TexasCHLforum.com

anygunanywhere wrote: Yet.

Bingo.

tbranch wrote:

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.”

OK I know you said this is your last word on this, but I guess I can still reply right?

This is no different than anything else in your life. Some idiot can run over you with a car. Hit you with a rock or baseball bat. Set your house on fire. Set loose a rattlesnake in your cubicle. There are an infinite number of ways that someone intent on harming you or who is such a fool as to be totally negligent in the operation of their own property that they can injure or kill you, and yet you cannot outlaw their ownership of these types of property, right?

And these types of property carry no specific constitutional protection, while "arms" do carry such a constitutional protection.

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.

People can do anything they want! The law doesn't prevent it, it just provides punishment or other recourse.

The difference in this case is that the CHL holder is being punished without actually committing a crime! One can legally buy a gun, and then can go carry it all the time without getting caught. If they are intent on harming you then they will do it with or without a CHL. The only thing the CHL training, fees, etc. requirements do is impede those who are not intending to do anyone harm or breaking the law from carrying.

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.

Well, you have the right not to enter my property! My property rights are such that I can exclude you from my property whether you are carrying concealed or not. I can keep you out of my house just because I don't like your hairdo, or you's Hatfield and I's a McCoy. You are carrying a Ford key concealed, and I am a Chevy guy. The private property thing is irrelevant to CHL and RKBA.

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

OK, suit yourself.

I am not so much an "all-or-nothing 2A type" but I just don't see the reasoning for the CHL requirements as they are now, beyond the political.

I am quite certain that the reason we have licensing, fees, mandatory state CHL class and qualification, is because not everyone or even the majority in this state or most others really are comfortable with normal people being able to carry a gun. Clearly these laws were enacted as a means to allow at least some people to carry a gun in TX, as opposed to not allowing anybody.

However in a more libertarian sense, there is no reason not to allow everyone to carry if they see fit, considering it is a constitutional right and there is no valid evidence to show that licensing or training does anything to improve safety. It mostly eases the minds of those who have a fear of an armed society. It's not an armed society if only 1-2% of us are carrying.

We have a lot of laws that are there to give the perception of safety and security without doing anything whatsoever to actually measurably improve safety or security. CHL laws are among them. Confiscating your nail clippers as you get on an airplane is another. Considering that a label on a car's visor is going to prevent roll-overs is another. The list goes on and on. I'm all for freedom and personal responsibility. Doesn't matter which Amendment, it's just that on this forum, the 2A is the one we talk about.

tbranch wrote: 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.

This is a fallacious argument. If it were indeed a legitimate argument, then all CHL holders would be automatically no-billed in every shooting since the state would be ensuring their correct and right training as well as their tested knowledge of the law. However, every shooting, regardless of CHL status, results in an investigation and potentially include charges. So the license is completely worthless as an indicator that you "know the law".

In reality, you have to exercise good judgment, and no license will guarantee good judgment. Anyone with good judgment will investigate the law prior to carrying anyway. Anyone without good judgment will not seek legal information, nor will they seek a CHL. IMHO the CHL is completely useless for this reason. The mere fact that one is willing to jump through the hoops to get a CHL is the most reliable indicator that they do not need to in order to be trusted to carry.

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

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

You don't have the right to feel safe.

You don't even have the right to BE safe.

You have the right to defend yourself but you do not have the right to require others to do anything at all.

You do have the right to expect those who break the law to be prosecuted. But this is not "Minority Report", where we prosecute people for crimes they might commit. IMHO the current CHL requirement is sort of like preemptive rehabilitation. Maybe prehabilitation for the potential gun criminal, aka normal citizen.

Furthermore there is no viable evidence to suggest that the CHL requirements actually reduce your odds of being shot or killed when someone exercises their rights.

I still think it's mostly elitism and fear and that is no high horse. You have just confessed that for you it is largely fear. That's what it means when you say you have a "right to feel safe".

IMHO of course!!

yahoshua wrote: I made direct suggestions and asked direct questions, for the most part I got direct answers and ideas. Most of them pointing out that while the principal of the concept (particularly better education) was a good idea, the ideas and methods of implementing them as so were not so great and at this time there would be no effective way of implementing those ideas without compromising what rights we still have.

Right on.

Takes backbone to post that on the internet, BTW. Kudos.

What are your suggestions on improving awareness of firearm safety and proficiency if regulating it via CHL classes or Public School Education is something you consider as ineffective/intrusive?

I'm not TexCaboCat but I'll respond.

It is a moot question.

It is not the government's role to interfere with one's rights, and it isn't any of your business. If you want to be pushy and come off as being a gun snob, elitist, or just a jerk when interacting with other gun owners, then that is your right. Likewise it's every ignorant fool's right to ignore you and continue doing whatever they do.

However, there's no merit to any institutional regulation of firearms awareness, safety, or even the holy grail of field stripping your pistol, whether the institution is government regulation or merely social stigma. Whatever regulation you put into effect will have the ultimate effect of alienating those unwashed masses from gun ownership in general. Certainly if gun ownership and self defense appears to be a tedious and time consuming hobby then fewer people are going to engage in it.

Someone on this forum once said not to give advice, because wise men don't need it and fools won't take it. However in this case I am afraid that truly wise people will reasonably decide that guns are too much trouble if even well-meaning gun owners are pressuring them to learn to maintain their own weapons as some kind of minimum standard for ownership. Fools will just do it anyway. So wouldn't we rather have more wise people with dirty guns out there vs. just fools?

The point is that whether you like it or not, keeping and bearing arms are our rights. This is the only specific property right that is enumerated in the Bill of Rights. We cannot require any regulation of this right, however well-meaning or however intent on encouraging safety and security, without infringing it. Certainly we still do this, and it is still over the limit as it is. You do not fix the current problem of infringement of this right by adding even more infringement.

For further discussion, I think it can be noted that CHL classes are often attended by new gun owners or those new to the concept of using a handgun for self defense. I do not have any statistics to back this up, just a gut feeling, but I figure it is not like driving school where the primary determinant of entry to the class is simply coming of age. I believe it stands to reason that many of these beginners, or first-time gun owners, may not be skilled in the use of their guns, and may lack the ability, skill, or even the awareness of maintenance requirements concerning their firearm.

I might suggest, if we accept that having a CHL is necessary for concealed carry, that the requirements should be reduced as thus:

1. $25 fee
2. pass the written test
3. submit to background checks, license issued contingent on the same requirements as we have now with the exception of the debt requirements (property taxes, child support, student loans) which are absurd
4. temporary license, good for 60 days, is issued when the fee is paid and the test is passed, and the final license arrives in the mail after background checks are complete and supersedes the temporary license.

If we were to adopt this process for acquiring a CHL, I think it would have the following effects, which would alleviate your concerns about firearms awareness:

1. You would never be witness to the firearm handling proficiency of CHL applicants
2. More people would get a CHL, and it may become quite routine. I suspect the numbers would not be 1% or 2% of the population but more like 25%.
3. With a CHL within easy reach, far more people would own defensive handguns, including many thousands who are mechanically inclined, good teachers, and generous people who will help educate and train the others on gun handling and care

It is my belief that the onerous requirements for obtaining a CHL are at least partly responsible for both the lack of firearms awareness and handling skills of the general populace, as well as the lack of defensive firearms ownership of the average person. I believe these factors contribute heavily to the snobbery and elitism among CHL holders (not pointing fingers at you specifically, but there are some) and firearms owners, and also contributes to the fear of firearms ownership amongst the average citizen. Increasing the requirements, either in cost, time or training requirements, only tends to exacerbate these problems.

IMHO.

And FWIW, I am intentionally ignoring the political aspects of CHL in TX and the unfortunate means by which laws must be changed.

To further this point, giving a "license" also has the effect of communicating that one is somehow qualified to do whatever thing it is that the license is intended to qualify. So you may say "I am a good enough driver, I have a license!" or "I am qualified to carry a weapon, I have a CHL!". But without the state giving a license, then it is incumbent on people to determine what establishes their qualification for the activity. For example, I don't have a license to play the guitar. So am I qualified to play the guitar? Well, maybe, maybe not. I have to work at it. I have been working at it for nearly 25 years now. I continue to improve. So do I need a license? How about to ride my bike? A lot of people think I should have a license to ride my bike. Does that mean that once I take whatever cheeseball test that the state is going to give me and everyone else over the age of 5 to ride a bicycle, then I can quit worrying about improving my awareness, my defensive riding skills, etc, because, you see, I have a license!

The fact is that on my bicycle, my safety is my own problem. Nobody tells me when I am good enough, safe enough. With the guitar, my skills are up to me to assess. If I am good enough to play inside my house and not cause the police to come on a noise complaint then so be it, but I probably have to be much better if I plan to play in public view. Why should carrying a gun be any different? Am I proficient enough to carry a gun? To use one when I might need it? Maybe. Maybe not. I am not sure, so I am still working at it, but you had better bet someone far less qualified and experienced than me could easily ace that state-mandated test and get a license. So is it the state's position that the person with very minimal skills is duly qualified to carry?

This is about personal responsibility. No there shouldn't be any license. There should be certain and swift punishment if you screw up with a gun, and nobody in the state gov't knows or cares if you don't. We don't need the state's licensing system to come under scrutiny when someone screws up with their firearm. That threatens everyone's free exercise of their rights. If you take away the license, then when someone screws up then they alone are holding the bag. The state didn't stamp them "qualified", the state didn't evaluate their shooting or knowledge of the law, so the state is under no obligation to take any heat. They just say "you know, the Constitution guarantees them their right to bear arms, to a fair trial, not to incriminate themselves, a jury of their peers, and they can now exercise all of those rights since they failed to train themselves for correct handling of their gun".

I think this "we need more training" thing comes down to two sentiments:

1. elitism. Many CHL holders want to believe they are better people somehow than those who don't have a CHL. We are more prepared. More aware of our risks day to day. More responsible for our own safety. So we want to also say "and we have all this extra cool training, see?" We want people to have to jump through extra hoops to join our club.

2. fear. Some people are still afraid of guns and are still not comfortable with regular civilians carrying them so they feel like making something like training mandatory to set apart the CHL holders from regular civilians will alleviate some of that fear. This sentiment gets expressed over and over ...lately about the teachers carrying at that one school district, the common response is "as long as they have extra special training, then it's ok"

Those of us truly set on liberty look at this as a basic right with the expectation that some people are going to take it seriously and become educated and some others are going to remain ignorant and abuse their rights but it's still a right. We all have the right to defend ourselves with or without a gun. Some people are dangerous even without a gun, and they would be dangerous with a gun. Some are ignorant fools who get themselves into trouble all the time and they will be that way with or without a gun. But do we expect those fools to show great wisdom in restraining themselves from owning or carrying a gun just because of some law?

KBCraig wrote:

mr.72 wrote:What really shocks me about this poll is that far and away more people voted that "the system is fine the way it is", 43%!

Except for "no opinion", it was the only option that wouldn't increase the difficulty of getting and maintaining a CHL.

I would have expected this one to get more votes:


"The system could use other improvements not provided as an option (please explain)"

With the "other improvements" being less onerous requirements for getting/maintaining a CHL, or no CHL requirement.

But you are right, the poll seemed to be heavily biased towards either "more government intrusion" or "the same government intrusion".

What really shocks me about this poll is that far and away more people voted that "the system is fine the way it is", 43%!

I would have guessed less than 10% of this forum's regulars would consider the TX CHL system to be "fine the way it is".

yahoshua wrote: But then how do we get these people to be interested (if not at least aware) of how to maintain their firearms?

By "we", do you mean the State of Texas gov't?

I think "we", as in fellow gun owners and CHL holders, encourage people and help them, the same way you would if you wanted them to be interested in how to maintain their car, their home, their physical health, their grooming, whatever other thing it is in life that interests you.

But the state government has no business in this.

tbranch wrote: 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

I think these case studies etc. can be written into a written training material.

I think the opinions of many CHL instructors, as I have heard about on this and other forums, are varied enough to make open discussion in a classroom have dubious value.

But the question is not "is it worth 10 hours", but rather, "is it worth infringing our 2nd Amendment right?"

IMHO.

It's not. 10 minutes or 10 seconds is infringement. The information does not depend on a human conveyance for it to be effective as a training tool.

The classroom portion is clearly important.

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.

Just MHO.

I agree that the current test does not serve any purpose except to lengthen the amount of time spent in the training. Perhaps it serves some political purpose, or has something to do with reciprocity. Perhaps it achieves this veneer that CHL holders have been tested and found to qualify as safe shooters, which may convince those who don't know any better.

Likewise requiring the class to take 10 hours is ridiculous. There is about 2 hours max worth of information required in the class. The last few hours of hour class were very much like the scenes from The Breakfast Club. There is no reason that you couldn't study on your own and show up at DPS office and take the test and achieve the same result. So the whole class requirement, IMHO, serves no real purpose.

However I know many people earn extra money or even a whole living conducting the class. I assume I will not get their support in removing the class requirement. Firing range owners are not likely to get on board with removing the range qualification. I suspect many of our own "pro gun rights" people are these same people.

No. Frankly I think this whole line of thought is ridiculous. The current range qualification is an infringement of your 2A rights to begin with, why invite even further infringement? Maybe while we are at it we should increase the fee to $1,000 and make it renewed once per year so only the people with means to have a professional maintain their firearms and hire a personal instructor will be running around with guns? Or maybe the guns should be owned by the government, so they can ensure they are maintained correctly, and they can validate that the operator is qualified each time a gun is issued.

As was pointed out, we don't do this with cars and I can assure you that a poorly-maintained car being operated by a driver is far more dangerous than a dirty or improperly loaded gun in the hands of a CHL holder. Likewise, even though we have a huge pile of laws, active enforcement, engineered traffic control systems, well-designed roads and everything else to stack the deck in favor of safety, lack of driving skills cause tens of thousands of deaths every year.