TexasCHLforum.com

sjfcontrol wrote:

marksiwel wrote:

srothstein wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:Nonsense -- the right to travel (if there is such a right) is in no way violated by drivers licenses. There are all sorts of ways to travel that do not require licenses. (Air, bus, skateboard, bicycle, walking...)

By the very same logic, the right to self-defense (if there is such a right) is in no way violated by a CHL requirement. There would still be a lot of ways to defend yourself without the pistol. You could use your fists, a stick, a rock, etc.

Be very careful when declaring anything a privilege instead of a right, and always remember the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. They ar enot used vry much, but I see them becoming much more important to our daily lives in the very near future.

DING DING DING WE HAVE A WINNER

Well, not quite.
I will back off my claim that driving is a privilege, right to travel statement. Perhaps I can blame public education that stressed that during drivers-ed, back when cars were "foot" powered.

However, I don't believe the same claim (that it's a privilege) can be made about the right to carry (for whatever reason) as that definitely is covered by the second amendment. And SCOTUS has determined there is a right to self-defense -- though not mentioned in the Constitution.

Didnt mean to jump down your throat like that.
I almost got kicked out of Drivers Ed for arguing with the Instructor about that. They just tell that to kids to make them obey them and to take it more seriously. Just like CHL's they make it seem like its a Privilege for us to protect ourselves.
Our rights have been trampled in numerous ways, FCC, Polygamy, Gay marriage, Warrantless Wire Tapping, you have to get a license to marry! ect. and people have used the Constitution (wrongly) as a Shield to deflect (Oh its not in the Constitution so it must not matter). The fun thing about the Constitution is you can make it say whatever you want (Roe v Wade for example) and even though a Privacy should be a Right its easy to ignore it by saying "It's not in the Constitution" or incase of the 2nd "Thats not a Individual Right" or like they are saying now "Well its up to the States to decide if they want to give them that right".

I'm a bit of a hypocrite, when it comes to CHL. Do I think we need it? No. But we have it, and part of the reason we still have it is because its more or less run well and doesn't bring about bad publicity. So if we ever want to get to a point where a CHL will either be considered a Right in Texas that doesn't need a License (Like Voting) we will have to work hard to make sure that the "Right People" are getting CHLs and that the program is being running well. So yeah, if you cant load your own Magazine, I dont think you should have a CHL because you are going to help me loose my ability to protect myself.
I think the shooting test should be harder, I passed with a 100% I've only owned a gun for a Year or Two, and taught myself to shoot, so when people who grew up with guns and are former LEOs or Military and they cant pass or not get an easy 100 on the shooting test I get mad.

Now as far as owning Firearms and not wanting a CHL. Feel Free. I wish you would get proper training to own one, but I cant make you and I dont want to pass a law to do so.

Same thing with parents who buy their kids SUVs, Trucks, Crotch Rocket Bikes and Sports Cars when they turn 16, I wish you would teach your kids how to drive correctly before you give them an advanced automobile/motorcycle, but I dont want to pass a law saying Under BLANK age cant have them. Though I do wish they would make you get a different license to own one (Like they do if you want to Drive other vechiles) but thats a topic for another day.

Rant Over

srothstein wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:Nonsense -- the right to travel (if there is such a right) is in no way violated by drivers licenses. There are all sorts of ways to travel that do not require licenses. (Air, bus, skateboard, bicycle, walking...)

By the very same logic, the right to self-defense (if there is such a right) is in no way violated by a CHL requirement. There would still be a lot of ways to defend yourself without the pistol. You could use your fists, a stick, a rock, etc.

Be very careful when declaring anything a privilege instead of a right, and always remember the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. They ar enot used vry much, but I see them becoming much more important to our daily lives in the very near future.

DING DING DING WE HAVE A WINNER

Dragonfighter wrote:

marksiwel wrote: What if its a young single mom or Pregnant ? (I dont see your point)
What if its a recent victim who needs it 'RIGHT NOW' ? (I had to wait 2-3 months for mine)

1) She has to get out and prove her competency before she can carry, pay the fees and wait for her plastic when "being in the family way" marks her as a good target. Don't think so? You should ask some of the women I know.

2) Were you a recent victim or facing direct threat to your life and health while you waited? The victim example has to "prove" their competency, pay, wait...wait... wait if they are to obey the law in place before they exercise their right to keep and bear arms. Again, you should know some of the people I know at their wits end with a known threat waiting to destroy them.

I honestly have a hard time believing that THIS of all issues is even being debated here. I know we were a diverse crowd but I thought the one thing we all agreed on was, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." I guess not

I think we got our wires crossed.

I'm saying teach Proper Handling as part of CH Licensing. If you want to buy a weapon and not carry it around legally concealed, than you can, not stopping you. I still think you SHOULD go get some training, but I cant force that on you (In another thread I said Gun Safety should be taught as part of public education). As for getting a CHL, I think its unneeded based on the 2nd, but seeing as some people dont even believe we have a RIGHT TO TRAVEL alot of our "rights" are being violated without people batting an eye, If we are going to do it, we should do it right. Its one of the reasons I'm against the Utah License being so easy to get and be valid in Texas, even Charles has said that it's a black eye to our side.
In a perfect world I could open carry down main street and no one would bat an eye, heck in a perfect world I wouldnt need a gun at all.

sjfcontrol wrote:

marksiwel wrote: Just like driving a car. The right to travel was not written down, but its very real and Drivers License and Passports infringe on this right. The founding fathers didnt write down every little thing, but sometimes I wish they had (oh if I had a time machine, I say to myself daily)

Nonsense -- the right to travel (if there is such a right) is in no way violated by drivers licenses. There are all sorts of ways to travel that do not require licenses. (Air, bus, skateboard, bicycle, walking...)

Driving is a privilege, not a right.

Is there a Right to Travel Heck YEAH!
http://apfn.org/apfn/travel.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
CASE #1: "The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived." Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.

CASE #2: "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.

http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#travel" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; Read it learn it love.
Also I still have to be searched before I can fly and show ID (That violates my rights believe it or not)
Also go walk on the Highway see how long it takes before the cops come talk to you, you also cant ride your bike on the highway

So, yeah, care to keep going?
We've accepted that Driving is a Right through Government Brain washing. Did the founding fathers license people to have horses or buggies?

blue wrote:What if its a 80 year old Granny on limited income ?
What if she uses a walker? or wheelchair ?
What if its a young single mom or Pregnant ?
What if its a recent victim who needs it 'RIGHT NOW' ?
Etc., Etc.,

Rights or "Rambo Training" for everyone???
Different Costs and Standards - DEPENDING ON WHO/WHAT YOU ARE ???
------------
No Thanks,
Its too expensive and too many requirements the way it is now, ONE LOW price and the same requirements for each and every one - NO EXCEPTIONS! - would be far better.

Alaska, Vermont, etc. Works Fine! Tx really should be headed that way too!
After all It is a RIGHT.

What if its a 80 year old Granny on limited income ? (Dont they have something for that? like processing fees are waved. Also I aint paying grannies SS for no reason)
What if she uses a walker? or wheelchair ? (I took a class with someone who couldnt walk)
What if its a young single mom or Pregnant ? (I dont see your point)
What if its a recent victim who needs it 'RIGHT NOW' ? (I had to wait 2-3 months for mine)

O6nop wrote:

marksiwel wrote:

O6nop wrote:

Well, we allready have a CHL Class, so its too late isnt it?

Only if we all give up.

In "Marksiwel America" you wouldn't get Most of your Rights until...

Don't use the word "America" in the description of that government. It scares me that we are already heading there.

it's more of a "Starship Troopers"

Also we are in North America.
Mexicans, Canadians, Venezuelans,ect are all "Americans"

Gotta admit you are right, your nation does sound more like Canada, Mexico, and even the "Americas" south of them. I stand corrected.

Have you read Starship Troopers? If not, go, go now.

I admit that it would never work, but its an idea.

Also if you want to get into the Nitty Gritty of Licenses to Practice religion and free speech, I'll point you to Polygamy and the FCC
Back on Topic
People who cant handle or use a weapon safely or competently should not be licensed by the state. If you cannot prove that you are capable of this you should not get a license.
Just like driving a car. The right to travel was not written down, but its very real and Drivers License and Passports infringe on this right. The founding fathers didnt write down every little thing, but sometimes I wish they had (oh if I had a time machine, I say to myself daily)

O6nop wrote:

Well, we allready have a CHL Class, so its too late isnt it?

Only if we all give up.

In "Marksiwel America" you wouldn't get Most of your Rights until...

Don't use the word "America" in the description of that government. It scares me that we are already heading there.

it's more of a "Starship Troopers"

Also we are in North America.
Mexicans, Canadians, Venezuelans,ect are all "Americans"

boomerang wrote:

marksiwel wrote:situational awareness, deescalation

I think the course requirements still include nonviolent dispute resolution. Talking to newcomers, it sounds like few instructors actually teach it. I did hear of one instructor who told students the answer to the TA/PAC question but otherwise taught nothing on that topic, but he had time to show videos!

Half the class should be that, I'm suprised the DPS hasnt made any videos on the subject

O6nop wrote:

marksiwel wrote:you need to know, or be taught how to use and clean your weapon before you get a CHL. I dont care if you feel that way or if its a law, I want it to happen.

I wish more CHL Instructors would offer different classes (not make it a law or anything)
1. CHL Beginners (people with little to no knowledge of weapons) Spend an extra hour cleaning, shooting ect
2. Chl Moderate People who know whats going on, take the class, shoot like normal
3. Chl Advanced, basically a Renewal Class, go over some tactical "drills" situational awareness, deescalation

I hope I'm not steering this off topic but I think it's relevant...
Please list the three classes you think should be taught for voting, freedom of speech, or what religion you should choose before exercising them. I feel those could be dangerous if not exercised properly.

Well, we allready have a CHL Class, so its too late isnt it?
Also I dont want 3 classes, I want a variety of CHL Classes.

In "Marksiwel America" you wouldn't get Most of your Rights until you had completed some sort of Civil Service, during that civil service you would be taught How to handle a Firearm, and critical thinking (that should cover Religion and Voting)

But thats just me

If they are going to do this silly CHL nonsense atleast do it right.

OldSchool wrote:

O6nop wrote:

VoiceofReason wrote:Just my opinion.

I feel a little better knowing that other people with a CHL have some knowledge of how to use it, when not to, and can put most of the rounds where they intend to.

The "I feel..." argument is used most often by anti's and I'm surprised to see it used in this forum. Arguments like " 'I feel' that more guns on the street are going to lead to more crime" , " 'I feel' that if anybody wants to carry concealed, they have some criminal intent that they are hiding" , " 'I feel' there will be blood in the streets/on campus/at work/in hospitals/at the Capitol, if concealed carry/parking lot law/ passes", need more facts or logic before being used.

Just my opinion

Actually, "I feel" along with VoiceOfReason. The Founding Fathers, I believe, gave more than enough hint of their belief in "Rights = Responsibility". This is a topic independent from the licensing discussion, but rather is a discussion of Good Citizenship, as we used to be taught in grade school.

"I feel" that "I feel" is a statement of honesty, and should never be beaten back.

Just my opinion.

you need to know, or be taught how to use and clean your weapon before you get a CHL. I dont care if you feel that way or if its a law, I want it to happen.

I wish more CHL Instructors would offer different classes (not make it a law or anything)
1. CHL Beginners (people with little to no knowledge of weapons) Spend an extra hour cleaning, shooting ect
2. Chl Moderate People who know whats going on, take the class, shoot like normal
3. Chl Advanced, basically a Renewal Class, go over some tactical "drills" situational awareness, deescalation

seamusTX wrote:Michael Bellesiles's Arming America has been thoroughly debunked. The publisher withdrew the book from publication, and the author resigned his academic position after an investigation focused on errors and fabrications in the book.

This Wikipedia article is correct, as far as I know the facts:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arming_Ame ... un_Culture" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You can follow the sources from the Wikipedia article if you don't believe it.

If you want an accurate picture of the prevalence of firearms and marksmanship in colonial America, please see Stephen Holbrook's The Founders' Second Amendment.

- Jim

Thank you, I'll check that out. I still think the reality is somewhere in the middle of those two.

I'm also going to point out that the Article/Book I cited has seen alot of controversy and some claim it is completely false.
I say its not 100% but the Myth of Early America is very apparent to History Buffs.

So, take this article with a HUGE Grain of Salt, but dont buy into the "Facts" because alot of them are not real.

Now if we only had a time machine

seamusTX wrote:There are two issues to keep in mind here:

• In colonial America, the majority of households had firearms (mostly muzzle-loading rifles) that were used frequently. Country people hunted and had to protect themselves and their livestock from predators. City people were members of militias and drilled frequently.
  
  In that environment, a young man (and many a young woman) would learn to shoot at an early age. That was the background in which the second amendment was written
  
  Obviously, this is no longer the case.
• Most CHL holders will carry for a short time if at all, then decide it is too inconvenient and uncomfortable. Of those who carry frequently, most will never have occasion to draw a firearm, and even fewer to actually shoot.
  
  Therefore, the chance that one of these poorly trained people is going to hurt anyone but a bad guy is vanishingly small. It rarely happens in the entire country, even in states with unlicensed carry.

- Jim

I'm gonna have to call false on the first one,
http://www.historycooperative.org/journ ... 01/arming/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I saw a similar book at Half Price books, basically their is a Myth that American were as armed as they were now at the time of our founding fathers.
I alsobelieve you dont see many Rifles being passed along in the wills of the era. Read the full article, its an interesting read.
"When confronted with evidence that the vast majority of young men in seventeenth-, eighteenth-, and early nineteenth-century America had no idea how to use a gun, advocates of an eternal, universal American gun culture look the other way. Best to ignore such information and retain the myth, for otherwise it just might be conceivable that we are responsible for our own culture."
* Puts on Flask jacket*

57Coastie wrote:Lightning,

I share wholeheartedly your view about the nothingness of the Texas CHL written examination and range qualification process, which just reinforces my opinion that more training in the use and care of firearms, as well as additional training in marksmanship, are needed -- the key word being training.

During my initial CHL course many long years ago and during my several renewal courses, I have seen only one applicant turned away by an instructor because of his ignorance/incompetence of firearms in general and his own Saturday-night-special in particular. (Thank you to my good friend el Gato, for giving me a little faith in our instructors).

On two different occasions over post-exam coffee I nicely, and unargumentively, asked a new CHLer how he goes about field stripping the M1911 he had just used on the range. Neither of them had the slightest idea how to go about it, much less put it back together.

If everyone is deemed qualified then there is no need for the hassle (and expense) of an examination and range qualification.

Which, of course, brings us back to the many views on RKBA which reject any prequalification requirements. There is no secret about my views on that, but for the moment I will apply my comments to the world we have, not an imaginary world.

With respect,

Jim

heck when I took drivers ed they made us learn how to check the tires, and take one off if need be.
I see Grown adults who cant even jump a car.