I have a slight problem with HB 685...

[stevie_d_64]

Now before I am slammed...Hear me out please...

Forever and a day since I have taken up my right to keep and bear arms in this country...I have felt that anytime I get to shoot is a blessing in many ways...

I for one if I become a CHL instructor will insist that people regardless of their status go ahead and shoot the course of fire as stipulated by the requirements of the CHL law...

#1, because those individuals who may have "never" shot a course of fire before to qualify for something, I feel shoot better when others are around to give safety and other quick tips to feel comfortable with firing a weapon, of any type...

#2 Its just plain fun...

When my wife qualified, I had already worked with her on proper safety and basic marksmanship methods...I really didn't worry about her completing the CHL course of fire and getting her licence...

At that time I had already renewed my licence, and thought it would be fun to hang around in the class and only participate if the instructor invited my (unofficial) input and experience...

When it came time for the practical test, the instructor invited me to be an extra set of eyes and ears for those who may be struggling with a firearm or procedure...I actually had a blast doing that...

Thats a motivating factor in my desire to pursue in the near future obtaining my CHL instructor rating...Got some work to do on it, but its going to happen sometime soon...

Thats why I am having a slight problem with this law now...

I think experienced people lend an extremely high level of credibility and safety factor to range times, and just elevates everyones experience level a quantifiable boost to the whole process...

You can accept the exemtion (by law) if you want, for whatever reason...But in my book, you could certainly be an asset in a class, or range if you participated fully in the whole course...

Maybe what good this bill/law does is give the military trained personnel the "choice", that I actually value, in regards to the issue as a whole...

This topic may not generate much feedback...But hopefully it'll make some think a bit about it...

[stevie_d_64]

This topic may not generate much feedback...But hopefully it'll make some think a bit about it...

Was I ever right, or what!

[dolanp]

I think it's just a feel-good pro-military bill. I imagine most people would rather just shoot the course than bother with the extra paperwork proving they've had some other training.

[stevie_d_64]

I think it's just a feel-good pro-military bill. I imagine most people would rather just shoot the course than bother with the extra paperwork proving they've had some other training.

This is true...I was looking at more from a philisophical viewpoint...

[txinvestigator]

Sec. 411.1881. EXEMPTION FROM INSTRUCTION FOR CERTAIN
PERSONS. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this
subchapter, a person may not be required to complete the range
instruction portion of a handgun proficiency course to obtain or
renew a concealed handgun license issued under this subchapter if
the person:
(1) is currently serving in or is honorably discharged
from:
(A) the army, navy, air force, coast guard, or
marine corps of the United States or an auxiliary service or reserve
unit of one of those branches of the armed forces; or
(B) the state military forces, as defined by
Section 431.001; and
(2) has, within the five years preceding the date of
the person's application for an original or renewed license, as
applicable, completed a course of training in handgun proficiency
or familiarization as part of the person's service with the armed
forces or state military forces.
(b) The director by rule shall adopt a procedure by which a
license holder who is exempt under Subsection (a) from the range
instruction portion of the handgun proficiency requirement may
submit a form demonstrating the license holder's qualification for
an exemption under that subsection. The form must provide
sufficient information to allow the department to verify whether
the license holder qualifies for the exemption.
SECTION 2. This Act takes effect September 1, 2005.

[Kalrog]

Looks like (based on section 1a) that I won't ever have to take the proficiency test again.

But I will - much better that than pulling out the DD214.

[ElGato]

My bet is they will want to shoot anyway, because they will want to shoot!
That's the fun part of the class and everyone wishes there was more shooting required.
Tomcat

[jimlongley]

Looks like (based on section 1a) that I won't ever have to take the proficiency test again.

But I will - much better that than pulling out the DD214.

Don't forget section 2. You got five years grace from the last time you qualified in the military. I could wish that it applied forever because somewhere around here I have my "Pistol Expert" ribbon from the Navy.

[KBCraig]

Steve, don't forget this part:

"Sec. 411.1881. EXEMPTION FROM INSTRUCTION FOR CERTAIN
PERSONS. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this
subchapter, a person may not be required to complete the range
instruction portion of a handgun proficiency course to obtain or
renew a concealed handgun license issued under this subchapter if
the person: (etc.)"

Note that again: may not be required.

That doesn't mean "maybe they don't have to do it"; it doesn't mean "they might not have to do it if the instructor agrees".

The law would make it illegal to require any of the exempt persons to take the range instruction portion of the class. I doubt that's the intent, but that's what was written.

Kevin

[Greybeard]

Mixed emotions on this one.

As an instructor, I've heard more than once (generally from old-timers) something to the effect of "I've leaned more about handguns in the first 4 hours of this class than I ever learned about them during 4 YEARS in the Navy. "

And have yet to have a (no-such-thing-as-an-"ex") Marine shoot less than about 240 ...

[stevie_d_64]

That doesn't mean "maybe they don't have to do it"; it doesn't mean "they might not have to do it if the instructor agrees".

The law would make it illegal to require any of the exempt persons to take the range instruction portion of the class. I doubt that's the intent, but that's what was written.

Kevin

Kinda funny to make the "fun" portion of the class illegal to force an "exempt" person take it...

One of these days they may make it illegal to find out how many licks it actually does take to get the the center of a tootsie roll pop...

I'll be storming the Bastille on that day...