Would you go through more CHL training?

[TxDrifter]

I would go through even more training if it would allow me to carry on a plane and in other states. I travel a lot for work and hate having to put my firearm where it is more easily stolen than in my truck if I go to a state with reciprocity, and that is saying something. Plus if something happened while in route I might be able to help stop it. I stress the might because carrying on the plane introduces a whole slew of nightmares with the extra sheeples which we shall not get into on this thread. I'm just commenting that I am all for more training and practice, especially if it allows me to carry in more places, just not necessarily as a means to acquire a right that we should have without a permit in the first place. It ALL comes down to personal responsibility, or lack thereof.

[TexasGal]

I would be happy to if it would allow me to carry nationally. My driver's license is valid in every state partly because all states require similar training to drive a car. The same can't be said of licenses to carry.

People are concerned about the "redneck" who has little if any training in handling a gun or the laws affecting it. I think national carry would pass if the national CHL required holders to have thorough standardized training. We could keep individual state's licenses for those who really only wanted to carry locally and didn't want to train any further.
Just my 2 cents of running my mouth

[heliguy972]

I would agree to more training up to a certain $ limit. I already do one course a year, NRA stuff and some local courses. My 2010 course is using the Carbine for home defense. Then in 2011 I want to take using a shotgun for home defense. They are only $200-400 a year and helps broaden my skills and strategy.

[Oldskoolfan]

I would be happy to if it would allow me to carry nationally. My driver's license is valid in every state partly because all states require similar training to drive a car. The same can't be said of licenses to carry.

People are concerned about the "redneck" who has little if any training in handling a gun or the laws affecting it. I think national carry would pass if the national CHL required holders to have thorough standardized training. We could keep individual state's licenses for those who really only wanted to carry locally and didn't want to train any further.
Just my 2 cents of running my mouth

The drivers licenses are valid because the states have entered a reciprocal agreement. Call up your representatives, and those of the state you wish to see reciprocity with, and ask them to enter an agreement to honor each others CHL licenses.

[TexasGal]

Good idea

[Keith B]

There was a bill in Congress last session that tried to get CHL unilateral reciprocity between all states that have permits. It had some fairly good support. Contacting your senator and congressman advising them you would still like to see this happen is a good idea. It may get reintroduced in a future session and we need to let them know we want it.

[marksiwel]

There was a bill in Congress last session that tried to get CHL unilateral reciprocity between all states that have permits. It had some fairly good support. Contacting your senator and congressman advising them you would still like to see this happen is a good idea. It may get reintroduced in a future session and we need to let them know we want it.

wouldnt that go against state rights?

[DoubleActionCHL]

There was a bill in Congress last session that tried to get CHL unilateral reciprocity between all states that have permits. It had some fairly good support. Contacting your senator and congressman advising them you would still like to see this happen is a good idea. It may get reintroduced in a future session and we need to let them know we want it.

wouldnt that go against state rights?

No more than federal reciprocity for driver licenses and marriage licenses.

[roberts]

wouldnt that go against state rights?

Same as LEOSA.

[OldSchool]

Even before we qualified for CHL, we were looking at training classes for the near future. I look at the CHL as a demonstration of responsibility, training and basic proficiency, similar to a pilot's certificate or a driver's license (OK, very bad analogy for that last one ). We do not look at it as a replacement for 2nd Amendment rights, but as a certification of skill, that has benefits attached. I suspect that puts us in the minority here, sorry.

However, we agree that, while the CHL threshhold is quite low , it still seems to be at the correct level to demonstrate that the CHL holder is not a hazard to those around him/her (holding to the specified standard is the key, of course). I like the idea (mentioned earlier) of a higher-level certification. I would appreciate a certification that would demonstrate more skill in hazardous situations (such as the ubiquitous "restaurant" scenario).

As a pilot (still a student), I think the best way to improve on basic skills is to train and obtain the next level of certification (for example, Instrument and/or Aerobatic). The minimum set of skills to achieve a higher certification is an improvement over the set for a lower certification. Another way to say it is to "train above where you need to be." The achievement gives you a level to shoot for, rather than just "getting better."

As to a certification allowing one to carry in more places, that would be nice, as long as it does not infringe on others' rights. My "right to carry" must not trump the proper rights of another person. Is CHL analogous to the right to Religion? Maybe, in that someone can tell me to not pray and not carry in their property. Thus, the improved "carry zone" could only be in those places that are restricted by government, not by individuals.

The government must not infringe on my constitutional (true) rights, but my rights exist only to the point at which they needlessly harm another, and only that particular person can tell me where that point exists for them; the reverse is also true. Of course, society for the past three decades has told us we're completely wrong with that last statement, but we still hold to that belief.
(Now you know the reason for my user name.)

Are there exceptions to the rights of an establishment? Yes, as in everything. The smoking discussion here hits us hard, in many ways. For me, a breath of tobacco smoke is an adventure in sinus and throat pain, as I am very allergic to it (think about your first puff of a cigarette, then think about going through that every time you smoked). Go somewhere else? Sure -- but many people nowadays do not remember when there were no restaurants/diners/cafes/offices we could go to because they had never thought of not allowing smoking (and most people smoked, it seemed). And when "no-smoking" sections were invented, they were immediately adjacent to the smoking section, with no partitions, making them useless. Tobacco smoke travels a long way very quickly (even from car window to car window at stop lights!) and clearly affects far more people than the smoker, some worse than others.
We are pleased to now be able to enjoy those establishments, when we could not before. It also seems that nowadays people are personally more sensitive to tobacco smoke than they used to be, so now more seem to understand what I go through.
So we have to, for our own breathing, say that there is an exception for which we will fight. Again, that probably puts us in the minority, so apologies again.

Thanks for letting me ramble....

[TxDrifter]

The smoking discussion here hits us hard, in many ways. For me, a breath of tobacco smoke is an adventure in sinus and throat pain, as I am very allergic to it (think about your first puff of a cigarette, then think about going through that every time you smoked). Go somewhere else?.

Exactly, go somewhere else. I'm not a smoker, but the government just trampled all over the rights of that private business owner. As far as I'm concerned that just opened an opportunity to start a restaurant that doesn't allow smoking as a new competitive business. That USED to be the American way now it seems to be find something that offends me so that I can sue for big bucks and notoriety. There are even some places within the cities that banned them they put a collection can out for smoker's to donate and the establishment uses the money to pay the city fine because it is cheaper than the loss of revenue. http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/200 ... bans_N.htm

... back to the regularly scheduled program ...

I agree though that it should only be to allowed in places currently banned by the government. Private property is private property. Fortunately most of my friends are "gun friendly" I think training on our own is in itself a responsibility we "took on" when we applied and received that license. For most of us there is no need to force it.