TexasCHLforum.com

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

VMI77 wrote:Nothing wrong with a cop taking the class, but they should have an exemption that lets them get a CHL without having to take the class.

No way Jose. EVERYONE should have the same standard. I've seen enough of this "rules for thee but not me" thank you very much.

We shot 500rds all the way from anchor point to 25yrds, and both night and day, one handed plus weak hand, timed shoots with reloads and had to score 80% or better to pass. I think LEOs go above and beyond the required 4hr class plus 50rds shooting proficiency, this is from someone who has done both.

So I guess according to you we all need a five month long academy to get our CHL's.

No, according to me, the same obligations should apply to police as to citizens. they're not special snowflakes. If I have to take a class they should have to take a class. Equality under the law is what this nation was founded on (well except for slavery but we fixed that). No animal should be more equal than others.

nightmare69 wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

VMI77 wrote:Nothing wrong with a cop taking the class, but they should have an exemption that lets them get a CHL without having to take the class.

No way Jose. EVERYONE should have the same standard. I've seen enough of this "rules for thee but not me" thank you very much.

We shot 500rds all the way from anchor point to 25yrds, and both night and day, one handed plus weak hand, timed shoots with reloads and had to score 80% or better to pass. I think LEOs go above and beyond the required 4hr class plus 50rds shooting proficiency, this is from someone who has done both.

Shooting is pretty irrelevant for the CHL if you don't know that you're reason #1 why everyone should have to do the same thing.
You could train with Rambo, John Wayne, and Audie Murphy, and I could care less. Its irrelevant. It has nothing to do with law enforcement, shooting ability, or even your capacity to cook awesome barbeque. If one person has to do it to meet requirements under the Second Amendment and Texas Law, everyone should have to do it.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

nightmare69 wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

VMI77 wrote:Nothing wrong with a cop taking the class, but they should have an exemption that lets them get a CHL without having to take the class.

No way Jose. EVERYONE should have the same standard. I've seen enough of this "rules for thee but not me" thank you very much.

We shot 500rds all the way from anchor point to 25yrds, and both night and day, one handed plus weak hand, timed shoots with reloads and had to score 80% or better to pass. I think LEOs go above and beyond the required 4hr class plus 50rds shooting proficiency, this is from someone who has done both.

Shooting is pretty irrelevant for the CHL if you don't know that you're reason #1 why everyone should have to do the same thing.
You could train with Rambo, John Wayne, and Audie Murphy, and I could care less. Its irrelevant. If one person has to do it, everyone should have to do it.

I had to take a 12hr hunter safety course at 25 because I was born after 1972, how is that fair that the older folk didn't have to take it but I did?

I had to take a 12hr hunter safety course at 25 because I was born after 1972, how is that fair that the older folk didn't have to take it but I did?

Thats unfair too. However because "A" is bad doesn't equate to "B" being good.

This is probably sliding off topic so lets just agree to disagree here.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

I had to take a 12hr hunter safety course at 25 because I was born after 1972, how is that fair that the older folk didn't have to take it but I did?

Thats unfair too. However because "A" is bad doesn't equate to "B" being good.

This is probably sliding off topic so lets just agree to disagree here.

Life's unfair. Get over it.

Keith B wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

I had to take a 12hr hunter safety course at 25 because I was born after 1972, how is that fair that the older folk didn't have to take it but I did?

Thats unfair too. However because "A" is bad doesn't equate to "B" being good.

This is probably sliding off topic so lets just agree to disagree here.

Life's unfair. Get over it.

I am over it. I still don't have to agree to favoritism. If the instructor doesn't want to charge him (?) fine thats his call. His loss, not mine.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

Keith B wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

I had to take a 12hr hunter safety course at 25 because I was born after 1972, how is that fair that the older folk didn't have to take it but I did?

Thats unfair too. However because "A" is bad doesn't equate to "B" being good.

This is probably sliding off topic so lets just agree to disagree here.

Life's unfair. Get over it.

I am over it. I still don't have to agree to favoritism. If the instructor doesn't want to charge him (?) fine thats his call. His loss, not mine.

So, let's say you are pilot for a large airline. if you moved to anotehr airline adn were flying the exact same aircraft, do you think you should have to go through all of the basic training for that aircraft again or should you be grandfathered?

I knew a Fed LEO that had the same problem here in Texas. He either had to carry his duty weapon or get his CHL and follow State CHL laws. It is not as uncommon as one may think.

Having a commissioned cop take the CHL course is redundant and unnecessary. Give them the license and charge them a sufficient fee to cover the administration costs to process the license and send it. Oh, that's what they already do. Next!

If they want to take the course, more power to them. Academies and agencies need to make sure their cops are universally well educated on Texas CHL law and trained on how to properly deal with CHLs.

They don't have to take the course.


It's $25 and a letter from the CLEO and you get the license.

Enough of the "special snowflakes" talk...it's pretty pointless.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

VMI77 wrote:Nothing wrong with a cop taking the class, but they should have an exemption that lets them get a CHL without having to take the class.

No way Jose. EVERYONE should have the same standard. I've seen enough of this "rules for thee but not me" thank you very much.

I understand where you're coming from and in most regards I'd agree. But in the case of CHL the class is redundant, since they've been through the police academy and usually have some training with their department. That essentially makes the CHL course for a cop a punishment instead of a qualification. What I would be against is CHLs for law enforcement if the rest of us can't get one, and the carry restricted areas for the rest of us. I understand why the law is that way and accept it as a necessary compromise.

I wonder: If his department requires him to carry his duty weapon when off duty, so he gets his CHL so he can carry other guns...does that mean he has to obey the same laws as us (e.g. disarm before going into a school) when carrying his off-duty weapon?

Back on topic now...

VMI77 wrote:
I understand where you're coming from and in most regards I'd agree. But in the case of CHL the class is redundant, since they've been through the police academy and usually have some training with their department. That essentially makes the CHL course for a cop a punishment instead of a qualification. What I would be against is CHLs for law enforcement if the rest of us can't get one, and the carry restricted areas for the rest of us. I understand why the law is that way and accept it as a necessary compromise.

VMI, I usually agree with most of your writings, but on this one I'd like to respectfully offer a challenge.

From what I've read on here in other postings (example here), the academy doesn't teach you enough about CHL - rather it's a quite perfunctory explanation. If he wants to have a CHL, then I don't see a problem with an additional four hours of training to teach the things that the academy doesn't teach.

Sure, give the license free or at a reduced price (as done with other groups), but we cannot assume that the training he has as the academy covers all the things he needs to know about CHL. Just because both the academy and CHL class touch on the subject of guns does not automatically guarantee that the CHL course knowledge is fully encompassed within the academy's program.

Besides, learning is a good thing. I appreciate a LEO (or anyone else, for that matter) who challenges himself to learn more about the things that are periphery to his immediate job.

For the math geeks among us, I submit the following Venn diagrams. I think the reality is probably better described in the lower of the two (although the red part in the lower diagram is greatly exaggerated for effect).

I don't believe we should have special snowflakes. But I don't see this as being special. Sure they don't have to take the course, but their carry under CHL is under the same laws as me. Veterans, active duty military, senior citizens, etc, get discounts. That doesn't make them special snowflakes. They follow the same laws, just get a bit of a break on the cost or in the case of a LEO, not having to duplicate training they already have. I don't begrudge them at all as long as my CHL carries the same weight. And it does.

Maxwell wrote:I knew a Fed LEO that had the same problem here in Texas. He either had to carry his duty weapon or get his CHL and follow State CHL laws. It is not as uncommon as one may think.

I think a Fed LEO should have to take the course as they I don't think they are up on Texas CHL laws as part of their training. A Texas Peace Officer, no course needed.