Page 3 of 3
Re: Do we need an additional rating for our CHL?
Posted: Sat Oct 23, 2010 11:29 am
by 74novaman
The last thing we should be trying to do is institute anything in order to appease the antis.
They only thing that would ever appease them is every single last one of us law abiding citizens being disarmed.
You cannot appease the irrational, the insane, or the mentally incompetent. Given the vast amount of data regarding lawful carry of firearms and its positive effects on society, those who are truly anti gun have to be at least one of the three.
Don't deal with crazies. They're crazy and don't require any more thought than that.
Re: Do we need an additional rating for our CHL?
Posted: Sat Oct 23, 2010 11:57 am
by anygunanywhere
Why should we require more permissions to exercise our second amendment rights?
A CHL is a 2A permission card.
Anygunanywhere
Re: Do we need an additional rating for our CHL?
Posted: Sat Oct 23, 2010 1:08 pm
by shootthesheet
Keith B wrote:I personally think we are fine just as we are. No need for additional red-tape
But, if there was one thing I WOULD like to see, it would be that you don't need a CHL to carry.
Re: Do we need an additional rating for our CHL?
Posted: Sat Oct 23, 2010 1:44 pm
by blue
Well said 74novaman.
Re: Do we need an additional rating for our CHL?
Posted: Sun Oct 24, 2010 4:28 pm
by tacticool
+1 more freedom, less restrictions on a fundamental right
Re: Do we need an additional rating for our CHL?
Posted: Tue Oct 26, 2010 1:28 pm
by safety1
No more red tape, No more money to the state!!!
Re: Do we need an additional rating for our CHL?
Posted: Tue Oct 26, 2010 5:23 pm
by zaroffhunts
I agree with the consensus for lower costs and less hassles.
Re: Do we need an additional rating for our CHL?
Posted: Tue Oct 26, 2010 6:43 pm
by VoiceofReason
Re: Do we need an additional rating for our CHL?
Posted: Tue Oct 26, 2010 8:07 pm
by MechAg94
IMO, the reason the current CHL law has so many quirks and limits is due to all the fear mongering that was brought up when the original CHL law was trying to get passed. We have spent the last decade or more trying to correct those quirks and make the CHL law simpler and easier to live with. I DO NOT want to complicate it more by adding additional quirks and complications for really no reason. The anti's have little say in our state govt and I don't think we need to change any laws to accommodate them.
Also, I agree with a previous comment that adding higher levels of training would only give ammo to those that say we aren't trained enough.
Re: Do we need an additional rating for our CHL?
Posted: Tue Oct 26, 2010 8:45 pm
by Oldgringo
sf340b wrote:How about some ideas on advanced training/additional ratings?
Do we need an additional rating such as a CHL Rating or an additional rating requiring advanced schooling, training and qualification?
A rating such as an instrument rating for pilots or a specialty rating as seen in law and medicine.
Could we use the training and skills taught by the most experienced trainers and first responders if we ever had to defend ourselves or family members?
Would the public benefit from an individual that, if he had to defend himself or his family, was trained to a higher standard? A standard able to deliver pinpoint, precision accuracy to stop threats. A standard which would be the antitheses of pray and spray.
Would it be pertinent to allow an individual after schooling, training, qualification and the appropriate rating obtained to be named respectively under PC 46.15 Non-applicability or at a minimum their children's schools, family events or gatherings where security may be an issue? The intent is that a man’s God given inalienable right to self defense and the protection of his family not be infringed by those that would deliberately try to prevent him from protecting them and those that would deliberately take advantage of a man’s inability to protect himself or his family.
Looking for some input. Here are a few pro’s and con’s. Lets see what Texas thinks about the idea and what other pitfalls may exist.
Pro’s
Advanced training to CHLr
Advanced training is safer for the public “if” an event occurs
Advanced training increases confidence and performance
Puts the UT CFP argument to rest
First of it’s kind for the CCW permits?
More funds to the state
More opportunities for instructors
Number of applicants would send a serious message
May backdoor campus carry
Criminals put on notice that Texas and Texans will not allow crime to pay and are competently trained to prevent and defend themselves should a criminal underestimate
Con’s
Greater responsibility for the CHLr
Greater responsibility for the state to administer
No applicants would send a serious message
May hinder campus carry
No peace officer license, privileges, or immunities as granted under 1701, citizens already have certain understood authority as explained in “We the People” etc.
(Not trying to start a Lone Ranger fan club)
No