HB48: No renewal class required

This sub-forum will open for posting on Sept. 1, 2012.

Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton

Do you support HB48 that removes the requirement to take CHL renewal course?

I support HB48 and I am not a CHL Instructor
167
73%
I support HB48 and I am a CHL Instructor
14
6%
I oppose HB48 and I am not a CHL Instructor
37
16%
I oppose HB48 and I am a CHL Instructor
10
4%
 
Total votes: 228

User avatar

Crossfire
Moderator
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 5364
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2006 10:27 am
Location: DFW
Contact:

Re: HB48: No renewal class required

#46

Post by Crossfire » Fri Mar 08, 2013 10:22 am

apostate wrote:Florida doesn't require a renewal class. That doesn't seem to hurt their reciprocity.
Same with Utah.
Texas LTC and Utah CFP Instructor, MorphoTrust Fingerprinting Partner
http://www.Crossfire-Training.com

User avatar

RAM4171
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 363
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2010 9:03 am
Location: On a dead end dirt road in the deep dark woods of East TEXAS

Re: HB48: No renewal class required

#47

Post by RAM4171 » Wed Mar 20, 2013 8:04 pm

Shall not be infringed
Edited to add I believed wholeheartedly in the second amendment. I believe the2 A is my carry permit.
I voted yes in case you were wandering
Μολὼν λαβέ
Jesus was not politically correct, therefore I refuse to be
To my mind it is wholly irresponsible to go into the world incapable of preventing violence, injury, crime, and death. How feeble is the mindset to accept defenselessness. How unnatural. How cheap. How cowardly. How pathetic-TN


Zen
Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 68
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 8:46 am

Re: HB48: No renewal class required

#48

Post by Zen » Wed Mar 20, 2013 10:11 pm

lrpettit wrote:Perhaps if you're a member of this forum no renewal class is necessary? :cheers2:
This actually has a little bearing on the results of the survey. Those of us here primarily keep up to speed on the laws. Many/most practice with our weapons.

What about those that get a CHL, but just keep that little wheel/pocket gun in a pocket holster or purse, but never go to the range? What impact does it have when there are CHL holders that haven't shot since they were certified?

There is a risk there. 1) They can hurt/kill someone due to their lack of training and practice. 2) They can raise doubts to the validity of the CHL program as a whole and give fodder for the anti-gun folks.

I would rather be inconvenienced by renewal testing than have these individuals become that risk.

Would a system like other professional certifications have for Continuing Professional Education (CPE) credits be over the top - probably. One could earn credits simply by going to a range and shooting. More points could be awarded for taking a class. Much more complicated and detailed than can be outlined here.

I don't really want some entity tracking my range usage. Nor do I want to see incur additional costs. No simple answer for me.

User avatar

74novaman
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 3653
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 7:36 am
Location: Temple, Republic of Texas
Contact:

Re: HB48: No renewal class required

#49

Post by 74novaman » Wed Mar 20, 2013 10:21 pm

Zen wrote: What about those that get a CHL, but just keep that little wheel/pocket gun in a pocket holster or purse, but never go to the range? What impact does it have when there are CHL holders that haven't shot since they were certified?

There is a risk there. 1) They can hurt/kill someone due to their lack of training and practice. 2) They can raise doubts to the validity of the CHL program as a whole and give fodder for the anti-gun folks.

I would rather be inconvenienced by renewal testing than have these individuals become that risk.
The simple answer is that we have other state examples to guide us on whether or not this would be an issue.

Indiana has a lifetime CHL. Vermont, Arizona, Alaska and Wyoming all have Constitutional Carry (no license or training of any sort needed to carry concealed)

I haven't seen any dire reports of untrained and underpracticed citizens getting into bad situations in any of those states.
TANSTAAFL


Zen
Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 68
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 8:46 am

Re: HB48: No renewal class required

#50

Post by Zen » Wed Mar 20, 2013 10:38 pm

74novaman wrote:
Zen wrote: What about those that get a CHL, but just keep that little wheel/pocket gun in a pocket holster or purse, but never go to the range? What impact does it have when there are CHL holders that haven't shot since they were certified?

There is a risk there. 1) They can hurt/kill someone due to their lack of training and practice. 2) They can raise doubts to the validity of the CHL program as a whole and give fodder for the anti-gun folks.

I would rather be inconvenienced by renewal testing than have these individuals become that risk.
The simple answer is that we have other state examples to guide us on whether or not this would be an issue.

Indiana has a lifetime CHL. Vermont, Arizona, Alaska and Wyoming all have Constitutional Carry (no license or training of any sort needed to carry concealed)

I haven't seen any dire reports of untrained and underpracticed citizens getting into bad situations in any of those states.

And so the risk may be so small it wouldn't make sense to add that complexity and cost.

Perhaps the untrained/underpracticed don't continue to carry and become a non-risk. I know I've talked to plenty of CHL holders that "claimed" they still carried , but were extremely ignorant about the law and in some cases their own carry guns.


Luggo1
Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 170
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2007 11:24 pm
Location: The South Plains
Contact:

Re: HB48: No renewal class required

#51

Post by Luggo1 » Wed Mar 20, 2013 11:32 pm

74novaman wrote:
Zen wrote: What about those that get a CHL, but just keep that little wheel/pocket gun in a pocket holster or purse, but never go to the range? What impact does it have when there are CHL holders that haven't shot since they were certified?

There is a risk there. 1) They can hurt/kill someone due to their lack of training and practice. 2) They can raise doubts to the validity of the CHL program as a whole and give fodder for the anti-gun folks.

I would rather be inconvenienced by renewal testing than have these individuals become that risk.
The simple answer is that we have other state examples to guide us on whether or not this would be an issue.

Indiana has a lifetime CHL. Vermont, Arizona, Alaska and Wyoming all have Constitutional Carry (no license or training of any sort needed to carry concealed)

I haven't seen any dire reports of untrained and underpracticed citizens getting into bad situations in any of those states.
This seems to be a phenomena prevalent when the subject is guns. Each state that eventually got CHL passed had the same horrific predictions of blood in the streets etc... Each state seemed oblivious to the experience of their neighbors. A bloody battle in Arkansas recently over church carry, despite the fact that none of the predicted horrors happened elsewhere. Campus carry, open carry, restaurant carry, parking lot bills, constitutional carry...each state acts like it is inventing the wheel and gambling with apocalyptic disaster despite the fact that somewhere else, usually close by, they have the risky item in place with no problems. Strange.

User avatar

VMI77
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 6096
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 5:49 pm
Location: Victoria, Texas

Re: HB48: No renewal class required

#52

Post by VMI77 » Thu Mar 21, 2013 10:15 am

Luggo1 wrote:
74novaman wrote:
Zen wrote: What about those that get a CHL, but just keep that little wheel/pocket gun in a pocket holster or purse, but never go to the range? What impact does it have when there are CHL holders that haven't shot since they were certified?

There is a risk there. 1) They can hurt/kill someone due to their lack of training and practice. 2) They can raise doubts to the validity of the CHL program as a whole and give fodder for the anti-gun folks.

I would rather be inconvenienced by renewal testing than have these individuals become that risk.
The simple answer is that we have other state examples to guide us on whether or not this would be an issue.

Indiana has a lifetime CHL. Vermont, Arizona, Alaska and Wyoming all have Constitutional Carry (no license or training of any sort needed to carry concealed)

I haven't seen any dire reports of untrained and underpracticed citizens getting into bad situations in any of those states.
This seems to be a phenomena prevalent when the subject is guns. Each state that eventually got CHL passed had the same horrific predictions of blood in the streets etc... Each state seemed oblivious to the experience of their neighbors. A bloody battle in Arkansas recently over church carry, despite the fact that none of the predicted horrors happened elsewhere. Campus carry, open carry, restaurant carry, parking lot bills, constitutional carry...each state acts like it is inventing the wheel and gambling with apocalyptic disaster despite the fact that somewhere else, usually close by, they have the risky item in place with no problems. Strange.
Not strange at all.....just means our opponents are unscrupulous liars who count on the ignorance of those whose support they are seeking. The antis are never going to recognize or accept any fact about gun use or ownership that undermines their agenda of eliminating guns from private possession. They exploit the assumption made by decent human beings that they also want less crime and more good guys surviving criminal attacks: they don't. They want more crime and more dead good guys and a population that can't defend themselves because that creates dependency, giving them greater power and control.
"Journalism, n. A job for people who flunked out of STEM courses, enjoy making up stories, and have no detectable integrity or morals."

From the WeaponsMan blog, weaponsman.com


Russell
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 2795
Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 12:46 pm

Re: HB48: No renewal class required

#53

Post by Russell » Sat Mar 23, 2013 4:12 pm

I oppose it. How else will folks keep up with law changes? Let's face it - some folks that have a CHL are not as active in the community as we are.

With power comes responsibility, and some people just don't have that second part down. The renewal classes help with that.
http://www.texas3006.com - Texas 30.06 and 30.07 Signage Database.
Join us on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/texas3006


gringo pistolero
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 741
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2012 6:49 pm

Re: HB48: No renewal class required

#54

Post by gringo pistolero » Sat Mar 23, 2013 4:28 pm

Should there be a class required on the law before someone can carry under MPA? What about LEOSA?
I sincerely apologize to anybody I offended by suggesting the Second Amendment also applies to The People who don't work for the government.


Russell
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 2795
Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 12:46 pm

Re: HB48: No renewal class required

#55

Post by Russell » Sat Mar 23, 2013 4:39 pm

gringo pistolero wrote:Should there be a class required on the law before someone can carry under MPA? What about LEOSA?

MPA - That law is much simpler than standard CHL laws are: Keep it in the car, hidden.
LEOSA - Irrelevant, the officers have already been through training given that they are, you know, police officers :)
http://www.texas3006.com - Texas 30.06 and 30.07 Signage Database.
Join us on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/texas3006


gringo pistolero
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 741
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2012 6:49 pm

Re: HB48: No renewal class required

#56

Post by gringo pistolero » Sat Mar 23, 2013 5:02 pm

There's no logical reason to believe some Yankee cop knows Texas law given that they are, you know, Yankees. :biggrinjester:
I sincerely apologize to anybody I offended by suggesting the Second Amendment also applies to The People who don't work for the government.


Russell
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 2795
Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 12:46 pm

Re: HB48: No renewal class required

#57

Post by Russell » Sat Mar 23, 2013 5:04 pm

gringo pistolero wrote:There's no logical reason to believe some Yankee cop knows Texas law better than a Texan with a CHL.

I agree wholeheartedly! And I wish to keep it that way, through educational classes :tiphat:

Having uneducated CHL holders does our group no good. We all suffer when a CHL holder doesn't follow the law or ends up in the news with negative press.
http://www.texas3006.com - Texas 30.06 and 30.07 Signage Database.
Join us on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/texas3006

User avatar

Songbird
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 349
Joined: Sat May 05, 2012 9:34 am

Re: HB48: No renewal class required

#58

Post by Songbird » Sat Mar 23, 2013 6:11 pm

While I understand the wish of many active, healthy and well-informed shooters not to have to mess with the renewal classes I also know that there are probably many who never do anything with their firearm after the CHL is acquired, some who will not keep up with current laws, and also some whose health and/or mental state have changed. Drivers license has been used as a comparison in several posts, and I can attest to the fact that there are many elderly folks who should not be driving any longer. I think the renewal class serves as a good check and balance. I sure wont mind going back in four more years for another class. It was a lot of fun.
CHL Class 1/13/12
Plastic in hand 2/27/12


Panda
Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 144
Joined: Sun Mar 10, 2013 1:45 pm

Re: HB48: No renewal class required

#59

Post by Panda » Sat Mar 23, 2013 6:26 pm

Thats a great point songbird. Requiring renewal tests for driving would save many more innocent lives than renewal classes and tests for concealed carry.

As far as carry laws go, have they got stricter or more reasonable? It seems they get more reasonable even if its slow. So the renewal without a class isn't likely to carry in some new prohibited place. They are more likely to go unarmed in a place that is newly legal. That could stink for them but I'm not sure how that would result in bad press for the rest of us.


srothstein
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 3944
Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2006 8:27 pm
Location: Luling, TX

Re: HB48: No renewal class required

#60

Post by srothstein » Sat Mar 23, 2013 10:41 pm

Russell wrote:LEOSA - Irrelevant, the officers have already been through training given that they are, you know, police officers :)

You know, you might think so, but if you look at everyone who is actually covered under LEOSA, you might be surprised. For example, it covers jail guards who have had no legal training, just how to run a prison. It covers military police who have no civil law training and have completely different rules of engagement. And, as has been pointed out, it covers out of state officers who don't know Texas law.

The last, though, is also a problem with recognizing CHLs from other states so I would not bring it up in a debate with the public too often.
Steve Rothstein

Post Reply

Return to “2013 Texas Legislative Session”