TexasCHLforum.com

Good Morning. First post on this forum and I have a question?

My stepson is about to get a pistol for his wife. So, I inquired about her getting her CHL. His response was "In most cases now, you are better off not having a concealed handgun licence. If you have one and shoot someone. There is no ignorence for the law as you went to the class and carry a licence. You there for know all the laws before you pulled the trigger"

My wife and I both had ours the first year that George Bush signed the CHL bill. I will hold off on telling you guys what I told him for now. What do you think?

Ignorance of the law is no excuse. I was visiting a former member of my church in jail recently and overheard a conversation between two others waiting to get in for a visit. One said his son was arrested for smoking a joint in his home. He said he didn't know it was illegal if it wasn't in public. That's why his father was having to visit him in jail (or at least part of the reason). I know this is an over-the-top example of ignorance not being a defense, but it holds in any legal situation. Not knowing that your actions are illegal doesn't somehow make them legal.

She might even be surprised to find out that the law allows someone to use force or even deadly force in situations when she might not think she could.

DCS wrote:Good Morning. First post on this forum and I have a question?

My stepson is about to get a pistol for his wife. So, I inquired about her getting her CHL. His response was "In most cases now, you are better off not having a concealed handgun licence. If you have one and shoot someone. There is no ignorence for the law as you went to the class and carry a licence. You there for know all the laws before you pulled the trigger"

My wife and I both had ours the first year that George Bush signed the CHL bill. I will hold off on telling you guys what I told him for now. What do you think?

A shoot…is a shoot…is a shoot. I think the laws about DF are applied whether one has a CHL or not. Not having a CHL does not excuse one from acting within the law. As a CHL holder, I do not think we are held to a deferent understanding of DF laws than those without a CHL. I have yet to hear of a case where one argued that he/she shot the BG because he/she was not aware of the legalities involved. Nor have I heard an argument that because he/she had a CHL he/she should have known better than to shoot. All a CHL really does is allows one to carry in other places than their home and vehicle.

Do you think a lawyer is better or worse off in court because they know the law? They're better off because they know the ins and outs of the law.

The police often convict criminals because of the criminal's extreme ignorance of the law. The smart criminals know the law and can be much tougher to convict.

Similar thing goes for the CHL class. In general training will improve your performance in both a gunfight and in the courtroom.

Paladin wrote:Do you think a lawyer is better or worse off in court because they know the law? They're better off because they know the ins and outs of the law.

The police often convict criminals because of the criminal's extreme ignorance of the law. The smart criminals know the law and can be much tougher to convict.

Similar thing goes for the CHL class. In general training will improve your performance in both a gunfight and in the courtroom.

DCS wrote:Good Morning. First post on this forum and I have a question?

My stepson is about to get a pistol for his wife. So, I inquired about her getting her CHL. His response was "In most cases now, you are better off not having a concealed handgun licence. If you have one and shoot someone. There is no ignorence for the law as you went to the class and carry a licence. You there for know all the laws before you pulled the trigger"

My wife and I both had ours the first year that George Bush signed the CHL bill. I will hold off on telling you guys what I told him for now. What do you think?

Howdy and welcome to the forum!

Your stepson is ignorant. That can be fixed. Happy to help with curing that as well. Know the law, regardless of having a CHL. Having the CHL is just one more point in your favor.

Would you want to drive a car if you didn't know the motor vehicle laws? "I'm sorry, officer, I didn't know the 55 on the sign referred to speed limit. You can't give me a ticket for that. I didn't know" You think that would work?

Same as "My neighbor and I got into an arguement and I had to shoot him to shut him up. What do you mean I can't do that? I didn't know! You can't arrest me!"

Ignorance is NO excuse. Better to be well-informed before being well-armed.

I think your son needs to re-examine his thinking.

Oh, and welcome to the forum, DCS!

I agree with all the above (except the stepson).
I believe that the immediate aftermath of a shooting, when the first cops on the scene are sorting good guys from bad, is when a CHL will do you the most good. When the actors are being identified, and one of us has a CHL, I expect most LEOs will think "OK, this guys has been thoroughly checked out to get the CHL, so we can assume a level of credibilty". A non-CHL might not get that same benefit, all other things being equal. For most LEO people this presumption will skew the view of evidence toward that opinion, unless contradicted in an obvious way. It's just human nature.
I think my CHL gives me a greater presumption of innocence on first impression, and that may be critical to how a case proceeds.

Paladin wrote:Do you think a lawyer is better or worse off in court because they know the law? They're better off because they know the ins and outs of the law.

The police often convict criminals because of the criminal's extreme ignorance of the law. The smart criminals know the law and can be much tougher to convict.

Similar thing goes for the CHL class. In general training will improve your performance in both a gunfight and in the courtroom.

+1

Pretty much sums it up.

Training will also help you avoid the situations that lead to gunfights and courtroom appearances.

The less you look like a target, the less likely you are to have to use deadly force.

The fact that people believe ideas like this makes this thread worthwhile.



TXI is right. ANY thread that helps to educate is worth the bandwidth. The only way we will ever educate the uninformed is with open communication. Berating someone for asking an honest question is never a good thing.

Here's is my repley to him.

So, are you telling me, that if you shoot someone and it falls out of the guidelines of when Texas says that you can legally use deadly force...YOU can just tell the judge and the jury that it's OK I didn't take the course so I was ignorant of the laws. Are you thinking they are going to say "Oh , I am sorry we didn't know that you are ignorant of Texas laws, you are free to go!"

Carrying a firearm also carries a large amount of responsibility with it. You better know the laws. Have you ever heard the phrase "Ignorance of the law is no excuse?"

Take the class.

Get the CHL.

In the event you have to use your gun for self defense, having a CHL will never hurt you in the aftermath.

Having a CHL is much more likely to help you. The responding officers know you have passed the background checks, that you have had the training, and that you most likely are aware of some basic methods of de-escalating a tense situation.

They also know that your chances of posing any threat to them are almost nil. This makes a big difference in their overall attitude towards you and how they approach and handle the situation in the aftermath.

If your son-in-law is going to carry then the best thing he can do is take the chl course and do it legally. If he gets discovered carrying with a license then his problems can escalate quickly, and assuming he would qualify for the license, the problems could be avoided altogether. He's a walking example of the "the unlicensed possession" signs that carry a $10,000 fine and 6 months in prison. Can't be worth that.

Should have read it before posting it. I should have stated that if you're discovered carrying without a license. rats.