TexasCHLforum.com

pcgizzmo wrote:I'm wondering why the schools don't have shooting teams as a sport?. I would think maybe the TSRA might be able to work with some schools to start some type of 3 gun or rifle competition at the High school levels. Obviously there would be a lot of planning, politics and hurdles because of the sensitivity to shootings and violence at schools but I would think that schools that are in close proximity to an outdoor or large indoor range might work something out. Students could store guns at the range instead of bringing them to school etc.

Sorry, I know this is OT but was in response to the above post. Just making an observation.

anygunanywhere wrote:Just because every discussion between Governor, Lt Governor, and legislators is not made public does not mean that these folks are merely playing media lip service.

I for one think Abbott will be the best governor in the history of this state. He is proactive and pro freedom.

If we do our part when Charles tells us to Abbot will do his. Let the system work.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

paxton25 wrote:I certainly wish Abbott would come out for the party platform. There is a difference from essentially saying, I won't veto the bill if it happens to land on my desk and pushing for it to be a legislative priority. He likes to ride that political fence a lot.

Are you aware what Abbott as AG has done for gun owners?

Also, he didn't say he wouldn't veto an open-carry bill. He said he would sign it; that's a big difference. In Texas, a Governor can let a bill become law without his signature simply by not vetoing the bill within the time frame for doing so. If a Governor doesn't want to be associated with a law but they don't want the flak from vetoing it. they let it become law without his signature. Signing a bill, and telling everyone they will sign the bill, indicates their support.

Chas.

TXBO wrote:

MeMelYup wrote:

Charlies.Contingency wrote: Fair enough. I agree to an extent of course. The only differ is that I want some way to ensure that gun owners know how to safely carry and shoot. I have personal reasons for that, and cannot be swayed. I just wish there was a way to give all gunners training for free so that nobody else get hurt like me. Any suggestions on that? I just want some way of getting the stupid out of those who are going to have guns... To bad there isn't a cure for stupid.

You can. Get the school board or state legislature to require firearms safety in grade schools and firearms training in jr high and high schools. It would be nice to see school firearm championships for the state. A type of biathlon where each contestant runs a quarter mile with a 25 lb pack including their firearm and ammo, then have to shoot 5 targets, repeat this for a mile. Or 2 or 5 miles.

I grew up in Tennessee. Back in the early 1980's and before, Hunter's Safety was included in freshman Health class. It was a requirement to graduate.

MeMelYup wrote:

Charlies.Contingency wrote:

MeMelYup wrote:

Charlies.Contingency wrote: Fair enough. I agree to an extent of course. The only differ is that I want some way to ensure that gun owners know how to safely carry and shoot. I have personal reasons for that, and cannot be swayed. I just wish there was a way to give all gunners training for free so that nobody else get hurt like me. Any suggestions on that? I just want some way of getting the stupid out of those who are going to have guns... To bad there isn't a cure for stupid.

You can. Get the school board or state legislature to require firearms safety in grade schools and firearms training in jr high and high schools. It would be nice to see school firearm championships for the state. A type of biathlon where each contestant runs a quarter mile with a 25 lb pack including their firearm and ammo, then have to shoot 5 targets, repeat this for a mile. Or 2 or 5 miles.

That is an excellent idea! Pushing firearm safety at the school level! Too bad it seems like most schools will expel you for doodling a gun. If we ever did pass "Constitutional Carry," I will demanding that this become implemented in school. They can have my 10yr old to go through Sexual Education and see naked bodies, and talk about sex and give out condoms and lubricant. We should have Gun Education, where they teach firearm safety, and the realities of the dangers, and hand out trigger locks and gun oil.

(Pardon my explicitness, and I may be stretching it, but I did it for humor and and make similarities to create the analogy desired.

Why not talk to your legislator and have it mandated by law?

MeMelYup wrote:

Charlies.Contingency wrote: Fair enough. I agree to an extent of course. The only differ is that I want some way to ensure that gun owners know how to safely carry and shoot. I have personal reasons for that, and cannot be swayed. I just wish there was a way to give all gunners training for free so that nobody else get hurt like me. Any suggestions on that? I just want some way of getting the stupid out of those who are going to have guns... To bad there isn't a cure for stupid.

You can. Get the school board or state legislature to require firearms safety in grade schools and firearms training in jr high and high schools. It would be nice to see school firearm championships for the state. A type of biathlon where each contestant runs a quarter mile with a 25 lb pack including their firearm and ammo, then have to shoot 5 targets, repeat this for a mile. Or 2 or 5 miles.

anygunanywhere wrote:There was just an OC story on Austin's KVUE. Report seemed essentially neutral. Had a CHL instructor and some citizens giving opinions. The story mentions the bills filed, one for licensed OC and one for (sorry Charles, their words) constitutional carry with no license for OC or CC. If they post it on their website we can run it down.

anygunanywhere wrote:

Charlies.Contingency wrote:Yeah, you're right. I guess I just went with the easiest shortest path to protectin people the liberal way. You really think we can get this country moving in the right direction? It seems like the constitution and our God given rights are nothing but toilet paper to the majority of politicians. I lost me edge in striving for the extreme victory, but time and bad experiences have their way of grinding us down, eh?

It is never too late to change direction. Lots of hurdles to overcome. Voter apathy, corruption, the pain of having to do what is right and necessary while overcoming the entitlement attitude. I could go on.

Biggest issue is lack of faith in God and His Mercy and providence.

TXBO wrote:

Charlies.Contingency wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:

Charlies.Contingency wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:

Charlies.Contingency wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:Reasonable restrictions and common sense gun laws have exterminated hundreds of millions of people globally.

Please, explain this further as to how it is relevant? How is wanting people to go through a CHL course exterminating hundreds of millions of people in this situation?

Total confiscation historically is the end game where common sense gun laws and reasonable restrictions are placed on a country's citizens. CHLs are what I refer to as one of your reasonable restrictions.

The second amendment says nothing about training being required.

Since CHL's to you will lead to our deaths, we'll move on from that. Could you explain to me what you want as far as how guns are bought, sold, and who can have them, and where they can carry them? You don't have to go into song, I just want to know what it is that is acceptable to you. I only have bits and peices from previous posts

I have no problem with restricting felons from carrying.

Requiring permits to exercise God given rights is infringement whether it is OC or CC.

Citizens should be allowed to carry wherever LEO can carry.

Machine gun bans are extreme infringements. Citizens should be allowed to purchase and own whatever the military is using.

What I carry on my person is no one else's business.

I have mixed thoughts on background checks. If all it was was a background check called in when a person produces government issued ID then that would be OK but my distrust of government gives me pause for concern. Having to fill out the stupid 4473 is a waste of time. I used to be an FFL so I have experience with the laws and ATF audits.

Person to person sales are a fact of life. Get over it. The government should forget about it. There are no gun show loopholes.

Firearms laws are a state concern, not the feds. The interstate commerce clause has been overused and is a tool for tyranny.

Since firearms are a state concern, the feds have pretty much rolled up, squashed, and trampled all over the second amendment. The Post Office, Corp of Engineers, BLM, Parks Service, pretty much every fed alphabet agency has made infringing the second amendment their stock and trade.

Fair enough. I agree to an extent of course. The only differ is that I want some way to ensure that gun owners know how to safely carry and shoot. I have personal reasons for that, and cannot be swayed. I just wish there was a way to give all gunners training for free so that nobody else get hurt like me. Any suggestions on that? I just want some way of getting the stupid out of those who are going to have guns... To bad there isn't a cure for stupid.

You want a new system, i'm just trying to work with what we have now. I hope you understand that it's not because I want restrictions.

The answer is greater penalties for negligence.

anygunanywhere wrote:

Charlies.Contingency wrote:
Fair enough. I agree to an extent of course. The only differ is that I want some way to ensure that gun owners know how to safely carry and shoot. I have personal reasons for that, and cannot be swayed. I just wish there was a way to give all gunners training for free so that nobody else get hurt like me. Any suggestions on that? I just want some way of getting the stupid out of those who are going to have guns... To bad there isn't a cure for stupid.

You want a new system, i'm just trying to work with what we have now. I hope you understand that it's not because I want restrictions.

I don't want a new system. I want the old one back.

Your concern for safety is well founded and I agree with you. The four rules are constants that we must adhere to and those who know and handle firearms regularly know in our hearts that there is way more to it than the four rules actually articulate. Kind of like the 10 commandments cover more than they overtly state.

My daddy taught me how to handle firearms and I did the same for my sons. Firearm safety and other life lessons were taught to children by their parents and this is where society as a whole is slipping. Instead of teaching children life lessons parents are off watching Dancing With the Stars while their children are playing video games or else everyone has done a face plant in their phone.

I had a negligent discharge one time when I was a teenager that scared me to death. I will not have another and I do not tolerate sloppy firearm handling by anyone. Personal responsibility is just as applicable to firearms as it is to driving cars, using a rip saw, weed eater, electric mixer, or anything else that can cause injury if not used correctly.

You can't legislate correct behavior, and there are too many laws on the books that restrict freedoms because government has tried to do so.

Darwin rules. Unfortunately innocent people are victims of friendly fire in Darwin incidents.

Sorry for the thread drift.

jimlongley wrote:

Charlies.Contingency wrote:

jimlongley wrote:

Charlies.Contingency wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:

Charlies.Contingency wrote:

gdanaher wrote:From the DMN:

"Rep. Jonathan Stickland, R-Bedford, introduced a bill that would allow people to carry handguns without obtaining a concealed handgun license."

Idk about that. I would like to keep CC the way it is, but add an OC option that would allow for licensed/unlicensed carry with proper certification like the CHL. I just don't want somebody to buy a gun who's never shot it, carry it around in public, and try to engage somebody without knowing the laws regarding the use of force, or having any training at all to hit their target and not kill innocent people.

So you do not support constitutional carry? How many more rights do you want restricted by requiring certain qualifications?

And you would support felons allowed to walk around unhindered with an AK and Pistol on their side because it's our right to bear arms.

I'm for common sense and for life preservation. I am not for restrictions as you so accuse, I am for safety and proficiency training, and a ID stating that you are not a felon and have accomplished certain training to help you better protect yourself and others.

Since felons have lost their constitutional rights, how does constitutional carry allow them to walk around unhindered?

Have I ever said in my text the words "Constitutional Carry?" No. I never said that about Open Carry anyway, it was a contrasting statement to whom suggested I was wanting to take away our rights, because I am for "RESTRICTING GUNS TO AMERICANS" by supporting a background check. If you removed restrictions, what would you have? No restrictions... Seems pretty simple to me. And there is no such thing as constitutional carry, it's an idea and a catch phrase. I though chas already cleared that up?

Well, I disagree with Charles - constitutional carry is a concept, not a thing, and you were responding to a statement about such with a reductio ad absurdam statement that he was for felons walking around armed unhindered, I was merely pointing out that the restriction already pre-exists the issue. If the concept known as constitutional carry, which does indeed exist in some places, comes to pass in TX, it will still be illegal for felons to possess.

anygunanywhere wrote:

Charlies.Contingency wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:

Charlies.Contingency wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:Reasonable restrictions and common sense gun laws have exterminated hundreds of millions of people globally.

Please, explain this further as to how it is relevant? How is wanting people to go through a CHL course exterminating hundreds of millions of people in this situation?

Total confiscation historically is the end game where common sense gun laws and reasonable restrictions are placed on a country's citizens. CHLs are what I refer to as one of your reasonable restrictions.

The second amendment says nothing about training being required.

Since CHL's to you will lead to our deaths, we'll move on from that. Could you explain to me what you want as far as how guns are bought, sold, and who can have them, and where they can carry them? You don't have to go into song, I just want to know what it is that is acceptable to you. I only have bits and peices from previous posts

I have no problem with restricting felons from carrying.

Requiring permits to exercise God given rights is infringement whether it is OC or CC.

Citizens should be allowed to carry wherever LEO can carry.

Machine gun bans are extreme infringements. Citizens should be allowed to purchase and own whatever the military is using.

What I carry on my person is no one else's business.

I have mixed thoughts on background checks. If all it was was a background check called in when a person produces government issued ID then that would be OK but my distrust of government gives me pause for concern. Having to fill out the stupid 4473 is a waste of time. I used to be an FFL so I have experience with the laws and ATF audits.

Person to person sales are a fact of life. Get over it. The government should forget about it. There are no gun show loopholes.

Firearms laws are a state concern, not the feds. The interstate commerce clause has been overused and is a tool for tyranny.

Since firearms are a state concern, the feds have pretty much rolled up, squashed, and trampled all over the second amendment. The Post Office, Corp of Engineers, BLM, Parks Service, pretty much every fed alphabet agency has made infringing the second amendment their stock and trade.

mojo84 wrote:The CHL course is not intended to be introduction to guns 101. It's to make you aware of the laws and expose you to some alternatives to shooting someone, potential consequences and deescalation strategy. The range time is not to teach one how to handle a gun or how to shoot it. It is to see if you can competently handle one.

There are other courses to learn the basics for beginners and this should not be tied to the chl licensing process.

anygunanywhere wrote:

Charlies.Contingency wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:Reasonable restrictions and common sense gun laws have exterminated hundreds of millions of people globally.

Please, explain this further as to how it is relevant? How is wanting people to go through a CHL course exterminating hundreds of millions of people in this situation?

Total confiscation historically is the end game where common sense gun laws and reasonable restrictions are placed on a country's citizens. CHLs are what I refer to as one of your reasonable restrictions.

The second amendment says nothing about training being required.

TXBO wrote:

Charlies.Contingency wrote:

TXBO wrote:

Charlies.Contingency wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Charlies.Contingency wrote:

joe817 wrote:

Charlies.Contingency wrote:

gdanaher wrote:From the DMN:

"Rep. Jonathan Stickland, R-Bedford, introduced a bill that would allow people to carry handguns without obtaining a concealed handgun license."

Idk about that. I would like to keep CC the way it is, but add an OC option that would allow for licensed/unlicensed carry with proper certification like the CHL. I just don't want somebody to buy a gun who's never shot it, carry it around in public, and try to engage somebody without knowing the laws regarding the use of force, or having any training at all to hit their target and not kill innocent people.

Totally agree!That's a BAD IDEA!. Just asking for trouble.

Thanks Joe, I am ANTI-restrictions as much as practically possible. I just want everybody to be safely practicing their rights.

That's dangerous territory. What about First Amendment rights for example?

Chas.

You are terrible observant sometimes Chas. But I hope you know that I just meant that I want people to be safe when handling firearms, I am very emotionally tied to this as I have been crippled for life and endure pain every day for somebody not practicing proper firearm safety.

You certainly have a different perspective than most of us. You have my prayers for comfort. I do have two questions for you:

1) Do you believe that the current TX CHL training requirements adequately affect the proficiency of a CHL holder in a defensive situation?

2) Do you see the peril in arbitrary training requirements to exercise a right?

1. In comparrison to having no instruction at all, yes, I do. In return, do you see no benefit from taking a CHL course?

2. It seems that some people see the process to get a CHL as terrible burden and so terriibly restrictive, that it prevents people from exercising their rights. That's like askig if I see the peril in having arbitrary requirements to buy a gun. There needs to be middle ground found, and I believe our current process is acceptable. In return, do you believe that we should have no regulations on who can carry a gun where? That it should be completely free?

I am willing to debate this until it's dead, we're talking about our opinions here, not arguing over facts.

1) I've taken the CHL class in TX twice as well as the renewal once. (moved 3 times) Other than the time spent on where carry is legal, I found it totally inadequate. I'd even go so far as to say that it gives many people a false sense of accomplishment.

2) Yes, I think it should be free. I believe that anyone that is legal to "keep arms" should be legal to "bear arms". I believe that rights are something you lose by breaking the law, not something for which you earn, qualify or apply.