Would you go through more CHL training?

[koolaid]

Does anyone know anyone who actually failed a CHL test short just spinning in the air and randomely shooting at moving objects?

There was someone in class with me who failed the shooting test. Pretty sure it was a renewal.

[The Annoyed Man]

The Annoyed Man,

My original question was, "Would you undergo additional training if it meant you could carry concealed anywhere without restriction?"

Embalmo

Understood, but that still excludes those not physically capable of taking or passing the training. What about disabled or elderly students and professors on college campus? Don't they have the same right to carry for self-defense purposes as enjoyed by the young and healthy?

I think that adding on additional requirements in order to expand the scope of CHL permissions is heading in the wrong direction. The right direction is to simply make CHL carry legal on campus. We've already proven that the streets won't run with blood just because you've armed law-abiding citizens. That argument has already been won, even though those opposed either don't realize it or refuse to accept it. But you can't debate the facts of the matter. Any ongoing resistance to guns on campus has nothing to do with facts, and everything to do with an academia which is fundamentally biased against the RKBA. Further restricting CHL carry to only those who pass the same kind of qualifications as LEOs would only make them happier because it would reduce the number of armed citizens at large; but it would still not convince them to permit guns on campus because they hate guns, and they have disdain for those who feel the need to carry them.

You may be a student and having to deal with this, but I grew up the son of two university professors (Caltech), and I spent most of my life soaking in the academia culture. Trust me... What you propose would only make it harder for regular citizens to carry firearms, and it would do nothing to free up gun carry on campus. You would be playing into their hands.

And these same arguments apply to restricting carry in any other venue. The only possible exceptions I would make to that would be CHL inside a prison, or something as uncommon as that. And I might be accepting of CHL restriction inside a 51% establishment.

RKBA is either a right, or it isn't. Anything that deviates from "shall not be infringed" is a tactical (and possibly strategic) error. The existence of CHL was a step in the right direction when the context was the complete restriction of concealed carry. CHL law made concealed carry more accessible to average citizens. In that context, it was the right step. The next correct step is anything that further loosens the restrictions — the "parking lot" bill, for example — not something that makes them more stringent.

And by the way, talk to some of the LEOs on this board about the general qualifications of LEOs. There are plenty of LEOs who are not very interested in firearms and who are not very enthusiastic about CHL. The LEOs who are members here are not in that category, but I'll bet they know plenty of other LEOs who are. And when it comes to Academia, trust me, they are not happy about armed cops on campus. They just can't think of an argument against it that wouldn't get them laughed off campus — since they've predicated their entire argument against CHL on campus on the notion that only cops are qualified to carry.

[flynbenny]

I would pursue additional training if it allowed me to carry in more places, but only if it was not made mandatory. I agree with TAM, some folks would find it impossible to go through LE styled training. I have purchased additional instruction on basic combat shooting, and also how to shoot from concealment. It was very beneficial, but also took a lot of dinero, time, and of course ammunition. I know many people can't afford it.
Not to hijack the thread, I wouldn't oppose adding some basic handling and marksmanship to the state prescribed training, or requiring people show a certificate from a NRA Basic course, combat shooting school, or military training records. Of course the common sense factor says that if you are taking the chl class, and because you are asking for permission to carry a firearm in public, it would be assumed that you have some skill with a firearm, as you are required to demonstrate it during the class at the qualification. I have heard numerous people state at the qualification that they have never fired their gun before, and some have never shot a gun before ever .

[Keith B]

Does anyone know anyone who actually failed a CHL test short just spinning in the air and randomely shooting at moving objects?

There was someone in class with me who failed the shooting test. Pretty sure it was a renewal.

I observed a CHL shooting class last weekend and a renewal didn't pass the shooting test.

[marksiwel]

I'll go through more training if I can get more "Rights" with that training. Like open carry, can carry anywhere like a Cop ect

[mr surveyor]

as a small business owner myself, I prefer to keep the motto "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"... as long as it stays within the law. This means without regard to race, sex/gender, physical/mental handicaps and other conditions that are totally beyond the control of the individual to change (well.... the sex/gender thing can apparantly be changed, but that's another topic). I won't go into detail on how I choose my clients as it's not relevent to the discussion, but I do reserve the right to politely refer some potential clients to other service providers. When the government steps in and tells me who I must provide my services to, and who I must let inside my office, then I have become a serf to the king. It's unfortunate for those of us that legally carry firearms are required to make those tough decisions of where we are willing to disarm. I personally don't find it that tough..... I make the free choice to just not do business with establishments that don't agree with my lifestyle. Air travel is one of those conditions....I have not flown since the idiocy of restricting pocket knives. That is a personal choice I can freely make, as there's really no place on this planet I want to visit that I can't personally drive to in the privacy of my own vehicle. And, if my job required air travel, I would consider that an extension of my choice to work in that line of employment. We all should place a high value on our freedoms.

Just the thought that some mandated "super ninja commando training" for CHL holders could be considered to trump my rights as a private business owner is disturbing. If you don't like MY house rules, I will gladly refer you to a whole list of other practitioners in the area that may suit your needs. Government take-over of private business practices is unfortunately where we seem to be headed in this generation, even without this discussion to influence the movement.

Your opinions may vary.


surv

[bayouhazard]

I'll go through more training if I can get more "Rights" with that training. Like open carry, can carry anywhere like a Cop ect

I would be willing to pass the same shooting test as peace officers, and have the same misdemeanor/felony disqualifications as peace officers (in some cases less than CHL) if it means I can carry EVERYWHERE IN THE USA that TX peace officer can carry, including Texas courts, airports, bars while drinking, sporting events, gun shows, businesses posted 30.06, etc.

Plus 49 other states under LEOSA.

[actionshooter10]

as a small business owner myself, I prefer to keep the motto "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"... as long as it stays within the law. This means without regard to race, sex/gender, physical/mental handicaps and other conditions that are totally beyond the control of the individual to change (well.... the sex/gender thing can apparantly be changed, but that's another topic). I won't go into detail on how I choose my clients as it's not relevent to the discussion, but I do reserve the right to politely refer some potential clients to other service providers. When the government steps in and tells me who I must provide my services to, and who I must let inside my office, then I have become a serf to the king. It's unfortunate for those of us that legally carry firearms are required to make those tough decisions of where we are willing to disarm. I personally don't find it that tough..... I make the free choice to just not do business with establishments that don't agree with my lifestyle. Air travel is one of those conditions....I have not flown since the idiocy of restricting pocket knives. That is a personal choice I can freely make, as there's really no place on this planet I want to visit that I can't personally drive to in the privacy of my own vehicle. And, if my job required air travel, I would consider that an extension of my choice to work in that line of employment. We all should place a high value on our freedoms.

Just the thought that some mandated "super ninja commando training" for CHL holders could be considered to trump my rights as a private business owner is disturbing. If you don't like MY house rules, I will gladly refer you to a whole list of other practitioners in the area that may suit your needs. Government take-over of private business practices is unfortunately where we seem to be headed in this generation, even without this discussion to influence the movement.

Your opinions may vary.


surv

Excellent post.

You have the right not to do business with anyone who doesn't respect your rights. With that said, Texas has made it very difficult to post legal notice. This gives business owners a way out. They can post a legally unenforceable sign that meets their insurance companies requirements and still allow you to carry in their establishment. You simply have to be knowledgeable enough and have the intestinal fortitude to deal with any complications that might arise from you having to use your firearm in that establishment.

I have no desire to force others to allow me to carry on their property. I don't like the general restrictions on entire classes of business such as bars, airports, amusement parks, ect., but I do believe that those business owners should have the right to not allow concealed handguns on their property if they choose to. This allows me to exercise my choice of not frequenting that establishment on a selective basis rather than the general ban we have now.

I like the idea of the 30.06 signs. I personally believe that all of the restrictions should go away except for that one. Government facilities would still not be allowed to be posted, and business owners would have a way to legally bar CHL holders if that is what they choose to do. I would be happy to help put those people out of business by not contributing to their profits.

I'm all for expanding the rights of CHL holders in Texas but not at the expense of others property rights.

[mr surveyor]

and as long as tobacco products are legal (at least until the current admin finds a way, most likely through the epa, to declare it an environmental hazard to be fully controlled), I think any private property owner, whether home, restruant, bar or hardware store should be left alone to decide whether or not they will allow the use of a legal product within the confines of their own business. If you don't want to deal with second hand smoke, no one is forcing you to do business with an establishment that allows it on premesis.

The most precious right we have in this country (other than religious freedom) in my opinion, and one which very few places on this earth allow, is the right to own property. And in the last couple of decades, this most precious of rights is being quickly eroded by those that do not understand, or don't respect another's right to own aand control their own property.

I'm all for personal freedom and individual rights, but you will be subject to my rules when you are on my property, or you will be "invited" to leave.


surv

[WildBill]

I'll go through more training if I can get more "Rights" with that training. Like open carry, can carry anywhere like a Cop ect

I would be willing to pass the same shooting test as peace officers, and have the same misdemeanor/felony disqualifications as peace officers (in some cases less than CHL) if it means I can carry EVERYWHERE IN THE USA that TX peace officer can carry, including Texas courts, airports, bars while drinking, sporting events, gun shows, businesses posted 30.06, etc.

Plus 49 other states under LEOSA.

As long as I get a CHL badge too.

[DoubleActionCHL]

Would I opt for more training if it meant a less restrictive CHL? I suppose I would, if this became law. On the other hand, I think this would be a bad idea. The concept of CHL in Texas is complex enough as it is. Let's not pile additional complexities for both the license holder and the guys who have to enforce these new, complex statutes.

Should CHL holders be required to go through additional training period? No!

Should CHL holders voluntarily seek out additional training? Absolutely!

I'm a huge proponent of personal responsibility and accountability. With rights come responsibilities. When people are "allowed" to carry guns, bad things will happen; accidents, poor judgment. This is a necessary evil in a free society. The freedom and the security available to the remaining 99% of the population is worth it.

The concept of 30.06 is a sound one, but not without its political implications. First off, there's a misconception that it applies to businesses. Section 30.06 applies to any private property and selected government properties. I support private property rights, including the right of the owner to exclude admittance to anyone he chooses on whatever basis he chooses (yes, including carrying a gun). Yes, this might be a politically incorrect position, but the alternative is to open the door to the obvious inconsistencies discussed earlier.

On the other hand, why should Section 30.06 apply specifically to CHL holders and not just anyone carrying a handgun. Well, we have laws for that, right? Secondly, the guys who wrote this statute know that you're a law abiding citizen and will actually heed the sign. Will those carrying illegally? We all know the answer to that question.

And while we're talking about those evil 30.06 signs, I choose not to spend my hard earned dollars at businesses that post 30.06. In my opinion, a property owner who posts 30.06, thereby disarming me if I choose to enter, has effectively taken moral responsibility for my safety. To be more exact, I have relinquished responsibility for my safety. He cannot effectively take responsibility for my safety, nor should I ever relinquish this responsibility. Can a business, in any practical sense, ever provide the security necessary to guarantee your safety? I think not.

You have a choice. If you need that widget badly enough, I guess you'll compromise your principles, disarm and waltz into XYZ store. On the other hand, you might not have a choice. How many choices are available to you when you're taking your kid to the emergency room?

Personally, I'd like to see the restrictions opened up. We have so many overlapping laws. You can't carry in a bar. You can't carry while intoxicated. You can't shoot people willy-nilly, drunk or not. Rick Perry made noises on this subject last year, but nothing ever gelled. Our State Senate wussed out on us earlier this year, allowing certain bills beneficial to CHL holders to remain unaddressed when the session ended. Thanks guys!!! Way to take a stand!

You can't carry in the post office, when ironically (and historically), the employees are more of a danger to you than you are to them.

RANT::OFF

[tarkus]

Am I missing something here?

The Bill of Rights?

[C-dub]

Okay. Being able to ignore the 30.06 might have been a little overboard. Sorry.

My church does not post and neither do most places I frequent, so the 30.06 isn't that much of an impediment for me. My doctor's office is not posted, but the hospital's in my area are. What does annoy me, though, is the sporting event part. There are a bunch of drunks leaving a Cowboy or Stars game and the Stars play downtown. It's not the worst part of town, but still.

Campus carry and the parking lot thing would be nice. What about lower schools? This wouldn't be covered under campus carry, but shouldn't we be allowed to carry in elementary or high schools? Wait. That's a federal law, right? Bummer.

Oh, during my first class a woman failed the shooting. She hit the paper in the next lane at 3 yards. The RO stopped her and asked here to come back another day after more practice. This was the first time she had shot and she was borrowing a range revolver.

[shootthesheet]

No. It isn't necessary and nothing we do will ever "shut-up" the anti-freedom types because nothing is enough. Appeasement only strengthens our enemies.

[Lindy]

I suspect that most everyone here would agree that the level of shootings skill required to pass the CHL test is very low.

I suspect that anyone who has observed a police officer trying to shoot an IPDA or USPSA course with only the training they got in the police academy will agree that the same is true of them.

However, training will not make you proficient with a firearm.

Only regular practice after proper training will make you proficient with a firearm. The real purpose of a training program is to teach you a group of skills to practice.

If you want to be proficient, get some training - lots of places offer that - and then practice.

I'd be perfectly happy to have people have the ability to carry anywhere if they had passed a real shooting test, in addition to the existing CHL standards - say, for example, qualify as Sharpshooter or better on the IDPA classifier, and then have to requalify yearly.

But realistically, that's not going to happen anyway.

To tell you the truth, most people who do have a CHL do not practice the one skill essential to an enhanced probability of survival in a real threat environment, which is situational awareness.

I know some who do, and probably a much higher percentage of the people who hang out on this board do - but if you're reading this, it's because you already have a much higher interest in this subject that most CHL holders.

As far as the issue of where you can carry, Charles and the rest of the people struggling to maintain and enhance our ability to carry will carry on that fight, God bless them.

But if you want to enhance your proficiency, do it because you want to enhance your proficiency.