TexasCHLforum.com

jhutto wrote:

"You guys know I am pro, but giving everyone a gun is just bad business.
_________________
*CHL Instructor* "

Usually I am pretty tolorant and respect individuals opinions, but this is just wrong .
I think anyone who feels confident enough to carry should be able to.
It is our god given right, and obligation; to keep and bear arms, to defend our family and country, from threats abroad and within.

NcongruNt wrote:

Right2Carry wrote:

NcongruNt wrote:

Right2Carry wrote:

txinvestigator wrote:

GreenGuy wrote:Ok, so we agree there.

Now, is it a waste of time to add a subset of the CHL community to a "Carry Everywhere Group"? Or is the CHL class enough?

Can the first group of "carry everywhere CHL holders" be those with military experience? Or Even CHL Instructors?

As a CHL instructor, you have had to of seen some folks who clearly have no other training than you have provided to them. Doesnt that scare you a bit?

Being in the military is not enough. I have HUGE respect (a a little envy) of our military, but they are a different animal. As I said, the only handgun training many get is in CHL class. I don't believe "military" in general is sufficient for a special class for carry anywhere.

I do support removing the restrictions altogether.

I can only speak for the NAVY, but when I went through boot camp (89) every single person had to shoot a handgun, a .45 chambered for .22, lol. Now I would suspect that all other bootcamps are the same across the military. I believe everyone gets exposed to guns in boot camp, and then after boot camp depending upon your job function some may never touch a gun again while others may be around them dailly.

I find this no different than the CHL person who takes the course and proves that he can shoot a gun at a close target once every 4 years. Every man and woman currently serving in the military is required to use a firearm if directed. In a war zone, they don't start asking for qualifications if the a problem arises.

I have no problem with what GA has done, in fact I would support it here in Texas. Our second amendment rights gaurentee us the right to keep and bear arms, and I am unaware of anything suggesting that Qualifying with a gun is required. In fact I think what GA has done brings us closer to our 2nd ammendment rights. Personally I think having to pay for a CHL and qualify to be able to do what the constitution gave me the right to do is laughable.

Military people can drink on base at 18 and I think that should be extended to everywhere myself. I believe that if you are old enough to die for your country you should be able to drink and carry a gun also.

I'm going to have to sort of... disagree with you there.

The CHL course isn't really about shooting. It's about knowing the laws and situational preparedness. Boot camp doesn't cover this. The shooting portion of the course takes a trivial amount of time, and is simply there to make sure you can hit the broad side of a barn with your handgun. The course doesn't train you to shoot at all. It simply makes sure you have remedial shooting skills.

You can disagree all you want but the fact is that no where in the 2nd ammendment does it state I need to take any kind of course in order to keep and bear arms as a qualifier. Should they know the laws, absoutley, is it a good idea they take a course for that, probably, is it necessary, I don't think so.

I carry a kniife. Did I have to take a course in order to carry that knife? Did I have to take a course that explained all the laws regarding what kind of knife is legal to carry and what isn't? Nope sure didn't. But it is my individual responsibility to know those laws, but no course is required. Concealed weapons can come in many forms yet the only one I am required to take a course on is a handgun. It is up to me to know what is legal and what isn't, and act accordingly.

I'm not going to argue with you about philosophies. I'm talking about practicalities.

Firstly, you're not going to get a bill passed that simply allows military personnel to carry without any kind of qualifying training and certification such as the CHL. With all due respect, I've known some real hothead military folks who would be dangerous if allowed to carry a concealed weapon in public without restriction. One incident with such a member of the military under a special class of regulation would cause a backlash against us, and likely undo a lot of what has been accomplished in recent years.

Secondly, as much as I respect the members of the military, I do not believe it to be fair to enforce regulation of concealed handguns differently for members of the military simply because of their service. Exemptions exist for certain individuals such as judges and LEOs because the commission of their duties is performed in public places where they are significantly at risk to be targets of an attack. I do not believe creating a special class where an abstract group of people are regulated differently without specific differentiating need is constructive towards obtaining unregulated affirmation of our rights under the 2nd amendment. I believe this would create more of an elite classification in the perception of the public, and work against the notion of equality in exercising our rights.

(edited for clarification)

NcongruNt wrote:

Right2Carry wrote:

txinvestigator wrote:

GreenGuy wrote:Ok, so we agree there.

Now, is it a waste of time to add a subset of the CHL community to a "Carry Everywhere Group"? Or is the CHL class enough?

Can the first group of "carry everywhere CHL holders" be those with military experience? Or Even CHL Instructors?

As a CHL instructor, you have had to of seen some folks who clearly have no other training than you have provided to them. Doesnt that scare you a bit?

Being in the military is not enough. I have HUGE respect (a a little envy) of our military, but they are a different animal. As I said, the only handgun training many get is in CHL class. I don't believe "military" in general is sufficient for a special class for carry anywhere.

I do support removing the restrictions altogether.

I can only speak for the NAVY, but when I went through boot camp (89) every single person had to shoot a handgun, a .45 chambered for .22, lol. Now I would suspect that all other bootcamps are the same across the military. I believe everyone gets exposed to guns in boot camp, and then after boot camp depending upon your job function some may never touch a gun again while others may be around them dailly.

I find this no different than the CHL person who takes the course and proves that he can shoot a gun at a close target once every 4 years. Every man and woman currently serving in the military is required to use a firearm if directed. In a war zone, they don't start asking for qualifications if the a problem arises.

I have no problem with what GA has done, in fact I would support it here in Texas. Our second amendment rights gaurentee us the right to keep and bear arms, and I am unaware of anything suggesting that Qualifying with a gun is required. In fact I think what GA has done brings us closer to our 2nd ammendment rights. Personally I think having to pay for a CHL and qualify to be able to do what the constitution gave me the right to do is laughable.

Military people can drink on base at 18 and I think that should be extended to everywhere myself. I believe that if you are old enough to die for your country you should be able to drink and carry a gun also.

I'm going to have to sort of... disagree with you there.

The CHL course isn't really about shooting. It's about knowing the laws and situational preparedness. Boot camp doesn't cover this. The shooting portion of the course takes a trivial amount of time, and is simply there to make sure you can hit the broad side of a barn with your handgun. The course doesn't train you to shoot at all. It simply makes sure you have remedial shooting skills.

txinvestigator wrote:

GreenGuy wrote:Ok, so we agree there.

Now, is it a waste of time to add a subset of the CHL community to a "Carry Everywhere Group"? Or is the CHL class enough?

Can the first group of "carry everywhere CHL holders" be those with military experience? Or Even CHL Instructors?

As a CHL instructor, you have had to of seen some folks who clearly have no other training than you have provided to them. Doesnt that scare you a bit?

Being in the military is not enough. I have HUGE respect (a a little envy) of our military, but they are a different animal. As I said, the only handgun training many get is in CHL class. I don't believe "military" in general is sufficient for a special class for carry anywhere.

I do support removing the restrictions altogether.