kids take a driver training course and then go take a state test. The state test does not have to include a demonstration of safe or competent driving skill. Driving incidents kill many more people every year than shooting incidents. Yet no one thinks anything about our current requirements for getting/renewing a drivers license.
This is not meant to be a rant about driver training. My point is that if the woods are full of bears and lions you can't be concerned only about the dogs.
Ideally, basic operation and safe handling of firearms should be a course in high school (an elective just like driver training). CHL training later should have emphasis on the legal aspects of carrying/using your concealed weapon (including the IMPORTANCE of getting competent training and practice).
I would have to vote YES and NO!
As a right under 2A you should not be required to take any test or go through any form of licensing. You should be allowed to carry openly or concealed – IMO.
I understand the states point of issuing a license because it forces you to acknowledge the laws that pertain to self defense and property as it relates to a guns use and the law. This IMO is also a good plan because what is law and urban legend are often two different things.
The back side is there are many folks that need some basic instruction in safe firearms handling and basic gun knowledge. Here is where IMO the rub exists!!!
Is there a good solution???
That depends on where on the right side of the 2A fence you stand on.
As it stands now you have the right to keep and bare arms privately in your home and property. It is a privilege to be licensed to publicly carry whether concealed or open carry depending on states laws.
Correct me if I am wrong but that is how the state of Texas perceives the 2A and acts upon its state rights to issue a license within its state boarders.
Considering the stance Texas has taken in regards to CHL, I would like to see added to the already mandatory class a 5 hour class on firearms safety, handling and a brief overview of tactics in relation to self defense required of all NEW hand gun owners.
To me it’s a safety issue as it pertains to the new handgun owner. I don’t want to read where a new handgun owner accidentally shot themselves or a loved one because they were not properly trained on gun safety and proper handling.
This is a very debatable topic and my only issue is safety!!!!
Bad things happen to good people because of ignorance!
As a right under 2A you should not be required to take any test or go through any form of licensing. You should be allowed to carry openly or concealed – IMO.
I understand the states point of issuing a license because it forces you to acknowledge the laws that pertain to self defense and property as it relates to a guns use and the law. This IMO is also a good plan because what is law and urban legend are often two different things.
The back side is there are many folks that need some basic instruction in safe firearms handling and basic gun knowledge. Here is where IMO the rub exists!!!
Is there a good solution???
That depends on where on the right side of the 2A fence you stand on.
As it stands now you have the right to keep and bare arms privately in your home and property. It is a privilege to be licensed to publicly carry whether concealed or open carry depending on states laws.
Correct me if I am wrong but that is how the state of Texas perceives the 2A and acts upon its state rights to issue a license within its state boarders.
Considering the stance Texas has taken in regards to CHL, I would like to see added to the already mandatory class a 5 hour class on firearms safety, handling and a brief overview of tactics in relation to self defense required of all NEW hand gun owners.
To me it’s a safety issue as it pertains to the new handgun owner. I don’t want to read where a new handgun owner accidentally shot themselves or a loved one because they were not properly trained on gun safety and proper handling.
This is a very debatable topic and my only issue is safety!!!!
Bad things happen to good people because of ignorance!
... nor knowledgeable, for that matter.
Excuse me - but who taught you gun laws?!?? I'm sorry if I come off harshly - but you're TOTALLY off base here. It is my RIGHT to purchase and own a firearm - period. The only thing that can restrict that right is a felony conviction (of course, "spousal abuse" has been tossed into the mix now).
MY interest is purely Constitutional, and I'll thank you to keep YOUR ideas out of MY exercise of MY rights. Because I've got news for you - you go practice all you want, and then we'll go to the range - and I will bet you $100 cash that I can bust you out of a course on a safety violation. Period. NOW - who do you want to "approve" you for carrying a firearm???
NO sir - they do NOT.....unless it's to "liberalize" some of the restrictive rules that have been placed upon us. I don't need you or anyone else looking over my shoulder as to how I may raise my children. Period. Leave your nanny-state ideas OUT of my life!!! And maybe YOU consider a gun a "toy" - I certainly do not.
Sorry....but so what? The courts will deal with his actions. Because he failed to educate himself properly is NO reason to punish the rest of us.
Because YOU chose an instructor that was incompetent is not MY concern. We had ZERO "free" time in the course - both the one I initially took, and a second one taken w/the wife years later. Then again, I went looking for a GOOD instructor - not one based on price or ease of passing. It's my personal safety and livelihood on the line, and I'll minimize the risk to it in any reasonable way - but I will NOT listen to some "do-gooder" CLAIMING to be a "gun rights advocate" try to convince me that we need further restrictions - period.
I've carried a gun for 40 years now, and have raised 5 kids on safe gun handling. The fact that you, your family, or anyone else has failed in that regard is NOT something I need to somehow be penalized for. Period.
But - the gun range offer stands. Bring your happy "I know what's best" self out and we'll set $100 each on the table. I'll even encourage other members here to be present to observe my handling of your safety abilities so that you'll know I'm being fair.
Oh, yeah - I'm NOT a current RO (have been in the past) or a CHL instructor. I'm just a CHL-carrying slob you have so little regard for.
Sorry for the rant, guys........
- You're not sorry, youre just trying to look good for these people.
Sufficient? Yes.
I also think it costs more than it should and takes longer than it should.
Texas honors permits from states based strictly on the background check alone, by TX own admission. If that's the case, then the requirements of a TX CHL are stricter than they need to be for what I would guess is based on appeasement.
As someone who's been licensed out of state, a state which requires an application, $60 check, fingerprints and a 4wk wait, yes, Texas is overboard.
