Goals for 2007

[Baytown]

+1 on the Advanced CHL. That is a great idea and one that I had never thought of.

Glenn

[gigag04]

+1 on the Advanced CHL. That is a great idea and one that I had never thought of.

Glenn

+2 - that would be neat.

PLUS - our training could rival that of most LEOs. [no disrespect]

[dws1117]

The advanced CHL sounds like a terrific idea, but it leaves a few questions.

1. How long for the license term. With the current term of (soon) 5 years, would you envision an advanced CHL to last longer, shorter, or the same?

2. I can see the state charging a hefty fee for the "Schooling 40+ hours, skill level about that of an Air Marshal, and mental stability evaluation and interviews with co-workers, friends, relatives, etc. "

What are you willing to pay? The schooling won't be cheap. Should someone that meets all of the criteria that you've set forth be excluded because the cost of the schooling and increased fees won't fit in thier budget? As evident by the polled thread elsewhere on this forum, current cost is one of the factors preventing many people from obtaining a "basic" CHL now. What is a fair fee for an advanced version.

3. Would LEOs automatically qualify for an advanced CHL since most already go through the training, intense background checks, and mental evaluations just to obtain the job?

I am not trying to be argumentative, just a little food for thought.

On a more personal note, I would be opposed to anyf advanced CHL or anything similar. Maybe I am naive and see things too black and white, but IMO you either have the right to carry or not. By gaining this right (CHL or similar) a person should be allowed to carry just about anything or anywhere. If you abuse that right, then you will loose that right. The creation of CHL divisions seems more prohibitive that productive.

LEOs already enjoy benefits from reduced fees and, correct me if I am wrong, training requirements. LEO already carry a weapons as part of thier jobs. One would believe that they already have the training. Thier employing agancy has already paid the bill for training, background checks, and mental checks so I see no problem with the reduced fees.

P.S. I hope noone takes this a "cop bashing" It certainly isn't intended that way. It is also not my style.

[dws1117]

For 2007 I only have a few wishes, along with many already posted.

1. Employee parking area exemption or protection despite company policy

2. I would like to see the S.A / NSA restrictions removed. What was the purpose for implimenting these in the first place? What bearing does the action of the firearm have?

That is all for now.

[Baytown]

As far as actual training, LEO's have minumum continuing education hours that they are required to take. I do not remember firearms training being required. Officers are required by the State to qual each year, and my dept requires two qual a year, one regular and one low-light.

LEO's also take Penal Code updates. IIRC the CHL class is more over PC and use of force, than actual gun training.

I think with LEOPA there will be less cops getting CHL's. I think the question of what level of CHL is moot, as they can carry anywhere anyway.

I have always thought about the price of a CHL and that is a good point that an advanced CHL would be even more expensive. Of course I should not be able to afford all the guns I buy.

Glenn

[dws1117]

Of course I should not be able to afford all the guns I buy.

Your right. You cops are overpaid as it is. They should reduce your salaries.


This is not serious people!

[Baytown]

LOL!! The pay is a lot better than it used to be.

But would I like to make more money? "Sure, we all do!"--The now fat chick that used to be skinny from Archie Bunker (her name escapes me right now.)

Glenn

[dws1117]

Sally "feed the children" Strother played Gloria.

Ok back on topic.

[Baytown]

Some sort of enforcement action against cities who refuse to take down their 30.06 signs, knowing full well they are not valid.

Glenn

[dws1117]

The more I ponder the advanced CHL idea, the more I don't like it.

Given that special treatment is already given for LEOs and CHL one would assume that this advanced CHL would be more for civilians.

As stated in my previous post, this new license would probably be much more expensive, not to mention the cost of training to reach the level of proficiency proposed as a requirement for the special CHL, why should someone that enjoys more financial freedom be allowed greater carry privilege that someone who is on a tighter budget?

Please don't take this as a personal jab, because it most certainly is not intended in that fasion, but to me, the idea of different classes of CHLs smacks of elitism. It is very close to another ..ism. The places that you are allowed to carry would almost be based on how much you can afford.

[ea40ss]

Hello all, sorry my last post on this topic was off topic. Let's try again.

I like almost every thing Mr. Neal said. My only exception would be the easier renewals. In my first renewal and my wife's first and second renewals there were folks in the class that had not shot their weapon since their last CHL test. It was obvious and they admitted it. For folks who shoot on a regular basis and/or, are great shots, doing away with the renewal shooting test might be ok. Sadly however most CHLers, at least the ones I know never shoot. Maybe the problem isn't as rampant as I percieve it to be. Hopefully!

How about a complete renewal online for the classroom part with a printable certificate. If a CHLer is actively involved in a pistol shooting sport such as IDPA, or IPSC, or Bowling Pins, etc and can prove it with a score card or has taken some sort of advanced training with a certificate then the shooting test could be waved. If no advanced training within the last four (or five years now) then the regular shooting test should be required. Lets face it, a bad score in IDPA is better training than a good score on the CHL shooting test. I breezed the CHL tests but do terrible in IDPA! But I'm getting better.

Then take the online class certificate and Proof of shooting activity to DPS for Thumbprint, Picture and Payment. I'm lost on the affidavids. Maybe while online have an electronic signature for them like the IRS for online filing..

Some of this may have already been mentioned and added to.
Does any of this sound resonable? Or am I rambling again.. :?
Sounds maybe a little too complicated.

Anyway... what do y'all think?

Thanks,
Eric

[ea40ss]

On second thought, Maybe I do like easier renewals. Just not less shooting to do it.

Thanks again,

Eric

[Tom]

On second thought, Maybe I do like easier renewals. Just not less shooting to do it.

Thanks again,

Eric

Not specifically addressed to Eric, just some general thougths on this
issue.

I moved here from NC about 3 1/2 years ago. I went through a CHL
renewal in NC and at that time I thought it took too much effort. Until I
got here, that is.
In NC all CHL apps are handled through the county sheriff's office. To
acquire a CHL one has to take a full day course and shoot a course of fire
similar to TX. Most gun ranges over the courses and charge anywhere
from $75-$100. The sheriff then adds another $70 to the cost for the
original CHL.
But for renewals you just show up at the sheriff's office, fill out a single
page form, pay $70, submit finger prints, and your renewed CHL arrives
in a month or two. No further testing of any kind is required.
The CHL in NC is tied directly to your drivers license and carries the same
number. Therefore, no picture is needed on the CHL, and you must
always have both with you when carrying. No big deal.
And NC now has reciprocity with TX so TX must consider this to be an OK
way to handle renewals, at least for NC residents. Why not do the same
for TX residents? Why are we getting all hung up on retesting and doing
the whole process over at renewal time? How many of the other states
that TX has signed reciprocity agreements with have a retesting
requirement for renewals?
Other than making us feel better about our fellow Texans who have
CHL's what is the real benefit to this retest? Some other states do not
see that need. Some don't test at all, SD for example. Of course that
blows reciprocity for them, with TX at least.
If I could reinvent the TX process I would make it just like Alaska. They
came to the conclusion a couple of years ago that everyone who wanted
to was carrying anyway so why make them criminals over it. And if
they want to carry in other states they can get an Alaska CHL, they just
don't need it in Alaska. Why not do that here? Don't we trust our fellow
Texans?
I would prefer not to tweek the current system, just eliminate most of it.
Like I said, just some general thoughts on the issue.

Best Regards,

Tom

[Trainman]

For 2007 I only have a few wishes, along with many already posted.

1. Employee parking area exemption or protection despite company policy

That would be the same as HB 896 from last session, mentioned earlier, that made it through committee but died a quiet death because it never made it to the floor from the calendar.

The 5 year license term and this one were the ones I really wanted to get passed. I guess 50% ain't bad.
I hope to see the CHL parking lot provision in the next session - AND pass this time.

[tomneal]

Let me explain my reasoning for making it easier to renew.

As mentioned earlier in this thread, some states don't require any additional training or testing for renewals. (Florida's will accept your Texas Hunters Safety class and issue you a CHL. They don't seem to have a problem.)

More Texans are killed or injured in Automoble accidents caused by sober drivers each year than all the CHL related deaths or injuries since the laws inception in 1996.
(44.7325% of all statistics are made up on the spot.)

We don't require testing for drivers license renewals.
You just show up, get your thumb print taken, your eyes checked, and your picture taken.

If your driving record is good, you don't even have to show up. You can do it all by mail.


This is where I would like to see Texas go with CHL renewals.



As to the shooting requirement.

I like to shoot. And, I like to talk about shooting.
Some folks don't.

I regularly read of folks that have defended themselves with firearms they had never fired before and others that hadn't fired a gun in more than a decade. (Read your NRA magazine.)

I will not disparage a CHL holder that doesn't go shooting regularly.