Major advancements for Texas CHL holders

[switch]

He did not do any harm to our rights in TX. Maybe in CO, but that was their mistake and they are trying to correct it. Trying to recall those legislators.

What part of 'shall not be infringed' do you not understand?

[Jumping Frog]

I am NOT starting a flame war. However, The 2ndA, starts with "A well regulated......

It is also quite clear that the phrase "well regulated" in 1789 did not mean regulated like we now understand the term (i.e., government regulations).

It simply meant a "well-trained and organized militia" was necessary for the security of a free state.

[jmra]

I am NOT starting a flame war. However, The 2ndA, starts with "A well regulated......

CHL as well as gun ownership should be somehow regulated as it is high responsibility. "Wackos with guns" are real the enemy of our gun rights. It is just fresh in our mind what Loranza did of uncalculated harm to our rights.

Did you forget the "shall not be infringed" part?

[Beiruty]

I am NOT starting a flame war. However, The 2ndA, starts with "A well regulated......

CHL as well as gun ownership should be somehow regulated as it is high responsibility. "Wackos with guns" are real the enemy of our gun rights. It is just fresh in our mind what Loranza did of uncalculated harm to our rights.

Did you forget the "shall not be infringed" part?

Not really, however, can you arm a career-criminal, a violent felon, or an insane person under the clause "Shall not be infringed"?

[Beiruty]

I am NOT starting a flame war. However, The 2ndA, starts with "A well regulated......

It is also quite clear that the phrase "well regulated" in 1789 did not mean regulated like we now understand the term (i.e., government regulations).

It simply meant a "well-trained and organized militia" was necessary for the security of a free state.

I have to concur with you somehow on what you said.

[flechero]

I think it's a mistake to lower the bar for CHL. If anything I would want to increase the overall requirements. CHL holders are sort of an elite group right now and I think they should be. If someone has plastic then you know they are responsible and committed enough to have gone through the hoops to carry. I'm against constitutional carry for this reason but that seems to be what we are evolving towards in Texas. I know that most people in this thread disagree, but before you do I would wonder if you are taking for granted the high quality of the current body of CHL holders are and assuming it will always be that way. Having 100% of the population carrying would be excellent but not at any price.

Ironic that the changes will take place September 1st. I just hope it's not a new Eternal September.

I think I understand what you are trying to say... but to mandate it in the statutes is not the way to go.

I think that anyone who carries a gun should seek additional training to be adequately prepared. Different folks need different amounts and kinds training. Take a guy who carried in the service, perhaps an MP. Should he be required to complete a bunch of training that is designed to take a 60 year old woman (no offense to any 60 y.o. ladies) from never fired a gun to being proficient and confident in a carry encounter??? I think not. It unfairly burdens people to spend lots of time and money on training that some need/some don't. The responsibility lies with the individual. Sadly, there will always be those who don't- which is why we have legal limits on almost everything!

You walk a slippery slope when talking of watering down out rights... Would you also be a fan of us losing or diluting the 1st, 4th and 5th amendment rights? I would not.

[jmra]

I am NOT starting a flame war. However, The 2ndA, starts with "A well regulated......

CHL as well as gun ownership should be somehow regulated as it is high responsibility. "Wackos with guns" are real the enemy of our gun rights. It is just fresh in our mind what Loranza did of uncalculated harm to our rights.

Did you forget the "shall not be infringed" part?

Not really, however, can you arm a career-criminal, a violent felon, or an insane person under the clause "Shall not be infringed"?

Absolutely not. The founding fathers understood that criminals with ill intent should not have firearms. The way they addressed this issue is with long prison terms or the gallows.
A career-criminal, a violent felon, or an insane person should be removed from society then there's no concern about their access to firearms.

[Beiruty]

jmra,


I do support 100% the "founding fathers" solution or their way of gun-control. Lovely.

[flechero]

I am NOT starting a flame war. However, The 2ndA, starts with "A well regulated......

CHL as well as gun ownership should be somehow regulated as it is high responsibility. "Wackos with guns" are real the enemy of our gun rights. It is just fresh in our mind what Loranza did of uncalculated harm to our rights.

Did you forget the "shall not be infringed" part?

Not really, however, can you arm a career-criminal, a violent felon, or an insane person under the clause "Shall not be infringed"?

Criminals and "wackos" are already prohibited from owning guns so additional regulation (today's definition) which only burdens the legal, intended group, is ludicrous.

There were and always will be a percentage of the population that is criminal, mentally unstable, etc., you don't permanently punish the entire population to address a few. I believe that there are already plenty of laws regarding criminals, yet they still manage to get and use guns, drugs, etc. (quite easily, I think)

[jmra]

I am NOT starting a flame war. However, The 2ndA, starts with "A well regulated......

CHL as well as gun ownership should be somehow regulated as it is high responsibility. "Wackos with guns" are real the enemy of our gun rights. It is just fresh in our mind what Loranza did of uncalculated harm to our rights.

Did you forget the "shall not be infringed" part?

Not really, however, can you arm a career-criminal, a violent felon, or an insane person under the clause "Shall not be infringed"?

Criminals and "wackos" are already prohibited from owning guns so additional regulation (today's definition) which only burdens the legal, intended group, is ludicrous.

There were and always will be a percentage of the population that is criminal, mentally unstable, etc., you don't permanently punish the entire population to address a few. I believe that there are already plenty of laws regarding criminals, yet they still manage to get and use guns, drugs, etc. (quite easily, I think)

The libs will say that they would rather a 100 guilty people walk away free than 1 innocent person go to jail. I wish they would apply that same logic to 2A. If they did, honest people walking the streets of our largest cities would no longer be victims and armed criminals would be on the endangered list.

[tobasco]

I think it's a mistake to lower the bar for CHL. If anything I would want to increase the overall requirements. CHL holders are sort of an elite group right now and I think they should be. If someone has plastic then you know they are responsible and committed enough to have gone through the hoops to carry. I'm against constitutional carry for this reason but that seems to be what we are evolving towards in Texas. I know that most people in this thread disagree, but before you do I would wonder if you are taking for granted the high quality of the current body of CHL holders are and assuming it will always be that way. Having 100% of the population carrying would be excellent but not at any price.

Ironic that the changes will take place September 1st. I just hope it's not a new Eternal September.

Are you sure you don't live in New York? Being part of the ruling class elite is a way of life there. Maybe you'd be more comfortable in that environment.

As far as the "great unwashed masses", they have not been a problem in states that do allow Constitutional carry. In fact, I trust the common sense of the normal, everyday, average American a heck of a lot more than I trust the common sense of the Ruling Class.

Elite in the sense that they have more firearms knowledge and education and have demonstrated a desire to carry safely and responsibly. TXDL requires 32 hours of classroom and still look at how many crazy people there are on the road. I don't want people to have the same mentality about carrying. As long as the state doesn't make the CHL requirements deliberately onerous like in California, I think a long class time is good.

[jimlongley]

I am NOT starting a flame war. However, The 2ndA, starts with "A well regulated......

CHL as well as gun ownership should be somehow regulated as it is high responsibility. "Wackos with guns" are real the enemy of our gun rights. It is just fresh in our mind what Loranza did of uncalculated harm to our rights.

Did you forget the "shall not be infringed" part?

Not really, however, can you arm a career-criminal, a violent felon, or an insane person under the clause "Shall not be infringed"?

No, and that is a specious argument, in the time frame and in context it was well understood that those persons had no rights anyway.

[switch]

Who is to decide what onerous?

Does the little old lady getting her chl need the same training as a young guy? She is probably not going to carry. If she does, it will just be to the grocery store.

He may plan to carry. He will be out a lot more, commuting, partying, etc. Probably going to more places.

Does a preacher getting his CHL need the same training as a south Dallas building inspector, plumber or real estate agent?

[jmra]

I think a long class time is good.

I am thankful that our legislative body disagrees with you.

[jimlongley]

First of all I want to thank Charles in particular, and the many others in general, for all their hard work in getting these important baby steps accomplished.

That said, I also agree, if only tacitly, with bitterclinger (I would have avoided that tag just because of the possible association with Max of MASH) that our ultimate goal should be the conditions that existed in 1791 (not 1776, bitter) and will continue to campaign, proselytize, and put my money where my mouth is with that agenda in mind, while recognizing that it is not something we will see change tomorrow, or even in my lifetime.

Barring a miraculous SCOTUS decision, returning the nation as a whole, much less any particular state, to full "Constitutional Gun Possession" will take generations, just as it took generations for the anti-gun nuts to nibble away at it. Just like the frog in the pot, our forefathers allowed the heat to be turned up slowly, the edges to be nibbled away, until it finally came to our notice that we were being boiled, and now we lack the manner and means to just jump out of the pot.

And I have been on this campaign since Oswald's mail order rifle served as the excuse to ban such sales.

----------------------------------------------------

When my wife and I took our first CHL class, we were singularly unimpressed with the quality of the training presented. Having been a long time technical trainer myself, it was obvious that our trainers had little or no training or experience in being trainers even if they thought they were doing a good job (which opinion was shared with us during one of the few breaks in a ten hour day).

At the inception of class, the presenters told us that our class was mixed, some new students and some renewal, so they would be presenting the renewal portions of the class first, and then those persons would leave, which happened. But this led to some confusion as stuff that got presented before got presented a second time from a slightly different viewpoint and with more filler and background. Not that anything was said that contradicted something that went before, just with different emphasis and more information.

Then the paperwork started, and a huge amount of time was spent doing paperwork without ANY other instructional activity. We got fingerprinted, pictures got taken, and other stuff that we understood was not part of class time, and indeed, except for fingerprinting, we had already done before attending class, as we had been told we should. When inquiring about the class, and about where to get fingerprinted, we had been told that we could, as an option, be fingerprinted there, after class, so not to bother going to the police as we had been instructed.

I could easily have done without the couple of hours of sitting there through "Now on the back of the first photograph, no sir, you need to turn it over, you will need to write your signature." and other such, and always felt the class could have been significantly truncated.

Our first renewal even included the range time, which in this case was combined with the range time from that instructor's initial training class too.