Are the current requirements to get a CHL sufficient?

[Exile Machine]

We should have Vermont / Alaska carry in TX.

 

[GM.Chief]

So what then do you think we should do? Should it instead be a three day course to drill in safety? Or should there be a requirement that every month, 2 months, 6 months, whatever, you have to come in and re-shoot and show safety sense? Because face it, no matter what you think should be in the class, it makes no damn difference if another person takes it, and doesn't go out shooting again for 5 years at renewal time.

 

[Fisherman777]

No amount of legislation or regulation in the world, no matter how difficult, will ever prevent idiots from committing acts of idiocy. No offense but, such methods of thinking are a logic trap. You simply cannot control people in a free society. The best you can do is your best to encourage people to seek out safety and self defense training. People have to make their own choices, whether you, I, or the government likes it or not, and that is a truly free society. As far as I'm concerned, no license should be necessary for a law-abiding citizen to conceal or open carry a firearm. I sell guns for a living, and a deal with all manner of Darwin award candidates all day long. I do my best to try and educate people with the time available to me, and to try to open their eyes and encourage them to seek out training. It's not my business and it's not the government's whether they do something about that or not.

Another argument you will commonly here for stricter carry laws is that people carrying guns in public should have to prove something, to prove they won't cause mayhem in public. Again, this line of thought is completely meaningless. Idiots seal their own fate, and no matter how strict the laws they will inevitably fall through the cracks regardless. It is completely 180 degrees contrary to the American ideal of personal freedom to be catering laws towards the lowest common denominator.

How about this. Instead of this mindset of government forced "responsibility", how about we start doing things to encourage people to do stuff on their own? You know those PSA commercials you used to see on TV about talking to your children about drugs, adopting a pet, etc? Well how about we start running PSA's, privately sponsored TV ads, newspaper articles, radio ads, etc encouraging people to attend firearms training schools, go to the shooting range and practice, etc etc? How about that? There are plenty of positive things we could do, that usually aren't being done currently, without falling into the improper mindset of having the government force people to do stuff. We need to stop worrying about what everyone else is doing in this country, and rather focus on ourselves instead and being the best we can be.

I agree with everything in this post. Making someone get a permit for something that is a right is just another form of infringement.

 

[Texas1911]

There should be no requirements for concealed or open carry. It's not my problem other people are idiots, and it's furthermore the reason as to why people should be armed. They'd be alot less likely to go blow away their co-workers if they knew they were also armed.

 

[DoubleActionCHL]

Are the restrictions adequate? For what they are, certainly. On the other hand, I don't recall the 2nd Amendment saying anything about a test. To me, the concept of licensing and paying a fee is in direct conflict with "shall not be infringed."

I've heard complaints that we don't teach enough gun handling in the CHL classes. For starters, it's not part of the state curriculum. More importantly, there is nothing I can tell you or show you that will help you in a gun fight. We respond with conditioning in stressful situations; you will not remember a single word I told you. What you're looking for is training, and you will not find that in the free time we might have available in a CHL class after covering all of the state curriculum. You must seek out qualified training and repeat it frequently.

You've heard the statement a million times, but I'll say it again. With rights come responsibility. America is brimming with irresponsible idiots. The government's solution is to take rights away because we're too irresponsible to handle them. The solution, as I see it, is make people responsible. When you coddle them, make excuses, blame their childhood or society for their actions, you're encouraging irresponsibility.

Lock the bastards up when they commit a violent crime. Eliminate parole for murderers and sex offenders. Lengthen the mandatory sentences for violent crimes, particularly those committed with firearms. And finally, keep records of judges' rulings, and when they release a some recidivistic maggot who reoffends, hold that JUDGE accountable! The same goes for parole boards. When these people are made accountable for their actions, I'm betting their actions will change. I'm betting their attitude toward these criminals changes when it's their own ass on the line, and not just some joe-citizen they've never even met.

RANT = OFF

 

[Seabear1500]

Wow, quite a topic.

There are a few reasons I became a CHL Instructor. I would be lying if I didn't say making a little extra cash wasn't one of them, but in all honesty, one of the biggest reasons I decided to become an instructor is that I have seen way too many "so called" Instructors that just fill the time with BS , teach the test the last 45 minutes followed imediately by giving the test. Heck, the first time I took the class I heard ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about gun safety, conflict resolution, and "only" what questions on the test that reffered to deadly force. Although I was entertained by the war stories the old guy had to tell, I sincerely felt undereducated.

Although I know that people are supposed to know how to handle their weapon before they get to a CHL class, I am painfully aware that in most cases that just isn't so. I spend more time on gun safety than anyone I have seen. That doesn't mean there aren't excellent instructors out there, I can only speak of what I have seen. Personaly I wish everyone would take a safety course, maybe even some defensive training. Do I want this to be a Govt. requirement. NOOOOOOOOOOOOO.......do I think some people carrying a gun DON"T need to be carrying a gun...YESSSSSSSSSSSS.

So with that said, maybe now you understand another one of my reasons for becoming an instructor. I'm not wealthy, I can't afford to pay for all the PSA's mentioned above, (although that is a great idea) I don't want to lobby for more State involvement or requirements on our right to protect ourselves. What I can do however is do the very best I can as an instructor. I can do my best to get through to my students and make them understand the responsibility that comes with being armed, and the importance of doing it safely (sometimes you have to beat it into some people )

I'll add another question to this topic for everyone to ponder although it might make a better seperate topic.

Why are new hunters required to take a Hunter's Safety Course but new handgun owners are left to survive on their own?

I think it all goes back to social responsibility. I hate regulation more than anyone, but sometimes you either have to protect the idiots or allow survival of the fittest , or in this case the smartest to weed them out.

ok I'm done for now.

 

[DoubleActionCHL]

Yes, I cover handgun safety ad nauseum, taking every opportunity to reinforce the rules and practices. But as I said, talking about it is one thing. What sticks in the students' heads is what the practice and repeat. This is why we all should be urging further training.

 

[Seabear1500]

Yes, I cover handgun safety ad nauseum, taking every opportunity to reinforce the rules and practices. But as I said, talking about it is one thing. What sticks in the students' heads is what the practice and repeat. This is why we all should be urging further training.

I agree with you 100%atriot: rest assured I was not referring to you or anyone else on this forum. Here in Corpus there may a couple good ones, but ....well....I'll leave it at that before I get into a

 

[bikerbill]

When I took my original CHL class a number of years ago, there was a woman who showed up with a revolver she had NEVER fired. In fact, she told the class she had never fired a gun at all. I was kind of concerned. Then, she totally flubbed the shooting portion of the class and I figured the instructor would tell her to get in some range time and come back for a freebie makeup course. No such luck. Instead, he pretty much held her hand until she fired the bare minimum score to pass. I'm a big supporter of the 2nd Amendment, but I am concerned for my own safety and the safety of my fellow Texans with somebody like that -- man or woman -- wandering the streets with a loaded gun and no idea how to use it properly. I agree that the 2A gives us the right to bear arms, but there has to be some way to insure that we are protected from those who choose to carry a weapon and are too stupid to learn how to use it.

 

[DCortez]

those who choose to carry a weapon and are too stupid to learn how to use it.

Hopefully the forum can attract these people. Pick up some hints, get some direction, attend a meet & greet, make a friend or two to help you along the way.

 

[Starker]

... but there has to be some way to insure that we are protected from those who choose to carry a weapon and are too stupid to learn how to use it.

That is impossible.

 

[Shorts]

That is impossible.

I agree. That's like all the idiots out there licensed to drive. But we see how that turns out on a daily basis. Instead, we have driving laws. You break them and get caught, you get a ticket or cause a crash...then get a ticket.

Same with guns. You shoot where or who you aren't suppose and you get in trouble with the law.

 

[Fisherman777]

Why are new hunters required to take a Hunter's Safety Course.....

I remember when they started that mess too. Another requirement. My son had to go to one of those stupid classes after I'd taught him for years about guns and gun safety. We don't need no stinking government intervention. I was shooting when the Mossberg bolt action 16 gauge that my dad gave me was taller than I was, (pretty close in height anyway).

These requirements and restrictions are not about our safety anyway. It's about control and that's all it's about. It's a political thing and "we the people" have to put a stop to it because they're not listening.

I didn't vote in the poll because it shouldn't even be a requirement. I agree with training but not required and mandated training and to give them $250 - $300 of my money to excersize a right.

 

[DoubleActionCHL]

I agree with you 100%atriot: rest assured I was not referring to you or anyone else on this forum. Here in Corpus there may a couple good ones, but ....well....I'll leave it at that before I get into a

No, I didn't think you were. I just realized, after reading your post, that I talked about training in the post-CHL class sense, and may have given the impression that I didn't cover gun handling or safety.

 

[KellyAsh]

So what then do you think we should do? Should it instead be a three day course to drill in safety? Or should there be a requirement that every month, 2 months, 6 months, whatever, you have to come in and re-shoot and show safety sense? Because face it, no matter what you think should be in the class, it makes no damn difference if another person takes it, and doesn't go out shooting again for 5 years at renewal time.

What I would like to see is a requirement for the instructors to teach safe handling; loading, unloading, holstering, and unholstering and yes, test people on it. The testing could be integrated in the classroom discussions as well as on the range.

There are a ton of other ways this training could be implemented into the classes without increasing cost or length of the class.

I want to applaud all of you instructors who recognize the value in this training that I am talking about enough to include it in your classes. If you are one of these instructors, you get the value of the training I am talking about. You obviously think its a requirement for YOUR class or you wouldnt be doing it.

As far as the frequency of the required training, I think it should be limited to the class time itself. The only I would like to see change is the actual requirement for it to be taught and tested, nothing extravagant.

People keep saying the licensing requirement violates 2A, and IMO it does at face value. Like I said before changing times do require changing rules. We live in a VERY different world than when the 2A was created and new rules SHOULD be made to compensate for the chaning times, for all kinds of reasons. We live and learn from our past, as a society, thereby bringing to light new ideas and enlightenment. If this werent true, why have speed limits today? Why require licenses to be able to drive cars? Should EVERYONE be allowed to drive a car without some measure of control? Changing times do require changing rules.

You guys dont seem to want to acknowledge the world we actually live in. It IS a requirement. It IS a priveledge and it IS the society we all CHOOSE to live in. There are plenty of other countrys people could move to where there is no licensing regulation or other requirement to carry a firearm yet you choose to stay here and complain about how it is. You all would rather all these morons that voted for Obama to be able to carry a gun, not that they would, than to be "filtered" to ensure safety. Now that sounds like a recipe for disaster to me.

 

[TexasRedneck]

Like I said before changing times do require changing rules. We live in a VERY different world than when the 2A was created and new rules SHOULD be made to compensate for the chaning times, for all kinds of reasons. We live and learn from our past, as a society, thereby bringing to light new ideas and enlightenment. If this werent true, why have speed limits today? Why require licenses to be able to drive cars? Should EVERYONE be allowed to drive a car without some measure of control? Changing times do require changing rules.

You guys dont seem to want to acknowledge the world we actually live in. It IS a requirement. It IS a priveledge and it IS the society we all CHOOSE to live in. There are plenty of other countrys people could move to where there is no licensing regulation or other requirement to carry a firearm yet you choose to stay here and complain about how it is. You all would rather all these morons that voted for Obama to be able to carry a gun, not that they would, than to be "filtered" to ensure safety. Now that sounds like a recipe for disaster to me.

Driving is a privelege as held by the courts. Gun ownership is a right as held by the courts. Period. "Free Speech" has been expanded beyond anything the Founding Fathers ever imagined (electronic media as one example), yet those rights have been EXPANDED to include same. Why not gun laws? There are already MORE than enough laws to cover misbehaviour with guns.

 

[DoubleActionCHL]

KellyAsh...

With all due respect, what you're talking about simply isn't practical within the scope of the CHL class.

Consider this: We have a state-required curriculum; information that MUST be taught. Teaching this properly easily takes the bulk of that 10 hour minimum. We do cover "Safe Handling and Storage of Firearms," but usually not to the degree in which you're suggesting.

Now, let's say we did add the exercises you suggest. In a one-on-one class, teaching the basics of firearms safety, grip, stance, functions of the weapon, loading, securing the weapon, chamber checks, etc. easily takes an hour. Now, how long do you think this would take with a class of 25 students, all with different types of handguns? Then we have the safety considerations; how do this many students do this while pointing the weapon in a safe direction and following the safety rules? Who has that many snap-caps in every conceivable caliber, because we're damn sure not going to load/unload using live ammo? Not to mention the fact that I'm not going to be in the room with 25 novice shooters handling real guns; I don't care HOW many times we checked them.

All this, and we haven't even gotten into carry methods, 5 points of the draw, tactical low ready, compressed ready and all the other positions. How many students have holsters? Are they wearing on the hip OWB or small of the back IWB? And what about the ladies who intend to carry in their purse?

We're also talking about a class full of students, some complete novices and others seasoned shooters. What do the experienced shooters do while a couple of folks just can't get a concept?

Then (and this is the best part), these students will go home, put their gun away and wait 3 to 5 months for their plastic to come in the mail. All the while, forgetting everything they learned.

But... let's say we could make this work. It would easily add at least 2 (probably more like 4) hours to the class. When looking for a CHL class, would you register for the 10 hour class or the 12 to 14 hour class? If I'm adding 2 hours, I'm charging for it. Would you register for the $125 class, or the $150/$175 class? Let's face it. Even if we did do this, no one would attend the class. We'd be performing in an empty theatre (that means we'd go broke) because no one would pay the extra admission or want to sit through those extra 2 to 4 hours; I don't care HOW great the class is. Trust me on this.

The basics you're talking about are best taught one-on-one or in small groups. Then they practice. Once shooters reach a certain skill level, we encourage them to join a group (or private) tactical class to expand their skills.

It is YOUR (the student's) responsibility to seek qualified training. We can point you in the right direction, but the rest is up to you. You won't find this training in a CHL class. It's just not practical. If someone is doing it within 10 hours, I suspect they're neglecting another relevant portion of the curriculum.

Just my .02.

 

[KellyAsh]

"Gun ownership is a right as held by the courts. Period."

This discussion is not about gun ownership, simply the requirements to obtain a CHL, which is a priveldge.

DoubleActionCHL, I see your point with regards to the larger classes. Covering all the aspects of gun safety in a class of 25, or more, all with different gear, would be impossible.

I dont teach these classes but I have taught plenty of firearms classes and I still think there is a way to make it happen. Getting into exactly how it could be done with a large class would take more time than I have here on the forum but I would be more than glad to see what I can come up with and PM you with ideas and see if it could be done without causing any unnecessary cost or extension of class time. I know we used to run classes with upwards of 40-50 people at a time because we standardized the class and had everybody doing the same things at the same time and we would watch over the students as they were going through the motions and pointing out their errors. The trick, like you said, would be to fit the extra training into what available time there is and in a properly taught class, there isnt much. Call me and optimist. LOL

Think about my side of it from this perspective. In my experience, the majority of negligent discharges with a handgun occur when one is either loading/unloading or holstering/unholstering a gun.

Again, in my experience, the number of incidents where a shooter accidentally hits an innocent bystander is very small in comparison to incidents where a person accidentally shoots themselves or others while loading/unloading or holstering a handgun. Yet there is a requirement to be able to hit the target, and rightly so. Im not detracting from the importance of this tesing procedure. I dont have numbers to back my statements on these occurences but this has been my experience in over 15 years of training people, in the Army and now as a hobby of sorts, and being actively involved in educating myself in firearm safety.

The current required training doesnt seem to promote gun safety much. It seems to mainly concern itself with knowing the laws, which is great, they are crucial to know but thats not going to save as many lives, IMO.

 

[Seabear1500]

KellyAsh, in a perfect world we would have all the time in the world to teach EVERY aspect of gun handling, obviously we don't live there. You are correct that many AD's or ND's occur while loading, unloading, holstering and unholstering. What is the main reason this happens? It is not necessarily lack of knowledge of the gun or the holster , it's almost always caused by a trigger getting pulled. Why? Some people have no clue about indexing, they don't even realize they are putting their finger on the trigger. I feel that this habit began when we were kids playing cops and robbers, cowboys and Indians , etc etc. We spent years running around with our toy guns with our fingers on the trigger. Now when you hand someone a pistol, the first thing they do is put their finger on the trigger and then if they "THINK" it is unloaded they pull the trigger. If you don't believe me, go to the next gun show and watch people.

I'm rambling so I'll try to cut it short well.....shorter.

We don't have time to teach everything about safety, but I cover as much as I can and if nothing else my students come away with the simple and best safety method I can teach them. Keep your finger off the trigger!!!! It's not just the rookies that neglect indexing, I have seen great shooters with years of experience let that finger find an improper place to rest. I use a couple of videos (DPS Approved) that demonstrate these types of accidents, and any time I pick up a mock gun I make them look at how I am holding it.

I know this sounds simple and maybe silly to some, but if you can keep the fingers off the triggers, less people will get shot by accident.atriot:

Harping on this during the many hours of class is no guarantee, but I will tell you I have had veteran shooters tell me after class that they had never noticed how many times they went straight to the trigger. So, my point is....it doesn't take a new regulation or requirement for me to do that in my class. To me it is just common sense. We have enough regulation already.

 

[Seabear1500]

I remember when they started that mess too. Another requirement. My son had to go to one of those stupid classes after I'd taught him for years about guns and gun safety. We don't need no stinking government intervention. I was shooting when the Mossberg bolt action 16 gauge that my dad gave me was taller than I was, (pretty close in height anyway).

These requirements and restrictions are not about our safety anyway.

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

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