ARJ Defense ad

On the air today discussing HB47, shortening the CHL class requirement to 4-6 hours

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!
  • Younggun

    Certified Jackass
    TGT Supporter
    Local Business Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    Jul 31, 2011
    53,618
    96
    hill co.
    On the air today discussing HB47, shortening the CHL class requirement to 4-6 h

    I feel that being knowledgeable in the applicable laws is the responsibility of the CHL holder.

    For this reason I think the required class could be shortened and the laws could be looked at more in depth by the applicant on their own while waiting for their CHL to process.

    If someone would like a more in depth class it could be made available but not mandatory, just as they can do for their proficiency now.

    I personally would rather have constitutional carry with no classes and no fees, CHL I handy for by passing NICS checks but outside of that I believe constitutional carry is a better option.
     

    gcmj45acp

    Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Feb 2, 2009
    160
    1
    Houston Metro Area
    I'm pulled both ways on the "required" aspects of the CHL. In one respect, it allows those that actually want to learn to be exposed to the rules and regulations (however wrong that may be) that we are required to follow to remain law abiding citizens. But then again, if it's a constitutional right, why do we have to do anything to carry a gun? It's a tax, and it provides education for those that want it but ............. ?

    Charlie, I think many of us share the same sentiments. Many of us would through a no-shit-fit at the suggestion that we be required to take a class, pass a test, and pay a tax to vote. In fact, at one point in time, our country did require literacy tests and demanded taxes be paid by those wishing to vote. Today, we see such policies as wrong and even racist. While I agree, ownership and the right to carry a gun shouldn't be taxed, require a license, or any form of registration, I can't pretend that we are all born knowing how to shoot, the law, or the responsibilities that come with going armed. As much as I'd almost prefer a degree of anarchy, I feel a pull toward finding a way to be sure people who go armed, aren't an unnecessary hazard to themselves or anyone else.
     

    Younggun

    Certified Jackass
    TGT Supporter
    Local Business Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    Jul 31, 2011
    53,618
    96
    hill co.
    On the air today discussing HB47, shortening the CHL class requirement to 4-6 h

    That's all good, except I've seen people who couldn't really operate their firearm pass the CHL proficiency test.

    One in my class fired a gun for the first time when qualifying, had very little idea how it worked, and passed.

    I think that speaks to how much safer you are for the required course.
     

    gcmj45acp

    Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Feb 2, 2009
    160
    1
    Houston Metro Area
    That's all good, except I've seen people who couldn't really operate their firearm pass the CHL proficiency test.

    One in my class fired a gun for the first time when qualifying, had very little idea how it worked, and passed.

    I think that speaks to how much safer you are for the required course.

    We all have seen people who couldn't operate their firearms, manage to pass or worse, be coddled through by instructors. No one said we like it or agree with it. I have quite honestly seen a blind man pass with a score of 180 by simply indexing toward the target. It may not be a popular opinion but, I'd argue it speaks to how pathetically easy the test is in its current form.

    Going to Austin to qualify with other instructors is often equally discouraging if not more so because there were people there who were nervous wrecks about the idea of scoring 90% or better as required for instructors. Some of them were rightfully concerned and needed coaching or remedial instruction from the DPS troopers. I don't know anyone who hasn't had a similar experience in Florence or on their own firing line and yet, every attempt to require higher standards for both CHL applicants and even police has been met with complaints that higher standards aren't fair or are otherwise impractical.

    The police unions and agencies themselves argue against higher standards due to the cost and time required for additional training. And the number one argument against higher standard for civilians remains that it is an infringement of the 2nd Amendment. It was also decided that the CHL qualification could not be any more difficult than that required for Texas peace officers. So where do we go from here? Toss it all in the name of our rights that shall not be infringed and just say that's the way it goes when someone is killed due to a shooter's negligence or ineptitude?
     

    tx_transplant

    Active Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    May 9, 2012
    314
    1
    Greenville, TX
    I feel that being knowledgeable in the applicable laws is the responsibility of the CHL holder.

    For this reason I think the required class could be shortened and the laws could be looked at more in depth by the applicant on their own while waiting for their CHL to process.

    If someone would like a more in depth class it could be made available but not mandatory, just as they can do for their proficiency now.

    This is exactly where I stand also. Ultimately, it is MY responsibility to know and understand the laws regarding carry and use of force. When I first came here from PA (with my PA license), before I even thought about carrying, I dove in and read, studied, and learned the laws. My wife was a new shooter, and I taught her a few things before sending her to an NRA basic pistol course. In that time, I helped her study the applicable laws, which also helped me learn them.
    I look at it this way- those of us who are serious about the subject will do what is necessary to know and understand. Those who are not serious won't. It's easy to sit in a class and burn 10 hours and walk away with zero knowledge.
     

    Texan2

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Nov 8, 2008
    7,932
    21
    South of San Antonio
    47, shortening the CHL class requirement to 4-6 hours

    How many people "fail" the current class and are not able to get a license? The whole "we train them and make them pass a test" as it is currently, is a joke. Someone who wants to learn...will. Someone who cares less about the law, will never learn it no matter the length of the class. 5 hours or 15 hours...won't effect anything either way.

    Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
     

    London

    The advocate's Devil.
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    Sep 28, 2010
    6,286
    96
    Twilight Zone
    If you can't make time for or sit still through a 10 hour class, you shouldn't be licensed to carry a handgun, in the first place. Sheesh. You have to take mandatory classes now to get your TXDL if you're 25 or younger, too. It ain't gonna kill ya.

    Please show me where the Constitution says you have a right to drive a car.
     

    gcmj45acp

    Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Feb 2, 2009
    160
    1
    Houston Metro Area
    What is exactly is the "Pertinent, required learning," and why would eliminating it be bad?

    I don't know about "required" but from my perspective, "pertinent" is what constitutes lawful carry as defined in the Texas Government Code and what constitutes an appropriate use of force or deadly force under the Texas Penal Code. Last I checked, no one is born with that information nor do they get it by osmosis. If someone doesn't want to bother with taking the class or applying for the license, adopting to carry "constitutionally," I'd argue that is their right. So long as they accept the consequences of that decision and all that may come with it, I really don't care. And if an incompetent person shoots themselves or even their own family members, I could care less. Where I have a problem is the point at which willful incompetence and ignorance endangers me and mine.
     

    London

    The advocate's Devil.
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    Sep 28, 2010
    6,286
    96
    Twilight Zone
    Well said.

    What I was going to get at (had you not pretty much diffused my argument!) is that there doesn't seem to be any problem with people being ignorant of deadly force law in places which allow people to carry firearms unlicensed and at will. The people I see arguing that other people are too ignorant to be trusted with deadly force tools without first getting permission from the Government (puke!) are in fact ignorant themselves of deadly force tools as used in freer states.
     
    Every Day Man
    Tyrant

    Support

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    116,120
    Messages
    2,953,352
    Members
    34,941
    Latest member
    Irowland1994
    Top Bottom