TexasCHLforum.com

The thread on whether or not the CHL test is too easy had a post that suggested a multi-tier CHL license that would allow someone to qualify to carry in additional locations that are now off limits.

I have often lamented the fact that since I choose not to make my living as a law enforcement officer, I am denied the ability to carry my firearm in some locations where LEOs are allowed to carry. I feel that while I have not had all of their training nor their duty to act, that I am just as good of a citizen and can be trusted to be there with a gun as much as they can. And while I don't have the facts to back this up (TXI?), I bet that in some ways the qualifications to become and remain a LEO are less than those of a CHL.

So the question is this.... Do you think there is any merit to the idea of qualifying citizens to a higher standard of trust which would allow them to then legally carry into places such as schools, sporting events, etc? If so, what kind of a program would you envision?

I'll go first. I'd like to see a "civilian air marshall" program that puts people with normal jobs through the same training, qualification and requalification programs as the paid guys do. Then, when these people travel by air (at their own expense), they get to be "deputy air marshalls" and fly with their guns. I'd even be willing to say that the civilians need to pay for the training, qualification and requalification on their own in order to participate (just keep it reasonable). I recognize that this would be a Federal program and not a TX one. I can conceive that this program would save the Feds money if it can be operated cheaply enough and enough citizens wish to participate.

I'll go second, too. I'd like to see an "advanced CHL" that puts citizens through the same background checks, qualificaiton and requalification that LEOs go through (with respect to handguns), possibly with a training/orientation program that would allow the ACHL holder to carry into schools, bars, Federal property (I wish!), etc. I would be willing for this to come with extra restrictions which we could debate. The ACHL would not have a duty to act as LEOs do and would still be required to meet all current standards for display/use of deadly force when in these locations.

After all, aren't the Federal Air Marshals and TX Peace Officers just human beings like us, the major difference being they chose to do this as their paid profession?

Your turn...

Perhaps Governor Rick Perry doesn't even need the higher qualifications to allow us to carry in these places! See http://www.kxan.com/global/story.asp?s=6449437 and a thread discussing it here.

I actually agree with you 100%, but the air marshall thing is not going to fly as even LEO cannot carry guns to plane, stupid as it is. People should be allowed to carry guns on plane. Just make sure every gun is unloaded and concealed.

ACHL is a good idea though. Instead of going a full blown carry-anywhere, which is something we like to see but the antis would break their knees from jerking, a good compromise would be the ACHL.

ACHL should be allowed to carry anywhere and anytime including bars with 51% and private business and other 30.06 (is that a caliber?) places. Only exception would be court room, correction institutes and army base maybe. :-)

GlockenHammer wrote:Perhaps Governor Rick Perry doesn't even need the higher qualifications to allow us to carry in these places! See http://www.kxan.com/global/story.asp?s=6449437 and a thread discussing it here.

GlockenHammer wrote:The thread on whether or not the CHL test is too easy had a post that suggested a multi-tier CHL license that would allow someone to qualify to carry in additional locations that are now off limits.

I have often lamented the fact that since I choose not to make my living as a law enforcement officer, I am denied the ability to carry my firearm in some locations where LEOs are allowed to carry. I feel that while I have not had all of their training nor their duty to act, that I am just as good of a citizen and can be trusted to be there with a gun as much as they can. And while I don't have the facts to back this up (TXI?), I bet that in some ways the qualifications to become and remain a LEO are less than those of a CHL.

So the question is this.... Do you think there is any merit to the idea of qualifying citizens to a higher standard of trust which would allow them to then legally carry into places such as schools, sporting events, etc? If so, what kind of a program would you envision?

I'll go first. I'd like to see a "civilian air marshall" program that puts people with normal jobs through the same training, qualification and requalification programs as the paid guys do. Then, when these people travel by air (at their own expense), they get to be "deputy air marshalls" and fly with their guns. I'd even be willing to say that the civilians need to pay for the training, qualification and requalification on their own in order to participate (just keep it reasonable). I recognize that this would be a Federal program and not a TX one. I can conceive that this program would save the Feds money if it can be operated cheaply enough and enough citizens wish to participate.

I'll go second, too. I'd like to see an "advanced CHL" that puts citizens through the same background checks, qualificaiton and requalification that LEOs go through (with respect to handguns), possibly with a training/orientation program that would allow the ACHL holder to carry into schools, bars, Federal property (I wish!), etc. I would be willing for this to come with extra restrictions which we could debate. The ACHL would not have a duty to act as LEOs do and would still be required to meet all current standards for display/use of deadly force when in these locations.

After all, aren't the Federal Air Marshals and TX Peace Officers just human beings like us, the major difference being they chose to do this as their paid profession?

Your turn...

I disagree with you completely. Remove most of the restrictions on CHLers. (Keeping jails, courtrooms, etc. )

LEO's have some different qualifications, but all LEOs in Texas must pass an MMPI (pyschological test).

I don't want other citizens armed on planes I am on. Leave that to the FAMs.

I bet that in some ways the qualifications to become and remain a LEO are less than those of a CHL.

Disagree

FYI - even though there are legal provisions for federal agents and peace officers to carry armed while flying, they still have to go through a special training course to do so.

In my personal opinion I think that CHL holders should be allowed to carry in almost all places that a LEO can - especially schools. If (when) some wacko goes nuts again at a school I would want someone there who has the means to bring it to an end as quickly as possible.

txinvestigator wrote:
I don't want other citizens armed on planes I am on. Leave that to the FAMs.

That might not be a bad idea if there were realy FAMs on all the flights. Most flights have no such protection.

I don't believe its much different letting a CHL on a plane than it would be to allow one on a Metro Bus.

txinvestigator wrote:

I don't want other citizens armed on planes I am on. Leave that to the FAMs.

I second that.

I'd be comfortable with this concerning the "advanced" chl idea: ACHL can carry anywhere a Texas peace officer can carry.

As to the qualifications for becoming "advanced", I'm certain that politicians would have a field day figuring those out.

I don't think it'd be altogether bad. Considering what the country has been through in the past few years, I'd say people are more willing to handle situatuations on aircraft these days and I believe the weapons should be in the hands of the pilots/FAM. Still, I'd go for carry in schools, professional sporting events...ect........

I think anywhere a bad guy could carry should be ok for me to carry as well.

I personally would like to see CHL go away, and I am very much opposed to an ACHL level of licensing.

As CHL's continue to prove the anti's wrong about the potential for "blood in the streets", we should be working towards legislation that allows all free citizens the means of self defense. It works well in Vermont and it works well in Alaska, and... it is the moral and constitutional right of an American to defend him/her self.

We, as Americans, should not need to seek permission from the State to own or carry a firearm.

That being said, I realize that it will take time (and may be impossible) to get the .gov to relinquish it's perceived authority over our RKBA, so a good step would be to do away with 30.06 and authorize CHL's to carry anywhere an LEO can.

txinvestigator wrote:
LEO's have some different qualifications, but all LEOs in Texas must pass an MMPI (pyschological test).

I don't want other citizens armed on planes I am on. Leave that to the FAMs.

MMPI? Please. I'm an air traffic controller. I had to take the same test. It's a good judge of your ability to give the answers the test-giver wants to hear. Period. As a personality index, it's so over-used (and over-rated) as to be almost worthless these days.

As far as carry on airplanes, chances are there's already citizens carrying with not much more training than the average CHL holder has had...a member of the flight crew.

It's the old "gunfights and blood in the streets" argument. Didn't happen when we started carrying in public, wouldn't happen if we started carrying EVERYWHERE, including when travelling by air. Gov. Perry has the right idea.

Nope, it's just fodder for the anti's.
"If we held plain CHLs to the same level as ACHL'S...."

and as others have said, we should be heading the other direction, gaining ground, not giving up ground.

Disagree, when we let the government "allow" us to do anything, it's cedeing to the government the right to remove that privilege.

If someone in the State of Texas wanted to get rid of concealed carry, all they would have to do is get a bill passed and signed that removes the privilege. Sure it's unlikeley, especially considering Rick Perry's latest comments, and it's no wonder they are proud of him up in Dallam County, but what if a rabid anti-rights gun nut (the kind of nut that's rabid about banning guns that is) gets into office on some other popular issue and manages to get something slipped through (as if Charles wouldn't be watching, or Alice)?

Adding a special class of CHL is merely acknowledging that the state has total control over our status as gun carriers and that's just a short step from gun owners.

Vermont style carry is a good goal, and a Constitutional Amendment to make it a (protected) right would be better.

packina40 wrote:

txinvestigator wrote:
LEO's have some different qualifications, but all LEOs in Texas must pass an MMPI (pyschological test).

I don't want other citizens armed on planes I am on. Leave that to the FAMs.

MMPI? Please. I'm an air traffic controller. I had to take the same test. It's a good judge of your ability to give the answers the test-giver wants to hear. Period. As a personality index, it's so over-used (and over-rated) as to be almost worthless these days.

As far as carry on airplanes, chances are there's already citizens carrying with not much more training than the average CHL holder has had...a member of the flight crew.

.

Thats YOUR opinion on the MMPI, one that I don't share. It is the saving grace for MANY I people I have seen who want to be cops, but can't get past it.

And the FFDO training is sigiifigantly greater than the CHL training. also, a FFDO is to protect the cockpit only. He won't be taking his gun back into the cabin and producing it.

Liberty wrote:

txinvestigator wrote:
I don't want other citizens armed on planes I am on. Leave that to the FAMs.

That might not be a bad idea if there were realy FAMs on all the flights. Most flights have no such protection.

I don't believe its much different letting a CHL on a plane than it would be to allow one on a Metro Bus.

Protection from what? Planes ar ethe one place where the public has decided to NOT sit by and be a victim, as evidenced by the number of assaults in planes that have been quelled by the passangers.

There is a HUGE difference between airline flight and an across the town bus flight. Screening is but one. Avonics, hydaulics and fuel lines are but another. A plane can't just pull over either.

BAD IDEA!!!!