I wonder if maybe we should license folks to carry baseball bats, rocks, knives , scary dogs, and cowboy boots.
It is just plain wrong to throw obstacles in the way of folks who wish to defend themselves.
The thought that the untrained and unliscenced is dangerous to us as a population is completely unjustified. Near as I can tell most accidental/negligent discharges come from the supposedly well trained. LEOs seem to have problems keeping their Glocks from going off in their holsters sometimes. While I hardly ever hear of problems in states that allow unlicensed carry.
By the way: there are lots of folks who I find are unqualified and dangerous who wear cowboyboots. Can we restrict license or ban them?
Search found 3 matches
Return to “Can of worms to open here”
- Fri Sep 05, 2008 6:43 am
- Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
- Topic: Can of worms to open here
- Replies: 86
- Views: 12492
- Thu Aug 21, 2008 5:50 am
- Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
- Topic: Can of worms to open here
- Replies: 86
- Views: 12492
Re: Can of worms to open here
Never say never, with all the changes qwe've seen in the last 20 years there is just no telling how far we can go!Mike from Texas wrote:I'm sure my opinion will be unpopular but oh well, so be it.
We can sit here and argue about it being an infringement, 2A is my license, bah, blah, blah. Fact is nobody is going to change anything today, tomorrow, maybe not ever so we have to deal with what we have.
No flames here ! But ...Mike from Texas wrote: I believe the system we have in place is flawed. I strongly believe in the classroom portion, I myself learned a lot. Laws are always changing and we should keep up with the changes regularly. Believe it or not guys, every CHL holder is not as dedicated to education, training, etc... as the group of guys on this forum. I know, shocking isn't it. There are a lot of people out there walking around with guns that are clueless and IMO just as dangerous as the people that we are trying to defend ourselves against. Not everyone os going to take responsibility to keep up with the current laws, spend time at the range, or even take a defensive gun course. The people that are willing to do that represent a small group of the CHL holders.
Now I'm all against government intrusion into our lives but those are the facts. I believe the following changes should be made:
1) Yearly refresher course on the Penal Code including changes to the law. This can be something as simple as a 2 hour online course for free or even a small fee.
2) The CHL range qualification is a joke. I can't believe anyone would fail that test, and if they do they don't deserve to carry a gun. I would propose that at renewal time, a defensive firearms course should be taken rather than a re qualification of the same CHL range test.
Flame away if you wish but that is my opinion.
I keep seeing folks wishing for more requirements, but why? Is there a real documented problem? I too get frustrated with Questions that I see asked here sometimes about some folks lack of understanding about the law. But the fact reamains we CHLers just seem to get ourselves in a fix very often. as a statistical group we do all right. As an electrician I'm sure you have heard the statement "if it ain't broke. Don't fix it."
- Tue Aug 19, 2008 3:10 pm
- Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
- Topic: Can of worms to open here
- Replies: 86
- Views: 12492
Re: Can of worms to open here
If DPS presents such a bill could we attach to the bill a reduction of DPS budget into the bill. I'm thinking of the way the employer notification was attached to the parking lot bill last time around. I figure if the DPS has money enough to support lobbying against honest Texans their budget might be a litle more than for the essentials.Charles L. Cotton wrote:Although I strongly encourage training, I don't think the current range proficiency requirement serves a purpose. I think it should be deleted from the statute, unless it would cause a problem with reciprocity. If we look to states that don't require a demonstration of shooting proficiency as part of their licensing process, we don't see any problems with injuries or deaths because of poor gun handling. I know that in theory a CHL instructor can take poor gun handling skills into consideration, but I don't know if it's ever done and I'm not at all sure it would pass a court challenge. We have a "shall issue" statute and if you can't point to a specific requirement that was not met, then I believe a court is going to order the CHL issued.
I'm against making the test more challenging.
BTW, we may see an effort to change the "one class every ten years" provision in the statute, since DPS really doesn't like it. It will be interesting to see if the bill would return to classes on each 5 year renewal, or if it will propose something more frequent.
Chas.