TexasCHLforum.com

Thanks for all the replies, ya'll.

I know some of you feel like people should be allowed to carry even if they don't know how to use a gun, but that's in an ideal world where the 2nd amendment stands over any other gun law. But that is NOT the world we live in. You must be licensed by the state to do so, which proves they do not consider it to be anything but a privilege. And it is a privilege to legally carry a deadly weapon. I, for one, do not want CHL holders running around the state who don't know how to use their weapons and who aren't properly informed. They are a hazard to themselves and others. I take carrying a weapon VERY seriously. I read up on the laws, keep printouts of them for reference, observe all gun safety rules, go shooting regularly, etc. I know not everyone goes to that extent, and that's fine. But if you're carrying a deadly weapon it is your responsibility to handle it properly. The green people in that class didn't know the gun safety rules, didn't know how to rack the slide, some couldn't even load a magazine, etc. If they aren't comfortable with their weapons, how well do you think they will fare if they actually have to use them?

I know my mother should be the one to report it, but I have already told her she should and I can tell you...she's not going to. I told her that teaching a class like that is a hazard to the students and is similar to the "help" it gives a 5th grader to be passed onto 6th grade when he can't read. It actually does more damage to that student because he will be passed along without getting real help and real instruction. When I told her it would invalidate the CHLs of the people who have taken courses from him, she backed off real fast. Yeah, it sucks, but it is what's right. The DPS can determine if it's being taught properly and if it's not, the instructor SHOULD be penalized. But all she can think is, "Oh, that will cause a lot of trouble." So what I may do is give DPS the information and my mother's number. She may tell them if asked, but I know she won't take the initiative to call.

All I can think is that one of his students might be put in a situation that causes them to use their weapon, and they won't be familiar with how to use one and it could cost them their lives. The students made it clear that they don't intend to shoot at all after the class, so what they come into class knowing is all they'll have when they leave. It's not the instructor's responsibility to make sure the students practice with their weapon or anything like that after the course, but I feel like an instructor should at least make sure the students have enough basic knowledge to use it if they need to before they take the course. One lady kept putting the magazine in backwards and still hadn't learned the right way by the end of the course. One of them kept ejecting the mag when she tried to fire, and again hadn't figured it out by the end of the course. That alarms me because what will happen if they need to use their weapon in self-defense?

From an instructor's viewpoint. Nowhere in the range training during the instructor course was it said the students had to be 100% proficient with their guns. They have to be able to safely handle and shoot their firearm. If I see a student struggling with the controls of their gun I step up and help or give tips. From my viewpoint, there are only 10% of all "knowledgeable" gun owners who are 100% proficient with their guns.

The issue with the post office isn't a reason to report the instructor nor is his helping his students as long as he's not actually doing the shooting or scoring with a 1911 pencil.

b322da wrote:

randomoutburst wrote: What do you think? What I've posted here is a draft I made to send to the state, but it was modified for forum posting. I haven't sent it off yet because I want to get your take on this. Were things mishandled enough to merit contacting the state over it? Sometimes you're too close to a situation to see clearly, so I want others' opinions.

Do it ASAP. Your reaction is absolutely correct in all respects. In my opinion you, and we, have a responsibility to report such incompetent, ignorant and irresponsible instructors to DPS, so that never again do they besmirch us who take our CHL, and the law, seriously.

Pay no attention to absurd advice along the lines of "the 2d Amendment means that the state even requiring a CHL license is unconstitutional." Here again we see advice based upon what someone personally would like to see the 2A mean, rather than what it has been demonstrated to actually mean, which is just as irresponsible as the CHL instructor your mom experienced. I have waited for years for individuals here giving such incorrect and misleading advice to put their money, and their liberty, on the line in support of their opinions about the meaning of the 2A. In vain have I looked for a Heller or McDonald here. Such advice by members of this forum to persons, particularly those new at the game, is well-calculated to put those persons receiving the advice at risk, not the one dispensing the advice, the latter going merrily on his way.

Your mom's instructor is a hazard putting deadly weapons into the holsters and purses of unqualified persons. This instructor demeans you, me, and all the others who take their privilege, yes, privilege, seriously and are proud of it, and he is not worthy of the honor of being called an "instructor."

Indeed, this instructor is working just as hard as he can to set back the cause of those like many of us here who support the responsible possession and use of firearms while keeping in mind the requirements of the law, whether or not we personally like that law as it clearly is at this moment.

Elmo

Elmo, For the record, I posted three things:

1. In my first response, I posted that an inability to charge a magazine without great difficulty should not be a disqualifier for CHL. If it were, then it would automatically disqualify thousands of people with disabilities significant enough to make it difficult for them to change a magazine, but not significant enough to render them incapable of carrying or firing a gun safely. In her opening post, randomoutburst listed (in her words) "2) The instructor insisted upon loading the magazines for the "green" students" as a problem. How does she know they were "green?" My wife had been shooting with my son and I dozens of times AND had taken Crossfire-Training's Basic Pistol class before taking her CHL class, and she still required help from one of the instructors to charge the magazine of her rented Glock 19. She was not by any means an inexperienced or unsafe shooter, and I object to the notion that she was "green" and therefore unqualified for CHL because her disability AND the harsh weather conditions at the time made it difficult for her to charge her own magazine. Since when is the ability to charge a magazine an indicator of one's ability to safely carry, handle, and fire a pistol? In plain speak, it ISN'T.
   
   Beyond that, so what if they are "green?" If they can pass the mandated shooting test and otherwise handle a gun safely, where is the mandate in the law that they must have some categorical amount of experience? It isn't there. I'm not going to sit here and suggest that one shouldn't have some amount of experience in safe gun handling before getting a CHL, but I'm not going to support the notion that this amount of experience should be either categorized or mandated by the law.
   
   In Heller, Gura (foolishly according to most pro-gun observers) conceded a state's "right" to regulate the carrying and use of firearms. One senses from the direction of Scalia's line of questioning that this is not the answer that Scalia hoped to hear. Gura's relative inexperience led him to answer thusly. Had an NRA attorney with his/her much more complete experience of litigating 2nd Amendment issues before the court been representing Heller instead of Gura, he would have handled the question differently, and one doesn't have to reach far to guess that this would have been the answer that Scalia was looking for.
   
   Nevertheless, those implications are now recorded as part of the Heller decision, and until they are addressed in future litigation before the court and (hopefully) overturned, they are now part of the law of the land. So was Dred Scott at one time. Given the current trend in SCOTUS decisions, and given (hopefully) that Obama is damaged goods and will not have any further opportunities to appoint SCOTUS justices beyond 2012, it is not too far of a stretch to imagine that Gura's Folly which became part of the Heller record may some day be overturned. IF IT IS, then we'll be able to truthfully say that the correct interpretation of the Constitution is that the right to keep AND bear arms, shall not be infringed.
2. In the first paragraph of my second post above, I told jimlongley that legislative intent still exists, whether we like it or not.
3. In the second paragraph, I stated A) that I follow the law (which I don't like) so that I can stay out of jail; and B) my desire that Texas would enact what is popularly called "Constitutional Carry," meaning (regardless of what quislings want it to mean today) exactly as the Founders envisioned it.....that one was free, without government interference or regulation, to carry any gun they wanted to, any time they wanted to carry it, any place they wanted to carry it. Not all the founders actually did this, but some did, and they did so quite overtly. It is pretty obvious what their intent was. If the ones who didn't had disagreed, the 2nd Amendment might have read "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall be regulated by the state." The last time I checked, that wasn't the wording. About the word "Infringe," USConstitution.net, an impartial observer and educator on the Constitution if there ever was one, says the following:

   Infringe
   infringe vb [Latin infringere] 1: violate, transgress 2: encroach, trespass Source: NMW
   
   In the context of the Constitution, phrases like "shall not be infringed," "shall make no law," and "shall not be violated" sound pretty unbendable, but the Supreme Court has ruled that some laws can, in fact, encroach on these phrases. For example, though there is freedom of speech, you cannot slander someone; though you can own a pistol, you cannot own a nuclear weapon.

   Please note that they dance around the "bear" part of that amendment. One could argue that they simply don't want to get into the controversy, or one could argue that the thing speaks for itself, and there is no controversy about what "bear" means, and so they only address what "infringed" means.

I would argue that the principle which allows the Court to set limits on the expression of an enumerated right is very much misunderstood by people on both sides of the issue.

One commonly hears, "your right to speech CAN be infringed because you can't yell "Fire!" in a theater." That is patently untrue. You CAN yell "Fire!" in a theater if there actually is a fire in the theater. You just are not permitted to do it when it is untrue, for the purpose of inciting panic—whether meant as a joke or maliciously (actually, it would be a malicious joke). Regulating speech in and of itself doesn't stand the constitutional sniff test. It requires no license in order to be able to shout "Fire!" in a theater. It requires only good judgement.......judgement on the part of the person shouting it, not on the part of a licensing agency which determines whether or not the speaker is qualified to speak.

This is the light under which I believe the Constitution ought to be interpreted when it comes to firearms regulation, just as it ought to be interpreted with regard to speech...... I believe that it ought not be in the state's power to judge before the fact whether or not I may exercise my right to any enumerated right, so long as I do not exercise it with malicious intent to harm others, because I believe that it can be demonstrated beyond question that this was the Founders' intent. By that measure, my decision to carry a gun, whether in the open or concealed, is nobody's damned business until such time that I use that gun with malicious intent.

I believe we will get there some day. This is a civil rights issue. We don't have to have a diploma in order to have the right to speak. We don't have to demonstrate literacy in order to have the right to vote. We shouldn't have to have a license to carry a gun.

As to the instructor in the opening post, randomoutburst's mother should do as she sees fit. I just hope she sees through the lens of discernment.

TAM - I described the "green" students as such because my mother told me she talked with the ladies over break (all the "green"s were women) and three of four hadn't handled a gun before that day, and the other had shot once before, the day before. All of them seemed afraid of their guns and one, in fact, hated guns and was there because her husband made her come take the class. (And that husband is an idiot.)

They were not following practices of gun safety, evidenced by the instructor's decision to pair them up so that experienced students could keep the greens pointed downrange -- showing that the instructor knew they weren't knowledgeable enough to be conscientious about where the gun was pointed -- and how could they, having not fired a gun before that day?

texas-sig wrote:About a month ago we booked in a chl instructor that was going to the students homes and having class in the living room. The "students" were ready to go in about two hours. No range time or any explanations of the laws. Don't know what happened to this "instructor" but he made bail in like four hours of arrival at county. Sometimes you just don't know what these instructors are thinking but not all are the same.

Do you have any more details on that case, there is a thread running here http://texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=45414" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; about a CHL instructor selling CHl-100s

I don't have a problem with the instructor or his methods. It sounds like he tried to keep the class safe for all of the students. One of the jobs of an instructor is to help the students learn. Learning may include showing the how to load a magazine. I know that the CHL students must be at least 21, but how many of you have loaded a magazine while teaching a child how to shoot.

Some of the members seem to have forgotten that most people are not familiar with the operation of firearms. I applaud them for taking the effort to take the CHL class. The CHL instructor is not a Marine DI, and their students are not recruits. I think that some people here need to "lighten up."

randomoutburst wrote:TAM - I described the "green" students as such because my mother told me she talked with the ladies over break (all the "green"s were women) and three of four hadn't handled a gun before that day, and the other had shot once before, the day before. All of them seemed afraid of their guns and one, in fact, hated guns and was there because her husband made her come take the class. (And that husband is an idiot.)

They were not following practices of gun safety, evidenced by the instructor's decision to pair them up so that experienced students could keep the greens pointed downrange -- showing that the instructor knew they weren't knowledgeable enough to be conscientious about where the gun was pointed -- and how could they, having not fired a gun before that day?

You're right, that woman's husband is an idiot. Beyond that, I would question the instructor agreeing to put her through the class if she hated guns and was only there in obedience to her husband. He could have refunded her money, and told her she didn't have to take the class. She would have been relieved, and then she and her husband could work out their issues away from the publicity and potential danger of a shooting range.

As for the other "green" students, I can't fault the instructor's methods. Like I said earlier, it certainly isn't a bad idea to take a Basic Pistol class if you have no experience in such things before taking the CHL class, but there is not a legal mandate for that, nor should there be one. I think that, the gun hating woman with the idiot husband excepted, the instructor ran the class as well as he could have given the quality of the students that he had. But, I wasn't there, so I can only report on my impressions.

randomoutburst wrote:Thanks for all the replies, ya'll.

I know some of you feel like people should be allowed to carry even if they don't know how to use a gun, but that's in an ideal world where the 2nd amendment stands over any other gun law. But that is NOT the world we live in. You must be licensed by the state to do so, which proves they do not consider it to be anything but a privilege. And it is a privilege to legally carry a deadly weapon. I, for one, do not want CHL holders running around the state who don't know how to use their weapons and who aren't properly informed. They are a hazard to themselves and others. I take carrying a weapon VERY seriously. I read up on the laws, keep printouts of them for reference, observe all gun safety rules, go shooting regularly, etc. I know not everyone goes to that extent, and that's fine. But if you're carrying a deadly weapon it is your responsibility to handle it properly. The green people in that class didn't know the gun safety rules, didn't know how to rack the slide, some couldn't even load a magazine, etc. If they aren't comfortable with their weapons, how well do you think they will fare if they actually have to use them?

I know my mother should be the one to report it, but I have already told her she should and I can tell you...she's not going to. I told her that teaching a class like that is a hazard to the students and is similar to the "help" it gives a 5th grader to be passed onto 6th grade when he can't read. It actually does more damage to that student because he will be passed along without getting real help and real instruction. When I told her it would invalidate the CHLs of the people who have taken courses from him, she backed off real fast. Yeah, it sucks, but it is what's right. The DPS can determine if it's being taught properly and if it's not, the instructor SHOULD be penalized. But all she can think is, "Oh, that will cause a lot of trouble." So what I may do is give DPS the information and my mother's number. She may tell them if asked, but I know she won't take the initiative to call.

All I can think is that one of his students might be put in a situation that causes them to use their weapon, and they won't be familiar with how to use one and it could cost them their lives. The students made it clear that they don't intend to shoot at all after the class, so what they come into class knowing is all they'll have when they leave. It's not the instructor's responsibility to make sure the students practice with their weapon or anything like that after the course, but I feel like an instructor should at least make sure the students have enough basic knowledge to use it if they need to before they take the course. One lady kept putting the magazine in backwards and still hadn't learned the right way by the end of the course. One of them kept ejecting the mag when she tried to fire, and again hadn't figured it out by the end of the course. That alarms me because what will happen if they need to use their weapon in self-defense?

Let me start by saying that I respect your opinion but I disagree with it. I do believe that we have the right to bear arms and I agree with Mr. Coton when he says that the intent of the CHL law is that concealed carry is a right. Unless of course you can quote someone who might be more familiar with that process than Mr. Cotton.

But let's set asided the argument of right verses privilege for a moment and discuss the class your mother attended. Here is where I think the problem is. I believe that you want to hold people to a higher standard than the law does.

What does the law actually require? The actual law only states that the applicant must demostrate that they are proficient in the safe operation of the weapon in the catorgory of handgun under which they are applying. So how does one demonstrate such?

GC §411.188. HANDGUN PROFICIENCY REQUIREMENT. (a) The
director by rule shall establish minimum standards for handgun proficiency
and shall develop a course to teach handgun proficiency and
examinations to measure handgun proficiency. The course to teach
handgun proficiency must contain training sessions divided into two
parts. One part of the course must be classroom instruction and the
other part must be range instruction and an actual demonstration by
the applicant of the applicant's ability to safely and proficiently use the
applicable category of handgun. An applicant must be able to demonstrate,
at a minimum, the degree of proficiency that is required to effectively
operate a handgun of .32 caliber or above. The department shall
distribute the standards, course requirements, and examinations on
request to any qualified handgun instructor.

So the actual requirements for proof of proficiency are not even listed in the law. The law leaves it up to the director to establish by rule minimum requirements. So what are the rules which determine if the minimum standards have been met?

http://info.sos.state.tx.us/pls/pub/rea ... ch=6&rl=11

(a) The proficiency demonstration course will be the same for both instructors and license applications. The course of fire will be at distances of three, seven, and fifteen yards, for a total of fifty rounds.
(1) Twenty rounds will be fired from three yards, as follows:
(A) five rounds will be fired "One Shot Exercise"; two seconds allowed for each shot;
(B) ten rounds will be fired "Two Shot Exercise"; three seconds allowed for each two shots; and
(C) five rounds will be fired; ten seconds allowed for five shots.
(2) Twenty rounds will be fired from seven yards, fired in four five-shot strings as follows:
(A) the first five shots will be fired in ten seconds;
(B) the next five shots will be fired in two stages:
(i) two shots will be fired in four seconds; and
(ii) three shots will be fired in six seconds.
(C) the next five shots at seven yards will be fired "One Shot Exercise"; three seconds will be allowed for each shot; and
(D) the last five shots fired at the seven-yard line, the time will be fifteen seconds to shoot five rounds.
(3) Ten rounds will be fired from fifteen yards, fired in two five-shot strings as follows:
(A) the first five shots will be fired in two stages:
(i) two shots fired in six seconds; and
(ii) three shots fired in nine seconds.
(B) the last five shots will be fired in fifteen seconds.
(b) A student must score at least 70% on the written examination and shooting proficiency examination, in order to establish proficiency. A student will have three opportunities to pass the written examination and shooting proficiency examination.
(c) An instructor must submit failures of the written examination or shooting examination to the department on the class completion notification and must indicate if the failure occurred after the student had been given three opportunities to pass the examination.
(d) Upon successful completion of both the written and shooting proficiency examinations, the qualified handgun instructor may certify that the concealed handgun license applicant has established his or her proficiency, in a manner to be determined by the department.

You stated, “The green people in that class didn't know the gun safety rules, didn't know how to rack the slide, some couldn't even load a magazine, etc.”

Please tell how any of these claims violate the rules provided by the director in accordance with the law. Which part of RULE §6.11 did they not know? Nothing in RULE §6.11 requires that they know how to rack a slide or load a magazine.

You stated, “I told her it would invalidate the CHLs of the people who have taken courses from him”. On what basis do you make this claim? The only way in this case that anyone's CHL could be invalidated is if you can prove that someone failed to achieve a minimum of 70% on one or both of the tests after three attempts and were still passed. And then it would only apply to those who did not pass. Do you have proof of any of this? If you do, then by all means, provide that proof to the proper authorities. From what I can tell from your posts he may not have done his job very well but I don't see where he failed to meet the requirements listed above.

Now lets talk about right verses privilege. You stated, "You must be licensed by the state to do so, which proves they do not consider it to be anything but a privilege." My wife and I had to obtain a marriage license in order to be legally married. Does that mean that my wife and I did not have a right to be married? That is was a privilege? If your answer is yes then we will simply have to agree to disagree and I will leave you with this: if you truly believe that the 2nd amendment does not apply in the world in which we live, then you have already lost the war - you just don't know it yet.

Edited to add:
Found case law on my question about marriage. Zablocki v Redhail (1978), "Justice Marshall wrote for the majority in a 5-3-1 court holding. Affirming the judgment of the District Court, Marshall concurred with the District Court's reading of marriage being a fundamental right".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zablocki_v._Redhail

So your assertion that because CHL requires a license "proves they do not consider it to be anything but a privilege" is simply wrong and legally does not hold water.

MoJo wrote:From an instructor's viewpoint. Nowhere in the range training during the instructor course was it said the students had to be 100% proficient with their guns. They have to be able to safely handle and shoot their firearm. If I see a student struggling with the controls of their gun I step up and help or give tips. From my viewpoint, there are only 10% of all "knowledgeable" gun owners who are 100% proficient with their guns.

The issue with the post office isn't a reason to report the instructor nor is his helping his students as long as he's not actually doing the shooting or scoring with a 1911 pencil.

The Annoyed Man wrote: Elmo, For the record, I posted three things: ....

TAM,

I hope you do not think I was aiming at you, because that is simply not the case. Your post, addressed to me, begins to sound like a brief for the next case to get into the courts. While it is clear that you are not happy with the limitations that legislators and the judiciary has, to this point, imposed on "any gun, anywhere, by anyone," it is also clear that you recognize that the law has not yet gotten where you wish it were. I can assure you I know what the SCOTUS has said, and I have read both sides' briefs more than once.

The way it is, is the way it is, and I suspect that even the SCOTUS we have today is going to require that a party attempting to remove any of those presently imposed limitations is going to have to show the court that he or she has "standing," a personal interest other than abstract legal arguments. That is why I do think it is going to have to be a gutsy individual like Heller or McDonald to put himself at personal risk -- i.e., at least I doubt that you and I will live long enough to see an organization like the NRA, of which I am a member, BTW, found to have the standing to bring such a lawsuit as a party. One has only to look at the recent decision on the Walmart gender-discriminbation case to understand what I mean.

Meanwhile, for our courageous lady member: this is not a matter for a public vote. This forum can give you advice, members have, but it can accomplish nothing meaningful. This is a question for the law enforcement authorities, subject to oversight by a state administration under a governor with well-known ideological principles, and, hopefully, the judiciary, if some instructor feels he has been unjustly accused. I can assure you that he will not be railroaded.

The DPS can simply be advised that his approach to his duties is subject to question, with no legal conclusions or accusations made. A simple reference to this thread, his name and the date of the classs, should suffice. The DPS will do nothing, most likely, other than to perhaps anymously enroll an LEO in one of his later classes. I would think they would take no action on hearsay from you, or even direct testimony from your mother. I would suggest the matter just be fed into the system, and the right people will handle it if they feel it merits inquiry.

There have been commentators here who have no problem with the facts as alleged, and there have been quite contrary thoughts expressed. I would submit that it is not our job, nor yours, to act as judges. Your mother has at least raised a reasonable issue that is for DPS' resolution, at least in the initial instance. Simply reading the remarkable intelligence and good judgement glowing in your posts causes me to suspect that you knew the correct answer to your question before even asking it.

With respect,

Elmo

I think we all have the RIGHT to carry a gun, however I think we also have the RESPONSIBILITY to others to know how to safely operate a handgun. If you cannot carry it safely I think you have no business carrying it anywhere.

loadedliberal wrote:I think we all have the RIGHT to carry a gun, however I think we also have the RESPONSIBILITY to others to know how to safely operate a handgun. If you cannot carry it safely I think you have no business carrying it anywhere.

I have no problem with that statement at all. I only question whether, in abstract terms, that is something for which the government ought to have a mandate to regulate it.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

loadedliberal wrote:I think we all have the RIGHT to carry a gun, however I think we also have the RESPONSIBILITY to others to know how to safely operate a handgun. If you cannot carry it safely I think you have no business carrying it anywhere.

I have no problem with that statement at all. I only question whether, in abstract terms, that is something for which the government ought to have a mandate to regulate it.

No. Personal Responsibility should regulate it IMHO

b322da wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote: Elmo, For the record, I posted three things: ....

TAM,

I hope you do not think I was aiming at you, because that is simply not the case. Your post, addressed to me, begins to sound like a brief for the next case to get into the courts. While it is clear that you are not happy with the limitations that legislators and the judiciary has, to this point, imposed on "any gun, anywhere, by anyone," it is also clear that you recognize that the law has not yet gotten where you wish it were. I can assure you I know what the SCOTUS has said, and I have read both sides' briefs more than once.

The way it is, is the way it is, and I suspect that even the SCOTUS we have today is going to require that a party attempting to remove any of those presently imposed limitations is going to have to show the court that he or she has "standing," a personal interest other than abstract legal arguments. That is why I do think it is going to have to be a gutsy individual like Heller or McDonald to put himself at personal risk -- i.e., at least I doubt that you and I will live long enough to see an organization like the NRA, of which I am a member, BTW, found to have the standing to bring such a lawsuit as a party. One has only to look at the recent decision on the Walmart gender-discriminbation case to understand what I mean.

Elmo, I'm not familiar with the gender-discrimination case to which you are referring, and I agree that it took guts for either Heller or McDonald to do what they did. There was much at risk. But, I do think that Scalia was looking for more than Gura gave him in that particular line of questioning. I get the sense that Scalia would have enjoyed the hubbub if that is where the questioning went, particularly if it would tweak his liberal colleagues' sensibilities. He's an irascible old fart, and I wouldn't put it past him; and I don't believe that Gura's concession is what he was actually hoping for philosophically. Of course, that is based on nothing more than my observations about Scalia and his conservative outlook, and I could not prove it.

As to the rest of my rant, it was exactly that.... a rant. I was ranting about how much I think we are today out of step with the Founders' intentions, particularly with regard to the 2nd Amendment. I apologize if it came off as me lecturing you. We're going to have to sit down in the shade somewhere and solve these things over a glass of cold beer some day. Oh, how people would talk.....