TexasCHLforum.com

John wrote:If the offenders are your customers, why not offer classes on gun maintenance or show them how to clean their guns. you can fix this one person at a time. :)

Some dealers give away a box of ammo with a purchase, maybe you could give away instructions instead. Probably not a bad idea actually. I really can't see changing the "law" to accomodate.

mr.72 wrote:

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.

TexCaboCat wrote:
We can play semantics all you want, but I do believe your understand what I mean by elitist in my previous post but if not I will explain:

When you, or someone else feels that other people don't deserve the right to carry based on "your perceived superiority" on how gun owners should be able to field strip or operate their weapons I would call that "elitist". Who are you or anyone else to say I have to meet certain criteria to be able to own something that the Constitution of the US already allows us to do? I would call anyone who felt that they are more deserving than someone else of a Constitutional right because of what "they" perceive as being more qualified then I would call that an elitist thought. You can call it what you want, but it does not change the fact that one has or will be willing to deny another's rights because they have deemed another citizen not up to their own standards. Now, if you break the law and abuse that right, then it can and shall be taken away. That is called self responsibility, and it works.

TexCaboCat wrote: Excellent discussion.

mr.72 wrote: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!

mr.72 wrote: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?".

mr.72 wrote: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".

TexCaboCat wrote:Not at all. I was speaking directly about our "right to bear arms" and I don't believe it should be licensed, but that is not what I was specifically talking about in my response above. I was merely trying to say that "self responsibility" is the answer to the original posters question and that more regulation will never be the answer to irresponsible people and in fact only destroys the rights of the law abiding people. I would bet that 99.9% of the people on this forum would agree with this statement, but it amazes me that some of those same people are willing to throw away their own rights just because they think someone somewhere will not be responsible for themselves according to their own standards (Elitist), thus the state of Texas should require more standards, more training and more care taking of its people because we are not capable of it. After all, this is actually what some are saying on here. I for one don't want to give up anymore of my rights just because a few inept individuals own handguns and expect government to fix it for me. No thanks.

mr.72 wrote: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.

mr.72 wrote: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"

mr.72 wrote: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?

phddan wrote:Let me throw out a different point of view here.
My wife and I were in a wreck where we got hit by a truck on motorcycle. She lost her leg, and had two long plates put in her left forearm. She has some serious problems loading a tight magazine or field stripping a gun.
Are you telling us that she shouldn't have a CHL? That a woman in a wheel chair shouldn't be able to defend herself or grandkids? Is this what you are really saying.?
I stood behind her in the shooting portion of the class, and loaded the magazines for her. And I am her armorer.
Fact is, she owns more guns than me.


Dan

CertifiedKJ wrote:I haven't got my plastic yet, but when I do, you best believe I'm going to still go to the range at least twice a week. I don't think that anything should change though, what purpose would that serve?

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.

mr.72 wrote:

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:

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

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

Liko81 wrote: Doesn't mean I disagree with it costing $250 (average cost of course plus app fee) to get government permission to exercise a Constitutional right.

cbr600 wrote:When I moved to Texas last year, I went to a local DPS office, gave them my NC DL, paid the fee and received a temporary TX DL that was valid immediately. DPS mailed the plastic DL within a week or two.

Compare that quick, simple and inexpensive process to the flaming circus hoops I had to jump through to get a TX CHL.

gigag04 wrote:....Instead of being frustrated with customers for not knowing what they're doing, how about offering some help. Instead of "telling them their gun is dirty and getting a look like you slapped them in the face" How about doing something like this:....

....It sounds cheesy, but it would BLOW MY MIND to see a salesperson do that. Do what you can to change the world around you and lead the way, but please don't force these things on me by asking for tougher laws.

gigag04 wrote:....In regards to having a problem with this:

"I've never fired a gun before, I don't know anything about guns, but I want to get a CHL".

I will assure you that I too think they should be properly trained with a gun first. But, the 2A guarantees that right regardless of any proficiency. I think that individual has the responsibility to themselves to train, learn, etc...but not to you or I. They are exercising a constitutionally protected right.

OP is having good insights, but there are better ways to make this happen.

-nick