Search found 1 match

by OldSchool
Sun Dec 20, 2009 4:33 pm
Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
Topic: Would you go through more CHL training?
Replies: 55
Views: 7872

Re: Would you go through more CHL training?

Even before we qualified for CHL, we were looking at training classes for the near future. I look at the CHL as a demonstration of responsibility, training and basic proficiency, similar to a pilot's certificate or a driver's license (OK, very bad analogy for that last one :mad5 ). We do not look at it as a replacement for 2nd Amendment rights, but as a certification of skill, that has benefits attached. I suspect that puts us in the minority here, sorry. :tiphat:

However, we agree that, while the CHL threshhold is quite low :roll: , it still seems to be at the correct level to demonstrate that the CHL holder is not a hazard to those around him/her (holding to the specified standard is the key, of course). I like the idea (mentioned earlier) of a higher-level certification. I would appreciate a certification that would demonstrate more skill in hazardous situations (such as the ubiquitous "restaurant" scenario).

As a pilot (still a student), I think the best way to improve on basic skills is to train and obtain the next level of certification (for example, Instrument and/or Aerobatic). The minimum set of skills to achieve a higher certification is an improvement over the set for a lower certification. Another way to say it is to "train above where you need to be." The achievement gives you a level to shoot for, rather than just "getting better."

As to a certification allowing one to carry in more places, that would be nice, as long as it does not infringe on others' rights. My "right to carry" must not trump the proper rights of another person. Is CHL analogous to the right to Religion? Maybe, in that someone can tell me to not pray and not carry in their property. Thus, the improved "carry zone" could only be in those places that are restricted by government, not by individuals.

The government must not infringe on my constitutional (true) rights, but my rights exist only to the point at which they needlessly harm another, and only that particular person can tell me where that point exists for them; the reverse is also true. Of course, society for the past three decades has told us we're completely wrong with that last statement, but we still hold to that belief.
(Now you know the reason for my user name.)

Are there exceptions to the rights of an establishment? Yes, as in everything. The smoking discussion here hits us hard, in many ways. For me, a breath of tobacco smoke is an adventure in sinus and throat pain, as I am very allergic to it (think about your first puff of a cigarette, then think about going through that every time you smoked). Go somewhere else? Sure -- but many people nowadays do not remember when there were no restaurants/diners/cafes/offices we could go to because they had never thought of not allowing smoking (and most people smoked, it seemed). And when "no-smoking" sections were invented, they were immediately adjacent to the smoking section, with no partitions, making them useless. Tobacco smoke travels a long way very quickly (even from car window to car window at stop lights!) and clearly affects far more people than the smoker, some worse than others.
We are pleased to now be able to enjoy those establishments, when we could not before. It also seems that nowadays people are personally more sensitive to tobacco smoke than they used to be, so now more seem to understand what I go through.
So we have to, for our own breathing, say that there is an exception for which we will fight. Again, that probably puts us in the minority, so apologies again. :tiphat:

Thanks for letting me ramble....

Return to “Would you go through more CHL training?”