TexasCHLforum.com

G.C.Montgomery wrote:That's my $0.02 and I'm done with this thread.

As the OP, I am going to request that you NOT be "done with this thread". Maybe the side topic that has grown from it - but not with the original topic. You are EXACTLY the kind of person I would like to see discussing it.

Liberty wrote:All is lost, The day has come! The Bradys have won.
I never thought I would see the day when folks on a gun board would be advocates of reasonable restriction.

I have finally gotten through catching up on all of the posts of this thread (I actually read each and every one of them - not just skimming through).

I felt I need to reply to this last post. You see, prior to this discussion, I almost certainly would have sided with Liberty on this issue - that "any restrictions are too much".


I have come to realize that I was wrong.

While I still do believe that the framers of our constitution meant for the 2nd Amendment to allow for every person to own the absolutely newest technology they could buy, the era of that time must be considered. The assumption then was that back then the knowledge of one's weapons was very high - people simply did not own guns which they did not know how to use. Weapons availability in the home was a given from the time of birth so people grew up with them.

Or... to say it differently...
They didn't have 50+ yo women with zero experience or training buying a brand new, oversized (for them) gun and immediately try to use it.


Thus - I have come to the conclusion that some sort of proficiency training (which includes safety) should be a prerequisite to a CHL. NOT owning the gun itself (how else would some get that proficiency?). But to carrying it everyday - yes.

boomerang wrote:

WildBill wrote:How many of you would like to be required to take a another class [time/$$$] and present a "Certificate of Handgun Safety Training" to your CHL instructor before you can take the CHL class?

I used to think that was the purpose of the shooting test. To demonstrate profiency.

Then I started hearing stories about instructors "helping" students pass the test.

Just a data point. The instructor I had when took my class last June specifically told us he would not help us. And sure enough, one older lady (not the same one) had trouble and did not complete the proficiency part of the test. In our class of 12, 11 passed.

seamusTX wrote:

TxFig wrote:Starts shooting from WAY too far away (50'). Can't hit a 4x4 sheet of plywood. Is laughing, having fun (more waving gun around at people). Get's firm reprimand from landowner / brother-in-law. Doesn't listen because "she's 58 and doesn't need him telling her what to do".

Someone with that kind of attitude obviously will not respond well to being called out in front of an audience, especially by an in-law.

I am tempted to ask if alcohol was involved.

No. None.

I don't know what your relationship is. If it is a friend-of-a-friend type of thing, you probably can't do anything.

I am simply good friends with the sister of the lady. I have never met the person in question.


I will add however that I told my friend (the sister of the unsafe person) about this post. She subscribed to this forum so she could lurk on this thread and read the discussion. Iow, the very good comments made here have not been in vein.

Pistol storm 40 wrote:

frazzled wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:

dac1842 wrote:I know many on here disagree with what I am about to say. But I firmly believe, based on me talking to many other license holders about how often they practice, tells me that the vast majority dont go back to the range after getting their license.
I go to the range at least once per month. I do this for my peace of mind that my weapons function as intended, also to teach my 16 year old how to handle firearms (He has been shooting since 10) and because I really enjoy it.

I agree many license holders need lots more practice. In my CHL class we had two women in the class that brought the weapon to the class still in the box. Both had semi autos and had no clue how to load the magazines, how to insert the mags into the weapon or how to drop the mag once all the rounds were expended. I wish the CHL instructors would make each student demonstrate the student knows how to load, unload, field strip and make a weapon safe for inspection before allowing a student to go through the class.

FWIW, . A demonstrated modicum of proficiency in weapon handling should be a requirement for class AND range passage.

+1 However I do believe that the CHL instructors may disagree. They are not there to teach the basics of gun safety. I too would like to see some type of safety verification on handling a weapon. I remember before I even handled a gun many many years ago I went to a gun safety class when I was 16. (My dad insisted) Still today I use and think of those methods I learned over 30 years ago whenever a weapon is in my hands...ya I know I am old!!!

I don't think anyone is proposing that the CHL instructors TEACH the safety. Only EVALUATE the safety. I can't think there would be too many CHL instructors that would object to that.

I like cute, one-liner responses as much as the next guy.

But anyone have a SERIOUS response to this?

Purplehood wrote:Get her address and post a 30.06 sign in the front-yard.

Judging by past behavior, I think she would treat it like a target.

I have seen this come up several times now, and am uncertain what to think about it.

Situation (true story - happened this past weekend):
Older lady (58yo?) shows up with a brand new handgun to go learn to shoot it for the first time. She has a CHL because a friend talked her into taking the class - borrowed someone else's gun for the test.

Lady OBVIOUSLY has no experience whatsoever with a gun. Brings it to the shooting range (not a real one, a family member's place in the country where they shoot) in the case fully loaded & with trigger lock on. Fiddles with it trying to get lock off (pointing it at people in the process).

Starts shooting from WAY too far away (50'). Can't hit a 4x4 sheet of plywood. Is laughing, having fun (more waving gun around at people). Get's firm reprimand from landowner / brother-in-law. Doesn't listen because "she's 58 and doesn't need him telling her what to do".

During a break in the shooting, someone heads down range to cover the targets. Lady unannounced begins firing at "an old can". Scares the bejebbers out of everyone.

Gets back to house and tells story about "how she had to pull her gun twice already" (she has only had the CHL and gun for 2 weeks). First time, there were 2 raccoons fighting in the neighbor's yard (she lives in Austin, in a 'city neighborhood'). Was upset she couldn't get a shot off at the racoons (never mind they were in someone else's yard!). Other time she put trash out on street and brandished weapon when someone was digging through the garbage can.




Ok, so I am as fervant a supporter of the 2nd Amendment as anyone. I fully believe that our founding fathers INTENDED for everyone to own the most up to date, technological weaponry that they could afford.

But dang it - this person with a gun, much less a CHL, makes me nervous. This is the kind of person that will do something that will give the anti-gun folks the ammo they need to keep them out of everyone's hands.


Is there something we can do?
SHOULD there be something we do?

and no - I do not have an answer for the questions. I am seriously just posting in the hopes that someone on here has more wisdom about this situation than I do.