We are the enemy

[mamabearCali]

Here in VA it is 4 hours. It teaches you basically how to not kill yourself or others that you don't wish to kill. It also impresses upon you the seriousness of what it is you are undertaking. I think it was just fine.

Now some of y'all who love to take classes and spend boatloads of time think about this a bit. When I took my class I had a 3 month old child. I was a nursing mother. I could not be gone for more than 1 feeding of the child for health reasons for him and me. Some moms can be gone for hours even days with no ill effects. I cannot. So if the class had been ten hours I would not have been able to get my permit for another 9 months. Nine months in which I would have been without a sufficient defense of that child. Moms even moms of small babies should be able to defend themselves. A four hour class is plenty of time in which to learn enough to not kill yourself or someone else (unless the occasion calls for it).

[mamabearCali]

That addresses the medical issue...kind of....until my child is at least 9 months old I have to be there every four hours....so that kind of addresses the medical part of it...not really, but the state gets points for effort in this case. In my case I would still be risking mastitis and possibly a plugged milk duct were I to try more than 4 hours (I pushed it on the day I took the class and was gone for 4.5 hours and I was engorged and it was most painful).

Doing it two weeks in a row would now cause additional problems as well. Now instead of giving up one weekend of my life and paying one babysitter (no little thing when the going rate is almost $10/hour). I have to give up two weekend and pay more $$? I don't see a good reason for that. I think a basic course is just fine. In fact I would be fine with no course at all. I would be fine with constitutional carry with the option to get a permit to be recognized by other states.

[TexasCajun]

Even after reading about this on here for a couple of months, I still don't have a problem with the introductory class as it is. But I'd probably credit my instructor for that. The day seemed to fly by, and I found all of the information to be valuable. If there was added filler, I couldn't tell you where it began or ended. If the CHL class mandates remain as they currently are, I'll probably take the whole class again for my renewal.

[fickman]

AndyC, let me play devil's advocate for a second.

Based on your proposition, the class should be done before the firearm sale, not before concealed carry licensing! How can we have armed people who don't know the laws or basic gun safety? Why not have a 10 hour class before buying your first gun? What's better than 10 hours of instruction? 20 hours! And 40 is twice as good as that. Shouldn't people be willing to take one week of their life to learn about guns before they can have one?

Let me retreat a little and make sure I don't sound like I'm mocking you. I'm just trying a little reductio ad absurdem to see if your point breaks down when it's taken to it's ultimate conclusion based on the original premise. I get squeamish thinking about quick-trigger cowboys with batman licenses reflecting poorly on all of us, but at the end of the day, the 10 hour requirement for class is as arbitrary as any other number.

I don't care if somebody knows how to shoot the gun they're about to carry. It's their responsibility to prepare to defend themselves. If we're going to do a class, then basic firearm safety and the applicable laws should be the extent of it. I with we would eliminate the shooting portion altogether. It doesn't demonstrate proficiency. It might give some people a false sense of confidence. Furthermore, it potentially limits access to CHLs for visually impaired or other disabled people who might not be able to use a firearm IN THAT SPECIFIC scenario, but who still deserve the right to defend themselves in SOME scenarios e.g. point blank range. They should be equipped with a knowledge of the applicable laws to know their limitations and the consequences of any actions they may take. Then, they, like all of us, should be held responsible for their actions.

FWIW, gun ownership (and carrying) is far different from a driver license because the latter is not a guaranteed Constitutional right. Unfortunately, one of the courts this week said that carrying can be restricted simply because it is currently being restricted. That is to say, we all subjected ourselves to the licensing requirements, so now we have to live under them.

Reducing the burden of the class is a good thing. It increases access to the CHL and will keep the instructors to the essentials, eliminating hours of fluff and war story anecdotes.

The next barrier to access for the CHL that needs to be addressed is the outlandish cost.

[howdy]

It sounds like (if it passes) I will be able to taylor my classes according to the students vs. a mandated time. I have had large classes with chatty students that take every bit of the 10 hours. I also had a small class with a husband/wife that had already taken the course and never submitted the paperwork. Ten hours was an eternity. What I feel is REALLY important is the CHL holder having "continuing education". We have all read questions on this forum and wondered if the author had been asleep/did not receive/did not comprehend the information during the CHL class. I have had renewal students who took my original course that now had real misunderstandings of the law. I KNOW I taught them the correct information, but over the years, they did nothing to retain the knowledge. I strongly recommend they read this forum and keep up with the material. I would hope they would go to the range and keep their shootings skills at least equal to what they had to demonstate to me. Texas CHL holders as a group are incredibly responsible. The record speaks for itself.

I am neutral on OC. I will not do it but it might be nice not have to worry about my handgun accidently showing. How will you feel if you are out with your family and someone walks in with a handgun hanging on their hip and no badge showing. I know I will go from yellow to orange (CONDITION ORANGE- This is a heightened state of alertness, with a specific focal point. The entire difference between Yellow and Orange is this specific target for your attention. Your focal point is the person who is doing whatever drew your attention to him.) I would just as soon be oblivious of the guy with a gun. I know we are out there and I don't even think about it.

[stevie_d_64]

Carrying a firearm for lawful self-defensive purposes is a lifestyle, one where a person who chooses to do so, must become a student of the law (in that, and possible other states)...

Become proficient in the use of a firearm (at least one)...

And always be willing, and accepting of additional instruction/ideas from peers and those who instruct firearm usage, safety and any updates to the state law, just in case things change...Basically getting the word out about changes to the law...That right there should be everyone's responsibility...

I for one love to talk shop, and never have ever claimed to be an expert in this community...It IS a lifestyle to me and my wife, my Dad, and those few I have been able to introduce into this fantastic community...

All that being said, if I see anything off-nominal in an instructors presentation, it is up to those of us who have been doing this thing since the get go to ask questions, make sure we are all on the same page, no one should be expected to remember every cotton pickin' thing about this law,but we need to make an effort to know as much as we can retain, and review the law from time to time to stay proficient in that capacity, along with range time to stay proficient in the use of at least one carry firearm...

It's really not that hard...I have found out that nothing works the best the first time, guns themselves, holsters, carry methods, go, no-go areas are always changing every two years or so...And it is our responsibility in between the classes (renewals) to stay up on these changes...

I say that the renewals can definitely be done in 4-6 hours inclusive of the range time...I believe the initial license class should remain upwards of 10 hours, and probably not need more than 8 to really, effectively deliver the material necessary to introduce the newcomers to this community to the lifestyle...

If the instructor is NOT delivering the material effectively enough, not maintaining control over the classroom, that is on them...My initial instructor was a guy I worked with at NASA years ago...Good class, but I never renewed thru him, my first renewal was thru a guy some of us knew back in the day in our area that was extremely sloppy, unprofessional, and didn't do things that even a rookie such as I could tell was not up to the current standards at that time...That instructor is no longer teaching the CHL anymore...Since thenI've gone to one guy,who has forgotten more about firearms than I'll ever know...

Firearms instruction can be misperceived as a luxury, I think instruction is priceless, you cannot access a value to it for what it is intended to do in this case...To save your life and the lives of others in the use of deadly force is ironic on the surface, but neccesary to preserve life...

Responsibility lies also with the user of firearms, and as a user you should be receptive to constructive critisism and learn from it, apply it, and move on...Pass on this knowledge to others, especially younger folks who are constantly bombarded with "anti" messages from our opposition...We see more and more of that everyday...

If an instructor believes they can deliver the material required by the state in a truncated schedule, then fine, but anyone who cannot, I would not condemn them for not being able to, teaching is a style in and of itself, and some people have delivery prowess, and some do not...Those who have trouble should be allowed to deliver in a timeframe that meets the material so that the information is complete for the student...if it takes 8-10 hours, then so be it...

Just my opinion...

[The_Busy_Mom]

I have mixed feelings about posting in this thread, as I don't want to get virtually 'beat-up', but I would like to add my .02 to this conversation.

I agree that self-defense is the number one priority. I look at concealed carry like this:

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

When I got my driver's license, I took a class, but this isn't a requirement unless you are under 18. At 18, you can get the book, study, and go take the written/driving test. BUT, when I got my CDL, just getting the manual wasn't enough. I am a very intelligent person, and love studying - I could be a lifetime student - but I needed the training to get through all the legal stuff and connect all the dots. CHL is a lot like this. Where my path diverges is the shooting aspect. CHL classes are not designed to teach people how to shoot. Students should come to the class proficient in the firearm they are using. There are many 'newbies' who think that they are going to learn to shoot in the CHL class. It is not designed that way. There is a need for instructors who are proficient at relaying the material to their students. The problem there is that we have too many instructors who are just weekend warriors teaching classes that they have no business teaching. That is evident in our own state issuing office who 'forgot' to enforce the instructor requirement to get the CHL certification. We've been too lax on instruction. Shooting proficiency needs to be demonstrated before a CHL license is issued. I know there is a big push from many instructors to require CHL candidates to have taken a basic firearms class/shooting class.

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.

I know some out there are going to say we don't need classes to practice our God given right. But I say to you that most people taking these classes are not your grandfather's kids. Long gone are days when kids got to experience firearms, if only once a year when they went to grandpa's house. My oldest daughter made it 17 years without ever touching a firearm. Not me, it seems I've been shooting since I was a twinkle in my daddy's eye, but there are more 'newbies' than seasoned shooters nowadays, and I am beginning to think more and more each day that some sort of basic pistol (or equivalent) class should be required before taking the CHL class. And instructors should not feel restricted or unable to tell those students, "hey, you don't have the proficiency. Go take a NRA class and then come back and see me. I'll qualify your shooting under the same fee you already paid." We have to remember that, just like a driver's license, CHL is for all the legal stuff, with a component for proficiency. Instructors should be able to proficiently and efficiently teach students in 4-6 hours, and then examine the shooting proficiency. And to those who think that devoting a day to learning the law is too much, well, I'd rather devote one day now than 20-to-life at Huntsville.

[SF18C]

I have mixed feelings about posting in this thread, as I don't want to get virtually 'beat-up', but I would like to add my .02 to this conversation.

I agree that self-defense is the number one priority. I look at concealed carry like this:

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

When I got my driver's license, I took a class, but this isn't a requirement unless you are under 18. At 18, you can get the book, study, and go take the written/driving test. BUT, when I got my CDL, just getting the manual wasn't enough. I am a very intelligent person, and love studying - I could be a lifetime student - but I needed the training to get through all the legal stuff and connect all the dots. CHL is a lot like this. Where my path diverges is the shooting aspect. CHL classes are not designed to teach people how to shoot. Students should come to the class proficient in the firearm they are using. There are many 'newbies' who think that they are going to learn to shoot in the CHL class. It is not designed that way. There is a need for instructors who are proficient at relaying the material to their students. The problem there is that we have too many instructors who are just weekend warriors teaching classes that they have no business teaching. That is evident in our own state issuing office who 'forgot' to enforce the instructor requirement to get the CHL certification. We've been too lax on instruction. Shooting proficiency needs to be demonstrated before a CHL license is issued. I know there is a big push from many instructors to require CHL candidates to have taken a basic firearms class/shooting class.

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.

I know some out there are going to say we don't need classes to practice our God given right. But I say to you that most people taking these classes are not your grandfather's kids. Long gone are days when kids got to experience firearms, if only once a year when they went to grandpa's house. My oldest daughter made it 17 years without ever touching a firearm. Not me, it seems I've been shooting since I was a twinkle in my daddy's eye, but there are more 'newbies' than seasoned shooters nowadays, and I am beginning to think more and more each day that some sort of basic pistol (or equivalent) class should be required before taking the CHL class. And instructors should not feel restricted or unable to tell those students, "hey, you don't have the proficiency. Go take a NRA class and then come back and see me. I'll qualify your shooting under the same fee you already paid." We have to remember that, just like a driver's license, CHL is for all the legal stuff, with a component for proficiency. Instructors should be able to proficiently and efficiently teach students in 4-6 hours, and then examine the shooting proficiency. And to those who think that devoting a day to learning the law is too much, well, I'd rather devote one day now than 20-to-life at Huntsville.

^ Her!

[fickman]

Reductio ad absurdum is considered a logical fallacy for a good reason - and so is a strawman argument, which is something towards which you're veering. However, to answer you - 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

Reductio ad absurdem is a valid logical argument as long as it sticks with the original premise and does not become a straw man. Mine stayed with your logical construct the entire time.

Reductio ad absurdum is only valid when it builds on assertions which are actually present in the argument it is deconstructing, and not when it misrepresents them as a straw man.

Reductio ad absurdum (Latin: "reduction to absurdity") is a common form of argument which seeks to demonstrate that a statement is true by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its denial,[1][2] or in turn to demonstrate that a statement is false by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its acceptance. First appearing in classical Greek philosophy (the Latin term derives from the Greek ἡ εἰς ἀτοπον ἀπαγωγη or he eis atopon apagoge, "reduction to the impossible", for example in Aristotle's Prior Analytics),[1] this technique has been used throughout history in both formal mathematical and philosophical reasoning, as well as informal debate.

Reductio ad absurdem, done properly, is distinct from a straw man argument:

An argument similar to reductio ad absurdum often seen in polemical debate is the straw man logical fallacy. A straw man argument attempts to refute a given proposition by showing that a slightly different or inaccurate form of the proposition (the "straw man") is absurd or ridiculous, relying on the audience not to notice that the argument does not actually apply to the original proposition.

The reason the firearm question is different is because it is a guaranteed Constitutional right. The government is not (well, it is, but it should not be) a nanny state, ensuring that the poor little free people can't do harm to themselves. We are free to arm. We are (supposed to be) free to bear those arms. We are free to reap the consequences of our decision to (or not to) train, equip, and prepare. Getting the legal and practical knowledge you mention is in the best interest of the gun owner, but should not be mandated by the government. It hopefully will NEVER be administered by the government.

We don't have to take a government-mandated class on the use of free speech. We don't have to take a government-mandated class before being secure in our possessions. We likewise don't need one to purchase, carry, and use firearms. The only construct provided for us to lose these rights is via due process of law.

Because we've started down this regrettable path, we need to continue to erode the restrictions at every possibility so that we might approach - even if we never arrive at - the proper Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

[RottenApple]

<<SNIP>>

Well, no need for me to post now. TBM just summed my thoughts up quite neatly.

[RX8er]

<<SNIP>>

Well, no need for me to post now. TBM just summed my thoughts up quite neatly.

Sitting here with TBM, she says...... "awwwwww, RottenApple isn't so rotten after all"