TexasCHLforum.com

Didn't know that a CHL = Gun Permit ?


http://www.yahoo.com/_ylt=Aj_z5Hm4aXx_a ... pitol_guns

Not saying it's perfect but that was a pretty truthful article. I'm actually impressed that it remained unbiased.

This article is almost funny. . . . Ok, it's really funny, but sad at the same time, that they . . . they . . . words escape me.

New reason for getting CHL: Line Jumping.

EDIT: On the other hand, more people around there with CHLs might be good for us when we try to push more CHL friendly legislation.
"If you do have a CHL (gun permit) then that shows you have gone through a background check and you've been vetted, so to speak," Wittenburg said. "I don't think those are the people that are going to cause your problems in the Capitol."

I don't see a problem with "permit" versus "license." Generically they amount to the same thing -- even some States call them Concealed Weapon Permits, rather than Licenses.

If I had a beef about the article it would be calling the CHL line procedure a "loop hole." I see "loop holes" as inadvertent or unintended gaps in a law or procedure. The CHL line is not certainly not that.

Not a bad article overall, although it included the obligatory whining from the Brady clowns and a clueless Canadian.

I guess I read too much into it. I took it more as a slap at us Texans . I got more ruffled when I started reading some of the comments.

I think what bothers me about the reports on this subject as well as the comments on those reports is that it is clear that a majority of folks out there believe that letting CHLs into the Capitol with their guns is something new. They don't seem to get that what changed is they are now taking steps to keep out those people who are carrying illegally, not the other way around.

3dfxMM wrote:I think what bothers me about the reports on this subject as well as the comments on those reports is that it is clear that a majority of folks out there believe that letting CHLs into the Capitol with their guns is something new. They don't seem to get that what changed is they are now taking steps to keep out those people who are carrying illegally, not the other way around.

Good point.

“The students learned about nonviolent resolution techniques, listened to harrowing 911 calls and, to demonstrate the dangers of a firearm, horrifying videos are shown that include a graphic suicide and one in which a man accidentally kills his friend.”

Since when is watching videos like this part of the required course? We did not have to do this in the class I took. I wonder if everyone is advised of this requirement prior to signing up and paying for the class. What if you were to refuse to watch the video?

I have seen too much of this first hand and I am trying to forget as much as possible. This also might not be good for a Veteran with PTSD.

It doesn't sound any worse than the videos we watched with Mr Magoo or Magilla Gorilla or whatever his name was.

Why cant they tell the ones not carrying to go to the other line? Although more licensees is a good thing for the numbers game. Be real funny watching these lib reporters denigrating gun owners when they have their own chl and had to use a gun to pass the course.

According to one of the guys here, if you're not actually carrying you will be pointed back to the regular line. So, if a bunch of lobbyists do get CHLs in order gain quicker access they will also have to be carrying.

C-dub wrote:According to one of the guys here, if you're not actually carrying you will be pointed back to the regular line. So, if a bunch of lobbyists do get CHLs in order gain quicker access they will also have to be carrying.

So how are they going to know if you are not carrying? Ask to see your weapon? I doubt it... Ask you if you are? just say "Yes sir, always!" Remember it's concealed .

O6nop wrote:

C-dub wrote:According to one of the guys here, if you're not actually carrying you will be pointed back to the regular line. So, if a bunch of lobbyists do get CHLs in order gain quicker access they will also have to be carrying.

So how are they going to know if you are not carrying? Ask to see your weapon? I doubt it... Ask you if you are? just say "Yes sir, always!" Remember it's concealed .

There's an older thread going on this topic where I just posed this very question. I wonder what the downside of saying one is armed when they are not and if the DPS guys checking everyone in this line actually verify that each CHL is carrying.

I personally would like for them to check and see individuals using the line are armed, then require them to show their proficiency at shooting their carry weapon. (Wait, the way I shoot, maybe I don't want to show them.)

C-dub wrote:

O6nop wrote:

C-dub wrote:According to one of the guys here, if you're not actually carrying you will be pointed back to the regular line. So, if a bunch of lobbyists do get CHLs in order gain quicker access they will also have to be carrying.

So how are they going to know if you are not carrying? Ask to see your weapon? I doubt it... Ask you if you are? just say "Yes sir, always!" Remember it's concealed .

There's an older thread going on this topic where I just posed this very question. I wonder what the downside of saying one is armed when they are not and if the DPS guys checking everyone in this line actually verify that each CHL is carrying.

I think I asked the same question before, too, there's about 5 or 6 threads on the same subject. They may all start out different but all eventually deal with the same comments and questions.