TexasCHLforum.com

Exactly

AndyC wrote: for a first-timer buying a firearm, why ever not? We'd have a lot fewer unhappy buyers No, my point - which is apparently being ignored - is that while we SHOULD be able to carry without anyone's permission, we're putting ourselves in mortal and legal peril if we think that we can do so without getting at least a little legal and practical knowledge.

I have to tussle with myself on this issue because I WANT freedom to carry for everybody with no restrictions - but that's not the real world, and I wonder if any father or mother here would be happy to just slap a firearm into their son or daughter's hands - "There you go, son" - without nothing further said or done. Somehow I doubt it, but we'd be happy for others to carry like that?

Assuming we can't get Constitutional carry and still HAVE to pass an exam, etc, here's my ideal scenario - treat it like a driver's license exam. Take as little or as much training privately as you like (or zero, if you consider yourself skilled enough) - then take the written RANDOMIZED exam at any local gov't office. That way the time can be broken up however one likes or needs - yes, I can dream

It seems like you're walking on both sides of the line a bit here, between Constitutional Carry and mandatory training, but I agree completely with your ideal scenario if we're obligated to pass a licensing exam.

I also agree with you that (these are my words, not Andy's -->) "only an idiot would carry a gun with no training". The question is what to do about that. Do we mandate training or do we leave folks to be responsible for themselves? While I would "strongly recommend" that everyone get training (NRA Basic Pistol or similar and a class on TX use of force law, at minimum), I'm not prepared to call for this to be mandatory.

In my personal opinion (and at the risk of weakening my argument here, I admit), requiring mandatory training to exercise an enumerated right is in the same vein as Mr. Bloomberg telling me I can't have a Big Gulp. Yes, CHL risks are greater than sugary drinks, but I'm not going to argue in favor of Constitutional Carry and then say .... if we're gonna have to take a class it should be a comprehensive class that covers X, Y and Z.

The reality is that we live in a State that has a licensing requirement for CHL and the powers that be have decided that "some" training is required. I have a "manageable" amount of heartburn about that. The current State class does a decent job of teaching the basics of relevant TX law (assuming you have a good instructor), but, as we have agreed, if I can demonstrate that I have that knowledge by passing a written test, then I should be able to skip the class.

AndyC wrote:Personally, I'd rather see it longer - but it would never happen as long as we believe that rights don't come with any emphasis on learning about the responsibilities which come with that right.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one Andy.

I'm ok with the State giving me a test... like a drivers exam.
If I can pass a written test (I read CHL-16 and understood it just fine without the class) and a shooting test, then I have demonstrated the same understanding of the requirements as someone who took the class. Why do I need to pay ~/>$100 and give up a day of my time?

I agree that demonstrating proficiency and an understanding of the law is a "reasonable restriction".
[I'd rather see Constitutional Carry, but I can't argue with a written test and proficiency being called "reasonable"]

NRA basic pistol (or equivalent) would be MUCH more valuable from a proficiency standpoint.
The two ladies in my TX class were literally shaking when we got to the range. Everyone passed.
The TX class as it's structured today does not fix that. IMO.

AndyC wrote:I disagree; I believe that shortening the 10-hour class to only 4 hours is asking for trouble and I do not support it.

Flynn said. "A lot of people who try to get their license, they have to take a day off of work, or they have to take a whole Saturday to go do this

Well, boohoo. The subject isn't a game, nor should it be a gimme.

It's infrequent that I disagree with you Andy but in this case I do... There are many other states where the classroom requirement is far less than 10 hours. (Off topic, but, Is 10 hours the longest of any state?). Some states have a zero-training requirement. I don't find any accounts of bloodshed related to that reduced training requirement.

If a novice (or brand new) shooter shows up for a class, is 8 hours of classroom instruction focused on TX laws (not on shooting basics) and 50 rounds at the range anything we should consider "training".?