TexasCHLforum.com

warnmar10 wrote:

Flightmare wrote:There were a few in my class who failed the range qualifications, at least on the first time. There are several LTC instructors on here who have seen students fail on the first try. It should not be assumed that it is an automatic.

What do you mean "at least on the first time." Did they come back on a subsequent day and retest or did the instructor let them have a do-over after everyone else finished the class?

I'm not trying to be obstinate about it. I just recall the training, testing and proficiency testing required to get my TDL when I was 16. When I was ~30 I got my Texas air conditioning license; more difficult than was my TDL or CHL.

Perhaps I paint with too broad a brush however there were a couple of people in the CHL classes I took that scared me. They had no business with a gun, certainly not in public. But at the end of the day we all left with a certificate of completion and the eligibility to apply for CHL.

Students are allowed 3 chances to pass with a grade of 70%. This applies to the classroom exam and the shooting proficiency test.

I don't think it is a more conservative challenge, as much as it is a slow-thinking "I want it all and I want it now" attitude. I have to be blunt because I can no longer protect that attitude.

warnmar10 wrote:

twomillenium wrote:

warnmar10 wrote:Realistically, how many people who take a LTC class leave without a certificate of successful completion? The class requirements are anything but rigorous. So on the one hand I would argue the licensing requirements are wholly inadequate but I can't off hand think of another unalienable and Constitutionally protected right for which a license is required.

I suppose my compromise would be Constitutional carry except where currently prohibited and carry anywhere a peace officer can with a license, the license being a little more than just a silly test for which the answers are obvious and a shooting test that is so easy that most first time shooters can pass it.

Sense the testing is so silly. Would you want someone who can't pass it to carry?

Show me someone who couldn't pass the test and I'll think about it.

I've taken the class and test twice. The first time I passed but never got around to turning in my paperwork and after a couple of years it was too late. I passed the second time too and about 30 days later I had my CHL. There were no failures in either class I took. In both classes there were first time, (literally first time,) shooters who passed the shooting test. I would argue the test is a formality that could be done away with. -- OR -- If we're going to require training and testing it should be meaningful training and meaningful testing.

Having said all that, what is it like in the states that have Constitutional carry? Is it all Dodge City and blood in the streets in those states now?

Well if your not going to think about it, then neither am I. You have google just like I do. Why don't you do your own home work and answer your own questions with the facts that you find. One thing that may help you get traction, is to remember that the best way to eat an elephant is one bite at a time.

warnmar10 wrote:

Russell wrote:HB 375 was filed today, which does away with the licensing requirements to carry a handgun.

I know where folks come from on 2A unlicensed carry, I really do.... but at the same time I'm hesitant for my own selfish reasons. I feel like going through the class and shooting test make you a better 2A citizen. Without the class requirements, how would every day citizens be expected to know the law, when you can and cannot escalate force, etc?


Convince me otherwise (or agree with me too!).

Realistically, how many people who take a LTC class leave without a certificate of successful completion? The class requirements are anything but rigorous. So on the one hand I would argue the licensing requirements are wholly inadequate but I can't off hand think of another unalienable and Constitutionally protected right for which a license is required.

I suppose my compromise would be Constitutional carry except where currently prohibited and carry anywhere a peace officer can with a license, the license being a little more than just a silly test for which the answers are obvious and a shooting test that is so easy that most first time shooters can pass it.

Since the testing is so silly. Would you want someone who can't pass it to carry?

I agree with "constitutional carry" if there would be an automatic prosecution with no exceptions for those who can not legally own or carry a weapon. This would go for long guns as well. Jail time would could not be bypassed in any form, other than death (natural of course), for those who carry illegally. I think that private property rights should remain supreme to the owners or those in authority of the owners, by simply putting up a gun buster sign or "no guns allowed" sign on property. This would apply to long guns, as well. However it would not apply to License holders, there could be a national type (if it became Nationwide Legislation) of signage similar to the .06 & .07 signs or oral notification and this would apply to licensees and non-licensees. Force of law could only be enforced by not immediately leaving when told to do so. At this time I would also leave it up to the States to accept or not accept non-state residents from unlicensed carry. (if it were a National). Some won't like this one way and some the another way. Frankly Charlotte I don't uh care.

P.S. Training would be required for license holders. The training would have standards that would need to be met by ALL States.