Search found 4 matches
Return to “Why do rich people get to carry more places?”
- Fri Feb 13, 2015 5:13 pm
- Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
- Topic: Why do rich people get to carry more places?
- Replies: 26
- Views: 3382
Re: Why do rich people get to carry more places?
This whole, I'll be your PPO if you'll be mine reminds me of an episode of M*A*S*H. Radar and Henry sign off on each others' security clearances.
- Fri Feb 13, 2015 5:05 pm
- Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
- Topic: Why do rich people get to carry more places?
- Replies: 26
- Views: 3382
Re: Why do rich people get to carry more places?
AlaskanInTexas wrote:You must really enjoy movies at AMC theaters and Buffalo Wild Wings!!!C-dub wrote:So, if I start my own security company and my wife and I both get our PPO licenses and we hire each other to protect the other, we're golden? I might also need to hire a few of you guys.
How about we call it the TXCHL Forum Security Company?
Just spitballing for fun. 
- Fri Feb 13, 2015 3:23 pm
- Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
- Topic: Why do rich people get to carry more places?
- Replies: 26
- Views: 3382
Re: Why do rich people get to carry more places?
So, if I start my own security company and my wife and I both get our PPO licenses and we hire each other to protect the other, we're golden? I might also need to hire a few of you guys.
How about we call it the TXCHL Forum Security Company?
How about we call it the TXCHL Forum Security Company?
- Fri Feb 13, 2015 1:22 pm
- Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
- Topic: Why do rich people get to carry more places?
- Replies: 26
- Views: 3382
Re: Why do rich people get to carry more places?
Correct, the CHL course is not training and neither is the qualification. The qualification is merely a test. And if the only experience a person has is that course and qualification, then I would also agree that a LEO has more training. However, there are many of us that have more training and experience shooting our firearms than many, if not most LEOs, but then that leads us down the path of additional qualification in order to carry in the same places a LEO can. I would propose the theory that there is a fundamental difference between a LEO being able to carry nearly everywhere because of their job versus what should be my right to carry in all the same places without a similar qualification is because it is not my job. It is my right to self defense and to have the ability to protect myself and my family as best I can under the worst circumstances.cb1000rider wrote:I think you answered your own questions. Level 4 PPOs can carry because they're "better trained" - at least in theory. "Rich" people can't carry more places. They can hire people that can carry more places. Even you or I could hire an off-duty LEO if we could afford it and it was allowed by departmental policy.
This isn't an issue for me.
The issue for me is when the government starts creating protected classes of people with no other requirement than being a member of that class. IE - if you're a judge, you shouldn't have different rules than a private citizen in regard to how you can protect yourself. If you work in state government, you shouldn't have different rules.
I'd give LEOs a break here as they could be considered to be always on duty and they're obviously better trained than someone who has taken a CHL course.
And realistically, I don't consider the CHL course much training at all. It is a big time-suck - it seems that there are more effective ways to teach other than minimum "class time" based education. I'm told that there are people that actually fail the shooting portion, which is really scary...