CHL requirements

[AlexKilpatrick]

Actually, this raises an interesting question. How close are the Texas CHL fees to the actual cost of processing? I know DL fees are much lower, but there is no background check involved with those. With a CHL, there is a federal background check, plus some other database checks, plus processing a bunch of paperwork, etc. Let's say a person spends an average of an hour on each application. At a loaded rate, $140 might not be too far off.

As far as qualifications, I think they should do away with the class requirement entirely, but make the test much harder. 10 hours is too long for some people, and not long enough for others. They should still make the class available if you want to take it, but you should have the option of simply coming and taking the written and shooting tests alone. If you pass, you are good to go.

[mreavis]

But it doesn't mean 12 year olds should be carrying guns in middle school or repeat offending violent criminals should be armed.

If more of us good guys carried, then there wouldn't be as many "repeat offending violent criminals".

You having a gun doesn't stop someone from being a criminal, although it does protect you. Yes in a perfect world things shouldn't be the way they are. But we do not live in a perfect world. And just like cars, large machinery, and dangerous chemicals: I personally believe that you should be required to pass a simple proficiency test. I am not saying that by god given rights it is a perfect solution. Logic wise it would just be completely insane to have no policy and procedure in place for items of potential mass power. If every time someone got in a car wreck strawberries shot everywhere, we probably wouldn't care about peoples driving skills near as much. But again, that is not the world we live in.

This does not mean they should make money off CHL licensing. And it doesn't mean you should need to be EX law enforcement. But you don't just tell someone to get in a car and wing it. I don't see the difference. Oh and IMPO the driving test is at least twice as hard as the CHL class. But then again cars kill a lot more people than guns.

[sjfcontrol]

But it doesn't mean 12 year olds should be carrying guns in middle school or repeat offending violent criminals should be armed.

If more of us good guys carried, then there wouldn't be as many "repeat offending violent criminals".

You having a gun doesn't stop someone from being a criminal, although it does protect you. Yes in a perfect world things shouldn't be the way they are. But we do not live in a perfect world. And just like cars, large machinery, and dangerous chemicals: I personally believe that you should be required to pass a simple proficiency test. I am not saying that by god given rights it is a perfect solution. Logic wise it would just be completely insane to have no policy and procedure in place for items of potential mass power. If every time someone got in a car wreck strawberries shot everywhere, we probably wouldn't care about peoples driving skills near as much. But again, that is not the world we live in.

This does not mean they should make money off CHL licensing. And it doesn't mean you should need to be EX law enforcement. But you don't just tell someone to get in a car and wing it. I don't see the difference. Oh and IMPO the driving test is at least twice as hard as the CHL class. But then again cars kill a lot more people than guns.

I forget, which constitutional amendment was it that guaranteed the right to keep an bear (drive) automobiles? And since when were 12 year olds eligible for CHLs?

[LikesShinyThings]

You having a gun doesn't stop someone from being a criminal, although it does protect you. Yes in a perfect world things shouldn't be the way they are. But we do not live in a perfect world. And just like cars, large machinery, and dangerous chemicals: I personally believe that you should be required to pass a simple proficiency test. I am not saying that by god given rights it is a perfect solution. Logic wise it would just be completely insane to have no policy and procedure in place for items of potential mass power. If every time someone got in a car wreck strawberries shot everywhere, we probably wouldn't care about peoples driving skills near as much. But again, that is not the world we live in.

This does not mean they should make money off CHL licensing. And it doesn't mean you should need to be EX law enforcement. But you don't just tell someone to get in a car and wing it. I don't see the difference. Oh and IMPO the driving test is at least twice as hard as the CHL class. But then again cars kill a lot more people than guns.

There is an inherent flaw in comparing carrying a gun (aka, being able to defend yourself) with driving. Driving isn't inherent in the fact of existing. You don't have an inherent necessity of being able to drive to carry out your life - yes, it is convenient, but not necessary. You can get around and carry out your life by riding with others, taking a bus, riding in a cab, etc. However, self defense is inherently incorporated in the mere fact of existing - someone takes a swing at you, you don't need to ask the government's permission to block that punch. Same thing goes with them pulling a knife - you don't have to ask permission to take action to prevent them from slicing/stabbing you. But now you want to tell me I have to ask permission to protect myself when they pull a gun on me? Or for me to even the height/weight/strength ratio (I'm a small, slight woman) by using a gun to keep from becoming deadified?

Self defense and self preservation are inherent in the fact of our existence, we were born and are alive, we have the inherent right to defend that life. Driving does not even begin to compare.

[mreavis]

No one is saying you can't defend yourself, that is always a natural right. We are talking about carrying a hidden weapon in the communities public areas. The testing and procedure for getting licensed for items that can easily cause a lot of damage or even death(car, gun, ect) is the people of the community asking for a reasonable display of understanding and use of those items. Like the fact that a gun is for self defense and exactly what you mentioned. A car is also exactly what you mentioned. However if someone is NOT capable of understanding what those items are. And they think they are toys or jokes or simply cannot show decent operation of them. Than they should not have them. It infringes upon my right to live life in a reasonably managed area. Just because everyone has the right to have a gun (and they do in my opinion), doesn't mean everyone should. You look at the world to simply if you believe that. We want to use experience and knowledge to avoid the obvious bads while not infringing on rights. We we likely never get anything perfect, but the CHL laws in Texas are not that bad. And they still wouldn't be if it were harder.

Carrying a gun and driving a car are very similar. They are items of danger. If they weren't dangerous we wouldn't require licensing for them. The inherent flaw is assuming self defense and guns are the same thing.

Oh and 12 year olds can't get CHLs. Thats the exact point. We want to have reasonable restriction and testing. Is the CHL test really that bad for you? (Not even performance but time and money?)

[RPB]

No one is saying you can't defend yourself, that is always a natural right. We are talking about carrying a hidden weapon in the communities public areas. The testing and procedure for getting licensed for items that can easily cause a lot of damage or even death(car, gun, ect) is the people of the community asking for a reasonable display of understanding and use of those items. Like the fact that a gun is for self defense and exactly what you mentioned. A car is also exactly what you mentioned. However if someone is NOT capable of understanding what those items are. And they think they are toys or jokes or simply cannot show decent operation of them. Than they should not have them. It infringes upon my right to live life in a reasonably managed area. Just because everyone has the right to have a gun (and they do in my opinion), doesn't mean everyone should. You look at the world to simply if you believe that. We want to use experience and knowledge to avoid the obvious bads while not infringing on rights. We we likely never get anything perfect, but the CHL laws in Texas are not that bad. And they still wouldn't be if it were harder.

Carrying a gun and driving a car are very similar. They are items of danger. If they weren't dangerous we wouldn't require licensing for them. The inherent flaw is assuming self defense and guns are the same thing.

Oh and 12 year olds can't get CHLs. Thats the exact point. We want to have reasonable restriction and testing. Is the CHL test really that bad for you? (Not even performance but time and money?)

So, your first sentence indicates you are for "no-license-needed-carry" because it's a natural right?
That' seems to be the logical extension of that statement.
(Not saying I'm for "untrained carry" just saying what that sentence said to me)

Personally, I'd lower the cost, increase the class range time with maybe "pre-qualification practice time" (more fun ) perhaps have photos of valid enforceable signs in the DPS book, and make the test as hard as the Defensive Driving test.

Additionally, The government should mandate a monthly amount of free range practice time at the local Police ranges, if that could work, so people can maintain their proficiency, but not monthly tests, just maintenance.

Of course PRIVATE ranges could OPT-IN to give free time if they desired, as their ammo sales, ear plug sales etc could increase. They'd just need to sign up with the State's free-range-time program.

How's that sound? I like it.

[LikesShinyThings]

No one is saying you can't defend yourself, that is always a natural right. We are talking about carrying a hidden weapon in the communities public areas.

So does this mean you support open carry of a weapon in community public areas? And if not, it means that you are saying really, no, I DON'T have the right to defend myself, because you are thereby insisting that I be disarmed until such time as I can PROVE I'm "safe enough" to carry a weapon, concealed or otherwise. And saying that I'm free to carry on/in my private property - that is not a viable statement of my right to defend myself, either - that is equivalent to saying I am either "jailed" (to my private property) or disarmed.

[baldeagle]

hey guys, just wanted to throw out a few thoughts ive been having for a while now and see what yall think about it.

so i work at a gun range that does CHL classes every week, and i see a lot of people i would not want to be carrying taking the class, and those who are completely incompetent taking the class and passing.

my suggestion would be the raise all CHL prices, to limit the number, as well as a way to make people really think about it before doing it and not just doing it cause they can and its not too expensive. also i wish the the requirement for the shooting portion should be at least 220 or higher, because if a person cannot score AT LEAST that under normal conditions, i would not want them out on the street under stress trying to shoot, because they might miss and hit me or my family

ok guys im done ranting let me know what yall think

I think you don't understand the difference between rights and privileges.

I think the reasons people get a CHL are as varied as the types of people getting them.

I think it is your job to conduct the class and keep your opinions about your students to yourself.

I think you assume that people who get a CHL never go to the range again and never take another course, never decide to pursue IDPA, never do another thing to improve their skills.

Think about this. That woman who took your class last week that you think doesn't deserve a CHL (your words) might be the wife of an abusive husband who will have to use that gun you think she can't shoot to save her life next week. That old geezer that you think is too shaky and too poor a shot to deserve a CHL might have to shoot a home intruder next week if his grandchildren ever want to see him again. Before you decide to judge another person, look deep within your own soul and ask yourself, who gave you the right to judge other people and decide what's best for them? And what makes you so much better than them that you can sit in the judgment seat and look down at other people?

If you think I'm being too harsh, I'm not. I'm being honest and frank with you.

Your job is to do the absolute best you can in the ten hours the state has allowed you to impart a sound knowledge of the laws regarding deadly force, the need to be safety conscious and avoid conflict at all times and the skills to shoot accurately enough to obtain their license. Their job is to decide to act responsibly and to carry as they see fit, whether that's always, sometimes or never. Keep those two things straight and you won't find yourself thinking like this again.

[mreavis]

You clearly don't understand the difference between self-defense and using a gun. A gun is an object you use for self defense. It happens to be one of the most useful as well. This does not make a gun self defense, its a complimentary object. Separate self defense and the object "gun" in your head and that all makes perfect sense as read.

Its like transportation and car. One is an action, and one is an item.

I'm all for reasonable testing for the everyday use of items of danger. I don't want people driving without being tested for understanding. And I don't want people armed in public community areas without showing understanding of the rules and procedure. I know everyone won't agree, I just don't see any good argument besides "Its my right". Yea, well its my right not to get shot by some moron we let carry a gun in public when he clearly had no business doing so. People will ignore the law. But for the purpose of using experience, logic, and common sense to avoid bad outcomes, it needs to be in place.

[LikesShinyThings]

I think you don't understand the difference between rights and privileges.

I think the reasons people get a CHL are as varied as the types of people getting them.

I think it is your job to conduct the class and keep your opinions about your students to yourself.

I think you assume that people who get a CHL never go to the range again and never take another course, never decide to pursue IDPA, never do another thing to improve their skills.

Think about this. That woman who took your class last week that you think doesn't deserve a CHL (your words) might be the wife of an abusive husband who will have to use that gun you think she can't shoot to save her life next week. That old geezer that you think is too shaky and too poor a shot to deserve a CHL might have to shoot a home intruder next week if his grandchildren ever want to see him again. Before you decide to judge another person, look deep within your own soul and ask yourself, who gave you the right to judge other people and decide what's best for them? And what makes you so much better than them that you can sit in the judgment seat and look down at other people?

If you think I'm being too harsh, I'm not. I'm being honest and frank with you.

Your job is to do the absolute best you can in the ten hours the state has allowed you to impart a sound knowledge of the laws regarding deadly force, the need to be safety conscious and avoid conflict at all times and the skills to shoot accurately enough to obtain their license. Their job is to decide to act responsibly and to carry as they see fit, whether that's always, sometimes or never. Keep those two things straight and you won't find yourself thinking like this again.

Wow. That is wonderful. As I was reading your comments, I was thinking - this is exactly what I feel but haven't articulated. Well said.

[RPB]

You clearly don't understand the difference between self-defense and using a gun. A gun is an object you use for self defense. It happens to be one of the most useful as well. This does not make a gun self defense, its a complimentary object. Separate self defense and the object "gun" in your head and that all makes perfect sense as read.

Its like transportation and car. One is an action, and one is an item.

I'm all for reasonable testing for the everyday use of items of danger. I don't want people driving without being tested for understanding. And I don't want people armed in public community areas without showing understanding of the rules and procedure. I know everyone won't agree, I just don't see any good argument besides "Its my right". Yea, well its my right not to get shot by some moron we let carry a gun in public when he clearly had no business doing so. People will ignore the law. But for the purpose of using experience, logic, and common sense to avoid bad outcomes, it needs to be in place.

I understand the difference well. I know both.
John Woods taught Self Defense in Virginia, he lost two Martial Arts students to an armed gunman.
Martial Arts self-defense isn't a match against an armed gunman, to be on equal ground, you need equal tools.
If all the intruder/bad ninja-guy has is a knife, you have a right to be on equal ground for self-defense, they rarely R.S.V.P. with what tool they'll bring though.

[mreavis]

You clearly don't understand the difference between self-defense and using a gun. A gun is an object you use for self defense. It happens to be one of the most useful as well. This does not make a gun self defense, its a complimentary object. Separate self defense and the object "gun" in your head and that all makes perfect sense as read.

Its like transportation and car. One is an action, and one is an item.

I'm all for reasonable testing for the everyday use of items of danger. I don't want people driving without being tested for understanding. And I don't want people armed in public community areas without showing understanding of the rules and procedure. I know everyone won't agree, I just don't see any good argument besides "Its my right". Yea, well its my right not to get shot by some moron we let carry a gun in public when he clearly had no business doing so. People will ignore the law. But for the purpose of using experience, logic, and common sense to avoid bad outcomes, it needs to be in place.

I understand the difference well. I know both.
John Woods taught Self Defense in Virginia, he lost two Martial Arts students to an armed gunman.
Martial Arts self-defense isn't a match against an armed gunman, to be on equal ground, you need equal tools.
If all the intruder/bad ninja-guy has is a knife, you have a right to be on equal ground for self-defense, they rarely R.S.V.P. with what tool they'll bring though.

Well then the sentence reads as you clearly have the right to self defense. If someone attacks you fight back, defend yourself with action. And of course a gun is better than martial arts, I wasn't ever arguing that. What exactly do you think the current system for getting a CHL is? It IS your right to be armed if you wish and carry a weapon of high end power. But we don't let people drive tanks around town. What if a guy attacked you with a tank? You think your gun would help. You would still be entitled to the same self defense. So by your logic everyone should be allowed to have tanks and nukes because someone else might have one. Again, the idea is to implement systems to allow people there rights and to minimize issues according to experience and basic logic in that field.

[RPB]

Guns have other uses other than self-defense, so they are not equals, so I agree with you in part.
Guns can get food, self defense can't.

Snakes have fangs and poison, I don't.
Guns can kill snakes better than I can grab one and bullwhip it trying to break its neck, then I have both self-defense and food for survival.

To eat to survive is a natural right too, so guns are more important than self-defense in terms of natural rights., since they assist as a tool in more than one category of survival.

Anyone who wants a surplus tank the army sells, is welcome to it, good luck affording gas and parking it. You may find an "ammo shortage" though



http://www.tanksforsale.co.uk/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.ehow.com/how_7912939_surplus-army-tanks.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

How to Get Surplus Army Tanks

There's nothing like having your own surplus tank to impress your neighbors. The Federal government disposes of surplus military equipment either by giving it away as foreign aid or by selling it to the general public at auctions.

[mreavis]

I was just arguing for reasonable testing to carry a gun.

Self defense is a natural right.
Having a gun is not a natural right. A gun is an object of use (one of which happens to be self defense).

Driving a car can be dangerous.
A gun can be dangerous.

We test people to drive cars in public.
We test people to carry guns in public. (Law enforcement officers even more so)

[RPB]

The stone David hurled at Goliath was dangerous, scissors are dangerous, a number 2 pencil is dangerous, baseball bats are extremely dangerous. More people were killed last year from baseball bats than hi-capacity magazines. A guy at my high school had a baseball bat brain injury..
Most people aren't killed by many dangerous things around which they have little to no training using.

I"m not anti-testing for carrying in public, though some are, and I can see their points too.

I'm for training,

I'm for access to range time often to practice. I"m not for trying to limit those who can carry or own pencils, scissors, guns, tanks, except in mental cases.. Obviously there are some mentally handicapped who shouldn't have pencils, but it doesn't take a lot to figure those very very few out.