Can of worms to open here

[Boxerrider]

No more requirements for CHL. Cost and wait time is already way too high.
Safe firearm handling and basic function/cleaning of common models should be part of your public school education. Nobody has to learn to drive but we still teach simple traffic safety to children, nobody has to be a physician but we teach everybody first aid. Don't want to have guns? I have no problem with your decision, but if you happen upon one you should be prepared to deal with it responsibly.

I have lots of other silly ideas too.
Enjoy!

[tbranch]

Safe firearm handling and basic function/cleaning of common models should be part of your public school education. ... Don't want to have guns? I have no problem with your decision, but if you happen upon one you should be prepared to deal with it responsibly.

Box,

Wow. I like the thought.

Tom

[Mike from Texas]

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.

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.

As a Journeyman electrician I am required to take a yearly CE class in order to maintain my electrical license.

As a nurse, my wife is required to take yearly CE classes to maintain her nursing license.

I don't think it's unreasonable to require the same of someone bearing the responsibility of carrying a deadly weapon on them.

Flame away if you wish but that is my opinion.

[Mike from Texas]

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.

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.

As a Journeyman electrician I am required to take a yearly CE class in order to maintain my electrical license.

As a nurse, my wife is required to take yearly CE classes to maintain her nursing license.

I don't think it's unreasonable to require the same of someone bearing the responsibility of carrying a deadly weapon on them.

Flame away if you wish but that is my opinion.

[anygunanywhere]

Flame away if you wish but that is my opinion.

Burn, baby, burn.

Anygun sniffs his armpit.

Yep, his opinions stink too.

What other rights are you going to license there Texas Mike?

Anygunanywhere

[CertifiedKJ]

I haven't got my plastic yet, but when I do, you best believe I'm going to still go to the range at least twice a week. I don't think that anything should change though, what purpose would that serve?

[Liberty]

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.

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!

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.

No flames here ! But ...

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."

[phddan]

Let me throw out a different point of view here.
My wife and I were in a wreck where we got hit by a truck on motorcycle. She lost her leg, and had two long plates put in her left forearm. She has some serious problems loading a tight magazine or field stripping a gun.
Are you telling us that she shouldn't have a CHL? That a woman in a wheel chair shouldn't be able to defend herself or grandkids? Is this what you are really saying.?
I stood behind her in the shooting portion of the class, and loaded the magazines for her. And I am her armorer.
Fact is, she owns more guns than me.


Dan

[mr.72]

I think this "we need more training" thing comes down to two sentiments:

1. elitism. Many CHL holders want to believe they are better people somehow than those who don't have a CHL. We are more prepared. More aware of our risks day to day. More responsible for our own safety. So we want to also say "and we have all this extra cool training, see?" We want people to have to jump through extra hoops to join our club.

2. fear. Some people are still afraid of guns and are still not comfortable with regular civilians carrying them so they feel like making something like training mandatory to set apart the CHL holders from regular civilians will alleviate some of that fear. This sentiment gets expressed over and over ...lately about the teachers carrying at that one school district, the common response is "as long as they have extra special training, then it's ok"

Those of us truly set on liberty look at this as a basic right with the expectation that some people are going to take it seriously and become educated and some others are going to remain ignorant and abuse their rights but it's still a right. We all have the right to defend ourselves with or without a gun. Some people are dangerous even without a gun, and they would be dangerous with a gun. Some are ignorant fools who get themselves into trouble all the time and they will be that way with or without a gun. But do we expect those fools to show great wisdom in restraining themselves from owning or carrying a gun just because of some law?

[tbranch]

That a woman in a wheel chair shouldn't be able to defend herself or grandkids? Is this what you are really saying?

Dan,

Not an issue. The Americans with Disabilities Act would take care of this by allowing her a reasonable accommodation based upon her disability.

Tom

[KBCraig]

That a woman in a wheel chair shouldn't be able to defend herself or grandkids?

This lady probably couldn't load magazines or rack a slide, but she's got the right (and the mindset!) to defend herself:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfeAsOiaOkk
[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=qfeAsOiaOkk[/youtube]

Edit: Ah, there it is! I tried every combination to get the Youtube plug-in to work. This one is different from most.

[TexCaboCat]

I think this "we need more training" thing comes down to two sentiments:

1. elitism. Many CHL holders want to believe they are better people somehow than those who don't have a CHL. We are more prepared. More aware of our risks day to day. More responsible for our own safety. So we want to also say "and we have all this extra cool training, see?" We want people to have to jump through extra hoops to join our club.

2. fear. Some people are still afraid of guns and are still not comfortable with regular civilians carrying them so they feel like making something like training mandatory to set apart the CHL holders from regular civilians will alleviate some of that fear. This sentiment gets expressed over and over ...lately about the teachers carrying at that one school district, the common response is "as long as they have extra special training, then it's ok"

Those of us truly set on liberty look at this as a basic right with the expectation that some people are going to take it seriously and become educated and some others are going to remain ignorant and abuse their rights but it's still a right. We all have the right to defend ourselves with or without a gun. Some people are dangerous even without a gun, and they would be dangerous with a gun. Some are ignorant fools who get themselves into trouble all the time and they will be that way with or without a gun. But do we expect those fools to show great wisdom in restraining themselves from owning or carrying a gun just because of some law?

The best post on this thread by a mile!!!!!! Funny how some on here claim to love the 2A but are the first to suggest more government control over a right and claim it is needed. Can any of you give me one example of government "care" that has made any one more responsible, productive or safer, and you want to give government more control? You can't legislate idiots even though we keep trying and freely giving up our rights over and over again. I for one think we should be able to carry because I am a US citizen, but it is what it is now so I have to go through the system and the last thing I want to do is have to take a "refresher" class every year as some folks on here have suggested. Here is a word for some people:
"Self-responsibility"! What a great word. It means that I am responsible for my actions and I am responsible to become proficient with my weapon, car, family or whatever and I don't need government in anyway to try to legislate that "Self-responsibility on me. I can't believe some on here think more regulation is the way it should be and actually believe that it would work. Reminds me a ton of the Elitist Liberals that want to legislate our 2A rights away because they know what is best for us (definition of elitist). This thought from gun owners and 2A believers is mind boggling to me and frankly a little scary!!!!

[tbranch]

Here is a word for some people: "Self-responsibility"! What a great word. It means that I am responsible for my actions and I am responsible to become proficient with my weapon, car, family or whatever and I don't need government in anyway to try to legislate that "Self-responsibility on me.

Are you saying nothing should be licensed?

Tom

[TexCaboCat]

Here is a word for some people: "Self-responsibility"! What a great word. It means that I am responsible for my actions and I am responsible to become proficient with my weapon, car, family or whatever and I don't need government in anyway to try to legislate that "Self-responsibility on me.

Are you saying nothing should be licensed?

Tom

Not at all. I was speaking directly about our "right to bear arms" and I don't believe it should be licensed, but that is not what I was specifically talking about in my response above. I was merely trying to say that "self responsibility" is the answer to the original posters question and that more regulation will never be the answer to irresponsible people and in fact only destroys the rights of the law abiding people. I would bet that 99.9% of the people on this forum would agree with this statement, but it amazes me that some of those same people are willing to throw away their own rights just because they think someone somewhere will not be responsible for themselves according to their own standards (Elitist), thus the state of Texas should require more standards, more training and more care taking of its people because we are not capable of it. After all, this is actually what some are saying on here. I for one don't want to give up anymore of my rights just because a few inept individuals own handguns and expect government to fix it for me. No thanks.

[mr.72]

To further this point, giving a "license" also has the effect of communicating that one is somehow qualified to do whatever thing it is that the license is intended to qualify. So you may say "I am a good enough driver, I have a license!" or "I am qualified to carry a weapon, I have a CHL!". But without the state giving a license, then it is incumbent on people to determine what establishes their qualification for the activity. For example, I don't have a license to play the guitar. So am I qualified to play the guitar? Well, maybe, maybe not. I have to work at it. I have been working at it for nearly 25 years now. I continue to improve. So do I need a license? How about to ride my bike? A lot of people think I should have a license to ride my bike. Does that mean that once I take whatever cheeseball test that the state is going to give me and everyone else over the age of 5 to ride a bicycle, then I can quit worrying about improving my awareness, my defensive riding skills, etc, because, you see, I have a license!

The fact is that on my bicycle, my safety is my own problem. Nobody tells me when I am good enough, safe enough. With the guitar, my skills are up to me to assess. If I am good enough to play inside my house and not cause the police to come on a noise complaint then so be it, but I probably have to be much better if I plan to play in public view. Why should carrying a gun be any different? Am I proficient enough to carry a gun? To use one when I might need it? Maybe. Maybe not. I am not sure, so I am still working at it, but you had better bet someone far less qualified and experienced than me could easily ace that state-mandated test and get a license. So is it the state's position that the person with very minimal skills is duly qualified to carry?

This is about personal responsibility. No there shouldn't be any license. There should be certain and swift punishment if you screw up with a gun, and nobody in the state gov't knows or cares if you don't. We don't need the state's licensing system to come under scrutiny when someone screws up with their firearm. That threatens everyone's free exercise of their rights. If you take away the license, then when someone screws up then they alone are holding the bag. The state didn't stamp them "qualified", the state didn't evaluate their shooting or knowledge of the law, so the state is under no obligation to take any heat. They just say "you know, the Constitution guarantees them their right to bear arms, to a fair trial, not to incriminate themselves, a jury of their peers, and they can now exercise all of those rights since they failed to train themselves for correct handling of their gun".