"(Not trying to start a Lone Ranger fan club)"
Just trying to get a little closer to the original term of "shall not be infringed".
I thought the additional training would alleviate some of the anti's fears.
Search found 2 matches
Return to “Do we need an additional rating for our CHL?”
- Wed Oct 20, 2010 2:29 pm
- Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
- Topic: Do we need an additional rating for our CHL?
- Replies: 39
- Views: 4650
- Wed Oct 20, 2010 1:15 pm
- Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
- Topic: Do we need an additional rating for our CHL?
- Replies: 39
- Views: 4650
Do we need an additional rating for our CHL?
How about some ideas on advanced training/additional ratings?
Do we need an additional rating such as a CHL Rating or an additional rating requiring advanced schooling, training and qualification?
A rating such as an instrument rating for pilots or a specialty rating as seen in law and medicine.
Could we use the training and skills taught by the most experienced trainers and first responders if we ever had to defend ourselves or family members?
Would the public benefit from an individual that, if he had to defend himself or his family, was trained to a higher standard? A standard able to deliver pinpoint, precision accuracy to stop threats. A standard which would be the antitheses of pray and spray.
Would it be pertinent to allow an individual after schooling, training, qualification and the appropriate rating obtained to be named respectively under PC 46.15 Non-applicability or at a minimum their children's schools, family events or gatherings where security may be an issue? The intent is that a man’s God given inalienable right to self defense and the protection of his family not be infringed by those that would deliberately try to prevent him from protecting them and those that would deliberately take advantage of a man’s inability to protect himself or his family.
Looking for some input. Here are a few pro’s and con’s. Lets see what Texas thinks about the idea and what other pitfalls may exist.
Pro’s
Advanced training to CHLr
Advanced training is safer for the public “if” an event occurs
Advanced training increases confidence and performance
Puts the UT CFP argument to rest
First of it’s kind for the CCW permits?
More funds to the state
More opportunities for instructors
Number of applicants would send a serious message
May backdoor campus carry
Criminals put on notice that Texas and Texans will not allow crime to pay and are competently trained to prevent and defend themselves should a criminal underestimate
Con’s
Greater responsibility for the CHLr
Greater responsibility for the state to administer
No applicants would send a serious message
May hinder campus carry
No peace officer license, privileges, or immunities as granted under 1701, citizens already have certain understood authority as explained in “We the People” etc.
(Not trying to start a Lone Ranger fan club)
Do we need an additional rating such as a CHL Rating or an additional rating requiring advanced schooling, training and qualification?
A rating such as an instrument rating for pilots or a specialty rating as seen in law and medicine.
Could we use the training and skills taught by the most experienced trainers and first responders if we ever had to defend ourselves or family members?
Would the public benefit from an individual that, if he had to defend himself or his family, was trained to a higher standard? A standard able to deliver pinpoint, precision accuracy to stop threats. A standard which would be the antitheses of pray and spray.
Would it be pertinent to allow an individual after schooling, training, qualification and the appropriate rating obtained to be named respectively under PC 46.15 Non-applicability or at a minimum their children's schools, family events or gatherings where security may be an issue? The intent is that a man’s God given inalienable right to self defense and the protection of his family not be infringed by those that would deliberately try to prevent him from protecting them and those that would deliberately take advantage of a man’s inability to protect himself or his family.
Looking for some input. Here are a few pro’s and con’s. Lets see what Texas thinks about the idea and what other pitfalls may exist.
Pro’s
Advanced training to CHLr
Advanced training is safer for the public “if” an event occurs
Advanced training increases confidence and performance
Puts the UT CFP argument to rest
First of it’s kind for the CCW permits?
More funds to the state
More opportunities for instructors
Number of applicants would send a serious message
May backdoor campus carry
Criminals put on notice that Texas and Texans will not allow crime to pay and are competently trained to prevent and defend themselves should a criminal underestimate
Con’s
Greater responsibility for the CHLr
Greater responsibility for the state to administer
No applicants would send a serious message
May hinder campus carry
No peace officer license, privileges, or immunities as granted under 1701, citizens already have certain understood authority as explained in “We the People” etc.
(Not trying to start a Lone Ranger fan club)