Can of worms to open here

[John]

If the offenders are your customers, why not offer classes on gun maintenance or show them how to clean their guns. you can fix this one person at a time. :)

Some dealers give away a box of ammo with a purchase, maybe you could give away instructions instead. Probably not a bad idea actually. I really can't see changing the "law" to accomodate.

[yahoshua]

If the offenders are your customers, why not offer classes on gun maintenance or show them how to clean their guns. you can fix this one person at a time. :)

Some dealers give away a box of ammo with a purchase, maybe you could give away instructions instead. Probably not a bad idea actually. I really can't see changing the "law" to accomodate.

We give free verbal instructions to firearm purchasers/renters as it is.

[Cliffh999]

There's a very similar poll going on at another board I frequent. Seems as if the feelings here parallel the thoughts expressed there pretty well.

One response that I didn't see over there, and hadn't thought of myself (wish I had):

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"

A lot of the responses on both boards went something like "I've seen folks that I really don't want to be around if they're carrying". This could be caused by a lack of knowledge on both parties part - one needs to learn not to fear someone else carrying, and the other needs to learn how to use thier firearm properly.

Keep in mind that accidents do happen - how many stories have we read about LOE's who've made a weapons-related mistake, even after all the training they receive? That leads me to believe that addtional state-mandated training isn't the solution. How about weapons training in the public school system? Used to have it at my high school, and that was in Calif.! Of course it wasn't a required class, but it was held during regular school hours and the cost was paid for by the school. They cut costs by using the National Guard Armory range just down the road. Make it a required class, shooting live rounds should be a seriously considered option. Class length of 1 hour per day, for one quarter of the school year.

I don't have the training to run a cost analysis on this proposal, but I'm willing to bet it wouldn't impact the schools budget by much. Maybe a large part of the $25 permit fee would be allocated to the school to cover any additional costs. If it turns out that the school can do it for less money, the permit fee should be lowered.

No other training should be required for either open or concealed carry. Permits for life, maybe a new picture every 8 to 10 years, no re-cert training or shooting required. Really don't think even the permit should be required, thinking of it as income to pay for the school for the training.

So, dump the existing open & concealed carry laws. No permits, no classroom training, no range shooting, nothing except what you learned in school. For those who've already graduated but don't have a permit, give them a pamphlet, tell them they're responsible for knowing everything in it - if they come to DPS and request it. Might even consider a mass mailing of the pamphlet to all residents outlining the new laws. Or, simply ad's in the paper stating that the laws have changed and ya'll better read up!

[tbranch]

So, dump the existing open & concealed carry laws. No permits, no classroom training, no range shooting, nothing except what you learned in school.

In a perfect world-perhaps. Given the realities of the current political situation, I don't see licensing going away anytime soon.

After 25+ years of handling weapons in both the military and in private, I still remind myself every time I pick one up to clear it. When I'm handed a weapon I clear it even though I just watched someone else clear it. Safety, safety, safety... I'd hate to get shot because some person did not understand the basics but was carrying. Remember, there are no accidental discharges. They are negligent or unintended.

The other reason for the current system is to make sure those who carry understand the "use of deadly force" laws. One can argue, we could learn it on our own and I would agree. However, if you are involved in a shooting you cannot argue you were not aware of the laws—the state insured you were aware of them.

Get off the high horse—it’s not elitism or fear. I carry daily. But I have the right to feel safe that the next person knows what he or she is doing so I don’t get shot or killed when they exercise their rights.

Tom

[mr.72]

The other reason for the current system is to make sure those who carry understand the "use of deadly force" laws. One can argue, we could learn it on our own and I would agree. However, if you are involved in a shooting you cannot argue you were not aware of the laws—the state insured you were aware of them.

This is a fallacious argument. If it were indeed a legitimate argument, then all CHL holders would be automatically no-billed in every shooting since the state would be ensuring their correct and right training as well as their tested knowledge of the law. However, every shooting, regardless of CHL status, results in an investigation and potentially include charges. So the license is completely worthless as an indicator that you "know the law".

In reality, you have to exercise good judgment, and no license will guarantee good judgment. Anyone with good judgment will investigate the law prior to carrying anyway. Anyone without good judgment will not seek legal information, nor will they seek a CHL. IMHO the CHL is completely useless for this reason. The mere fact that one is willing to jump through the hoops to get a CHL is the most reliable indicator that they do not need to in order to be trusted to carry.

Get off the high horse—it’s not elitism or fear. I carry daily. But I have the right to feel safe that the next person knows what he or she is doing so I don’t get shot or killed when they exercise their rights.
Tom

Really? I don't think you have such a right, because it infringes my right to bear arms.

You don't have the right to feel safe.

You don't even have the right to BE safe.

You have the right to defend yourself but you do not have the right to require others to do anything at all.

You do have the right to expect those who break the law to be prosecuted. But this is not "Minority Report", where we prosecute people for crimes they might commit. IMHO the current CHL requirement is sort of like preemptive rehabilitation. Maybe prehabilitation for the potential gun criminal, aka normal citizen.

Furthermore there is no viable evidence to suggest that the CHL requirements actually reduce your odds of being shot or killed when someone exercises their rights.

I still think it's mostly elitism and fear and that is no high horse. You have just confessed that for you it is largely fear. That's what it means when you say you have a "right to feel safe".

IMHO of course!!

[tbranch]

Really? I don't think you have such a right, because it infringes my right to bear arms.

I have the primary right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". I can't do this if some idiot who does not know how to handle a weapon kills me. It does me no good if they throw the idiot into jail for a couple of years as “punishment.”

Laws are designed to protect the greater good. Total freedom would be anarchy as anyone could do anything they wanted. While I don’t like licensing, I understand the reasoning behind it.

Rights are not absolute. We have the right to free speech, but need a permit in some places to make a speech in public. I have the right to carry concealed into your home unless you tell me not to or post a 30.06 sign. Should my 2A rights be more important than your rights as a property owner? Many people here would say the property rights are more important.

I realize you’re one of those all-or-nothing 2A types and I respect that. We don’t live in the same world though.

Please take the final shot as I'm done discussing the issue.

Tom

[LedJedi]

I've said this before and been borderline flamed for it but i'll say it again.

I think the system should be rolled into the Drivers License system with the state. Abolish the test , the class and the qualification. it's a guaranteed right anyway according to the constitution. A CHL is implied. But, on someone's ID/DL turn it red/pink or something obvious if they're banned from owning/carrying firearms for some reason.

If you really just absolutely insist on giving a test and hands on exam let someone go to one of the instructors that are already qualified and get a sheet signed saying they've completed the exam. Then take that sheet to your local DMV office, let them perform one of those nice 5 minute checks to make sure you're not barred from buying and let them issue you a special DL with a smiley face on it (maybe with a little bullet hole).

When someone goes in for a regular DL they should automatically do one of the 5 minute checks and if it comes back with a problem you get one of the red/pink DLs instead of a standard (or you get one with the smiley face if you insist on testing).

Reduces the need for all the redundancy in the system and you get your CHL/DL as soon as you finish the class and go to the DMV.

Problem solved.

Now on to world peace..... i'm pretty sure the DMV can't be involved in that problem.

[mr.72]

Really? I don't think you have such a right, because it infringes my right to bear arms.

I have the primary right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". I can't do this if some idiot who does not know how to handle a weapon kills me. It does me no good if they throw the idiot into jail for a couple of years as “punishment.”

OK I know you said this is your last word on this, but I guess I can still reply right?

This is no different than anything else in your life. Some idiot can run over you with a car. Hit you with a rock or baseball bat. Set your house on fire. Set loose a rattlesnake in your cubicle. There are an infinite number of ways that someone intent on harming you or who is such a fool as to be totally negligent in the operation of their own property that they can injure or kill you, and yet you cannot outlaw their ownership of these types of property, right?

And these types of property carry no specific constitutional protection, while "arms" do carry such a constitutional protection.

Laws are designed to protect the greater good. Total freedom would be anarchy as anyone could do anything they wanted. While I don’t like licensing, I understand the reasoning behind it.

People can do anything they want! The law doesn't prevent it, it just provides punishment or other recourse.

The difference in this case is that the CHL holder is being punished without actually committing a crime! One can legally buy a gun, and then can go carry it all the time without getting caught. If they are intent on harming you then they will do it with or without a CHL. The only thing the CHL training, fees, etc. requirements do is impede those who are not intending to do anyone harm or breaking the law from carrying.

Rights are not absolute. We have the right to free speech, but need a permit in some places to make a speech in public. I have the right to carry concealed into your home unless you tell me not to or post a 30.06 sign. Should my 2A rights be more important than your rights as a property owner? Many people here would say the property rights are more important.

Well, you have the right not to enter my property! My property rights are such that I can exclude you from my property whether you are carrying concealed or not. I can keep you out of my house just because I don't like your hairdo, or you's Hatfield and I's a McCoy. You are carrying a Ford key concealed, and I am a Chevy guy. The private property thing is irrelevant to CHL and RKBA.

I realize you’re one of those all-or-nothing 2A types and I respect that. We don’t live in the same world though.

Please take the final shot as I'm done discussing the issue.

Tom

OK, suit yourself.

I am not so much an "all-or-nothing 2A type" but I just don't see the reasoning for the CHL requirements as they are now, beyond the political.

I am quite certain that the reason we have licensing, fees, mandatory state CHL class and qualification, is because not everyone or even the majority in this state or most others really are comfortable with normal people being able to carry a gun. Clearly these laws were enacted as a means to allow at least some people to carry a gun in TX, as opposed to not allowing anybody.

However in a more libertarian sense, there is no reason not to allow everyone to carry if they see fit, considering it is a constitutional right and there is no valid evidence to show that licensing or training does anything to improve safety. It mostly eases the minds of those who have a fear of an armed society. It's not an armed society if only 1-2% of us are carrying.

We have a lot of laws that are there to give the perception of safety and security without doing anything whatsoever to actually measurably improve safety or security. CHL laws are among them. Confiscating your nail clippers as you get on an airplane is another. Considering that a label on a car's visor is going to prevent roll-overs is another. The list goes on and on. I'm all for freedom and personal responsibility. Doesn't matter which Amendment, it's just that on this forum, the 2A is the one we talk about.

[Purplehood]

Laws are designed to protect the greater good. Total freedom would be anarchy as anyone could do anything they wanted. While I don’t like licensing, I understand the reasoning behind it.

We already have plenty of laws on the books. We cannot rob, murder, rape, etc. If we can't do those things, then when we use a gun to do them, we commit a crime.

We also have the right to defend ourselves, thus the need for guns. Why regulate a constitutional right that shall not be infringed? Isn't regulation = infringement?

When it comes time to get on a plane, the airline can always say, "we don't allow folks to carry guns on our aircraft". They then are exercising their property rights. I then choose to carry my gun and walk or drive to my destination, or I lock it up at home and buy a ticket.

[anygunanywhere]

The difference in this case is that the CHL holder is being punished without actually committing a crime!

It is called prior restraint and mostly applies to the RKBA.

There are legislated limits to speech and other rights, but speech does not suffer from prior restraint by the surgical removal of your vocal chords to prevent hate speech.

Your protections against unlawful search and seizure is not squashed by cameras in your bedroom.

Yet.

Anygunanywhere

[mr.72]

Yet.

Bingo.

[Liberty]

I wonder if maybe we should license folks to carry baseball bats, rocks, knives , scary dogs, and cowboy boots.

It is just plain wrong to throw obstacles in the way of folks who wish to defend themselves.
The thought that the untrained and unliscenced is dangerous to us as a population is completely unjustified. Near as I can tell most accidental/negligent discharges come from the supposedly well trained. LEOs seem to have problems keeping their Glocks from going off in their holsters sometimes. While I hardly ever hear of problems in states that allow unlicensed carry.

By the way: there are lots of folks who I find are unqualified and dangerous who wear cowboyboots. Can we restrict license or ban them?