TexasCHLforum.com

mr.72 wrote:Really? I don't think you have such a right, because it infringes my right to bear arms.

I have the primary right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". I can't do this if some idiot who does not know how to handle a weapon kills me. It does me no good if they throw the idiot into jail for a couple of years as “punishment.”

Laws are designed to protect the greater good. Total freedom would be anarchy as anyone could do anything they wanted. While I don’t like licensing, I understand the reasoning behind it.

Rights are not absolute. We have the right to free speech, but need a permit in some places to make a speech in public. I have the right to carry concealed into your home unless you tell me not to or post a 30.06 sign. Should my 2A rights be more important than your rights as a property owner? Many people here would say the property rights are more important.

I realize you’re one of those all-or-nothing 2A types and I respect that. We don’t live in the same world though.

Please take the final shot as I'm done discussing the issue.

Tom

Cliffh999 wrote:So, dump the existing open & concealed carry laws. No permits, no classroom training, no range shooting, nothing except what you learned in school.

In a perfect world-perhaps. Given the realities of the current political situation, I don't see licensing going away anytime soon.

After 25+ years of handling weapons in both the military and in private, I still remind myself every time I pick one up to clear it. When I'm handed a weapon I clear it even though I just watched someone else clear it. Safety, safety, safety... I'd hate to get shot because some person did not understand the basics but was carrying. Remember, there are no accidental discharges. They are negligent or unintended.

The other reason for the current system is to make sure those who carry understand the "use of deadly force" laws. One can argue, we could learn it on our own and I would agree. However, if you are involved in a shooting you cannot argue you were not aware of the laws—the state insured you were aware of them.

Get off the high horse—it’s not elitism or fear. I carry daily. But I have the right to feel safe that the next person knows what he or she is doing so I don’t get shot or killed when they exercise their rights.

Tom

TexCaboCat wrote:Here is a word for some people: "Self-responsibility"! What a great word. It means that I am responsible for my actions and I am responsible to become proficient with my weapon, car, family or whatever and I don't need government in anyway to try to legislate that "Self-responsibility on me.

Are you saying nothing should be licensed?

Tom

phddan wrote:That a woman in a wheel chair shouldn't be able to defend herself or grandkids? Is this what you are really saying?

Dan,

Not an issue. The Americans with Disabilities Act would take care of this by allowing her a reasonable accommodation based upon her disability.

Tom

Boxerrider wrote:Safe firearm handling and basic function/cleaning of common models should be part of your public school education. ... Don't want to have guns? I have no problem with your decision, but if you happen upon one you should be prepared to deal with it responsibly.

Box,

Wow. I like the thought.

Tom

dehalter wrote:I just wish more people would side with freedom and our Bill of Rights.

I think you'll find the people on the board believe in the second amendment and RKBA.

While we can continue to work towards more and easier exercise of our freedoms, we have to deal with the politics of our given time. While one can argue we have the right, we have not been able to exercise that right (at least to carry concealed handguns in public) for all that long. We've made great progress in most states.

In the class I took, the instructor had everyone load snap caps into a magazine and then load/clear a weapon. While this seemed like a waste of time, there were several people in the class who had never touched a firearm. BTW, all of them passed the shooting portion.

Personally I have a problem with people carrying firearms who don't have a clue. It's not safe for them or me. If we're going to work on the process, let's use some of the time to cover some of the basics of safe firearms handling. It will be a refresher for many but the first exposure for others. I think we're at a critical point in time with regard to our RKBA and it will not take too many problems for the public and the Brady Bunch to be lobbying to further restrict that right.

Tom

mr.72 wrote:"is it worth infringing our 2nd Amendment right?

According to SCOTUS that right is not absolute and is subject to state and federal regulation. Rather than turn this into another 2A thread (we should all be able to carry any weapon at any time without no Federal or State involvement), let's put it back on topic.

While I have extensive training on use of deadly force (US Military and CHLs in other states) and could have done self-study, I actually enjoyed the case studies and the discussion. While opinions varied, the instructor did a good job of getting the point across. 10 hours of it was a bit too much and I agree it could be cut down some. I'm willing to bet the vast majority of CHL applicants have little to no training and no real understanding of the law. We've make great progess with concealed handgun laws in the US. It will not take too many problems for that progress to be eroded.

Tom

mr.72 wrote:Are you sure the classroom format is important, or is it more that acquiring the information contained in the class is clearly important?

I think it could be accomplished with a study guide and you deal with it yourself. Just giving each applicant the instructor material, and then requiring them to take the test at DPS at their convenience would accomplish the same goal without mandating the time required drumming your fingers on the desk in class.

I don't disagree with the concept but I think the case studies and open classroom discussion have real value in creating understanding of the material. Is it worth 10 hours? That's hard to say...

Tom

mr.72 wrote:So the whole class requirement, IMHO, serves no real purpose.

The classroom portion is clearly important. While I have been licensed to carry in a number of states and received formal military training, the classoom portion was critical to understanding Texas Use of Deadly Force laws and when/where one can legally carry.

The range test I took was minimal at best. The school provided the weapons, loaded magazines, and even loaded the magazines / charged the weapons. My only role was to fire on command. If there's a place to improve the existing range test, simply force students to handle, load, clear, and shoot. If they cannot do it properly or safely, fail them. Once they acquire the appropriate skills, let them take the range portion of the test so they can move forward with the CHL process.

Tom

While I can understand where you are coming from, more regulation is not the answer. I'm sure the experience levels of CHL holders vary from those of us with military / police experience and avid shooters through those who purchase a weapon, load it (maybe) and drop in in the holster / purse / glove box and only shoot every 4 years to qualify.

Since we do not appear to be having a problem with the system why would we want to create more regulation?

Tom