TexasCHLforum.com

G.C.Montgomery wrote:

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

Man, that's a great impression of Fred Sanford/Redd Foxx! I don't think any member of this forum would support the kinds of "reasonable restrictions" the Brady Bunch would inflict on us. But as an instructor, I do follow the law and the law says you have to successfully demonstrate proficiency before I sign off on the TR-100 you submit as part of your CHL application. It is almost instinctual to call those who can't pass the basic proficiency demonstration, blind idiots. But since I have seen a blind man pass the test, I realize that is an insult to the blind and I think we've discussed the idea that blindness alone shouldn't be a disqualifier. So rather than insult the blind, I'll just say those who can't pass are idiots. Scratch, that...I'm being too harsh and insenstive to idiots. Those who can't pass are not idiots. They are simply incompetent and in most cases, are not conscious of their incompetence until they fail the proficiency. We see those at instructor renewals every couple years too.

In all seriousness, I have a hard time believing you or anyone on this board wouldn't prefer that people to be proficient and competent when using things like cars, planes, chainsaws or guns with which they could kill or injure themselves, you or anyone in their immediate vicinity. That's the purpose of this discussion and the OP was simply looking for answers on how to address that issue. Now if you think that's promoting reasonable restrictions, that's your choice and you are free to think what you want. I think it's nothing more than shooters having a discussion about what to do when we see someone who is obviously incompetent and a danger to herself and everyone around her. I think TxFig came to the right place to discuss the issue. And I think nearly all of us would agree there are far too many unconsiously incompetent idiots on the the street with guns...Metro PD may have just proven that least half of the idiots may be wearing a badge. If we as a community can't talk about how to fix that without accusing each other of being against the 2nd Amendment, you can bet the Brady's will and none of us will like their solutions.

That's my $0.02 and I'm done with this thread.

I was going to bow out of this cause to be honest I get pretty emotional about a couple of things in this issue.
First thing I find offensive is that folks here so quickly dismiss the disabled. I can not equate the ability to rack a slide to a level of safety. The fact of denying the very folks who need the protection the most is abhorent and disgusting.

I never found a problem with failing people in a CHL testing situation for unsafe actions. The problem is that there are those that consider field stripping their weapon a means of safety testing. If folks feel that the ability to charge their weapon is a matter of safety. and reason to deny anyone the right to carry on or streets and market places. They aren't ever likely to approve of carry without a license. Once some is opposed to accepting licensed carry as going far enough, there is no commonality. One can not truly believe in the right for every man to be armed and stripping them of the right because they cannot field strip their weapon.
I'm through also.

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

jorge wrote:

Liberty wrote:Are you saying that older arthritic people should not be able to qualify with with a Semiauto because they are incapable of reloading or charging their weapon?

Are you saying that someone who can't qualify with a semiauto without help should get a SA license?

As long as there's a difference between SA and NSA then I think people shouldn't cheat to "pass" the SA test when they only have the skills to pass the NSA test honestly.

That is exactly what I am saying.
The ability to load Magazines or rack a slide has nothing to do with how safe someone is. If they can handle the SA safely, If they can hit the target, If they understand and can operate the controls on the gun why shouldn't they be allowed license? Are we better off letting these folks be victims?

dac1842 wrote:To bring this back into focus. I am referring to folks that show up at a CHL class and that is the first time they have taken the weapon out of the box. I believe that students should have to demonstrate the fact they know the basic functions of the weapon. If a person does not know the basic functions of a weapon how is that person not a danger to themselves or others

You specifically claimed that they needed the ability to rack the slide and field strip their handguns.

jorge wrote:

Liberty wrote:Are you saying that older arthritic people should not be able to qualify with with a Semiauto because they are incapable of reloading or charging their weapon?

Are you saying that someone who can't qualify with a semiauto without help should get a SA license?

As long as there's a difference between SA and NSA then I think people shouldn't cheat to "pass" the SA test when they only have the skills to pass the NSA test honestly.

Arthritics may have more problems loading revolvers than they do with revolvers. I personally have a difficult time loading revolvers.(dropping the ammo). I have no problems with most semis or mags.
No one has yet been able to explain how the inability to charge a semi-auto makes them of more danger to the public.

flynbenny wrote:I simply think that if that if someone is physically incapable of charging or unloading their weapon they need a different solution. This is for safety more than any thing else, I mean if you can't unload your pistol, what if you need to clean it, unload it to take into a range or gunsmithm etc...? I wouldn't carry or own any weapon that I'm physically incapable of operating. I've been on the range many times and watched terrified as some individual struggles to pull a slide pointing the weapon every which way but downrange! I've also seen it with DA autos and revolvers where someone doesn't have enough strength to pull the trigger and they spasmically point the gun all over creation trying to fire it. That in my opinion endangers the public. But its none of the gov's business to determine this. I just think that the chl instructors out there have a duty to society to disqualify people who cannot safely operate a weapon on their own. It's just common sense, maybe they can suggest alternative weapons to these folks? My grandma at 70yrs young (who grew up shooting and enjoys shooting with me) needed a pistol. Early on I realized a conventional pistol or a revolver wasn't going to work for her, so I sourced a Beratta 380 with a tip up barrel. She can unload it and handle it easily, and shoot it accurately and safely. Everyone has the right to be armed, and its even more important for the disabled or elderly. It just needs to be done prudently, to protect them and us.

"I simply think that if that if someone is physically incapable of charging or unloading their weapon they need a different solution. "
Why? Just because they lack the strength to pull the slide doesn't mean. The person know the safety rules. or can't aim accurately. All it means is if they run out of ammunition or have a failure the gun battle is lost. The question to ask is "would they have been better off unarmed?"

"This is for safety more than any thing else, I mean if you can't unload your pistol, what if you need to clean it, unload it to take into a range or gunsmithm etc...?:
I keep my guns loaded at all times. They are kept holstered and never unloaded. Unloaded guns are the most dangerous kind. I suppose if one needs to have their guns loaded cleaned or repaired they can find someone they trust to do it for them, just as they would at their CHL qualification. That is what my wife does. If she has a gun on her, you can be assured it is loaded and charged. She has never had reason to unload it.

"I wouldn't carry or own any weapon that I'm physically incapable of operating. "
That is you. Being capable of of operating the safety features and hitting the target one intends on hitting should not be confused with the ability to charge said weapon.

"I've been on the range many times and watched terrified as some individual struggles to pull a slide pointing the weapon every which way but downrange! "
Being incapable of charging a weapon doesn't equate to pointing a gun every which way. Folks can be incapable of charging their weapons yet be perfectly safe at a range or even on the street.

"I've also seen it with DA autos and revolvers where someone doesn't have enough strength to pull the trigger and they spasmically point the gun all over creation trying to fire it. That in my opinion endangers the public. But its none of the gov's business to determine this. "
This is a whole different issue than being able to load and charge their weapon. The inabilty to pull the slide doesn't mean that the person can not properly control their gun and operate the controls on their gun.

"I just think that the chl instructors out there have a duty to society to disqualify people who cannot safely operate a weapon on their own."
I almost agree with you on this point. I do believe if a student makes minor errors in safety that the instructor can correct that there is no reason to fail the students. We do have major disagreement though on what constitutes being safe though.

"My grandma at 70yrs young (who grew up shooting and enjoys shooting with me) needed a pistol. Early on I realized a conventional pistol or a revolver wasn't going to work for her, so I sourced a Beratta 380 with a tip up barrel. She can unload it and handle it easily, and shoot it accurately and safely. Everyone has the right to be armed, and its even more important for the disabled or elderly. It just needs to be done prudently, to protect them and us."
That is all well and fine, but it is only a .380 after all. It may be the best solution for her particularly if she doesn't have someone available that can load and clean the gun for her. The Beretta might not be the best gun for everyone.

boomerang wrote:I think it's not such a horrible idea to require students to demonstrate safe gun handling as part of the practical test.
I would also support a rule that prohibits instructors and other people from "helping" students pass the practical test.

But I think a separate class/certification/annoyance/hoop/timewaster/moneywaster/infringement is a horrible idea.

Are you saying that older arthritic people should not be able to qualify with with a Semiauto because they are incapable of reloading or charging their weapon?
How does the lack of ability to charge their weapon make them more dangerous to the public! These people who have these dificulties have more need to protect themselves than the healthy male under 60. I realize that in our Obamian society that we are now giving less respect to older people, and forcing them to be to be defenseless, might help resolve the social security health crisis. But this is just cold!

Again I ask?
How does the inabilty to load or charge ones weapon cause a person to be more dangerous to others?
What is the harm in helping an older person reload their handgun, on charge their weapon.

dac1842 wrote:Liberty,
Anyone is allowed to have a weapon to proctect themselves in their own home. I do feel that if you want to carry that weapon outside of the home then i feel a degree of demonstrated proficiency with that weapon is not an infringement. The unqualified person in public with a weapon is more dangerous to everyone. I feel as handgun owners and especially those of us that carry have an obligation to ourselves and everyone else to be proficient with what we carry. I can remember when if someone wanted to be a cop, you applied, were given a badge and gun and told go forth and protect. That would never fly today.
I feel that with rights comes responsibility. Responsible gun owners and those that carry should encourage the need to be proficient. What good is someone with a new Glock or whatever and they dont have a clue how to load, unload, change mags or field strip?
All I have suggested is really simple, As a student comes into a class room, the instructor tells the student to load a mag, change a mag, show where the safety is, if applicable, and can you field strip it, chamber a dummy round, clear the dummy round. If a student can't do that refund the money and tell them to come back when they are familiar with the basic functions of a weapon.

I believe that history tends to provide support to the theory, that the more we restrict guns the more dangerous it becomes for every one. It doesn't matter our Constitution doesn't mention gun safety classes, and the ability to field strip a 1911 doesn't make anyone any safer.

My biggest problem with gun safety qualifications though come down to the arbitrariness of some of the requirements.

I know some people that are incapable of racking a handgun. They understand their limitation and will ask a trusted one to do this when required. They understand and obey the 4 rules that is the main thing.

Field stripping is absurd qualification. Most guns require the ability to rack the handgun back and the position of the slide. Various handguns requires manipulation, mechanical strength that some older people just don't have. These rules could have the effect of disarming some of the very folks that need protection the most.

Most instructors would frown on the idea of students whom they don't know bringing their guns into the class room and racking them playing with the safety, and sliding Magazines in and out in a class room full of students. It can be very difficult for the most experienced of students to exercise muzzle control in a crowded class room as suggested.

Instructors do watch their students at the range. Most instructors that I've met don't look forward to getting shot anymore than anyone else. They should pull someone off the line if there is cause, but they should also be willing to be helpful when advise is needed.

All this being said safety is in ongoing process and we should be all aware of it. The older we get and the longer we have been around guns, the more we are likely to get into bad habits and take things for granted, Funny thing is from what I can see most negligent discharges are from those who really should know better.

Mandatory courses of any kind sound like an infringement to be.
The only thing more dangerous than the unqualified having access to arms, is restrictions on the people for owning and bearing them.