TexasCHLforum.com

Here's an interesting situation and I would appreciate your thoughts. My 18 year old college student son has qualified and applied for his Level III security officer commission. However, he is still not able to obtain a CHL. Just doesn't seem right to me. Shouldn't he be qualified to carry concealed if he is qualified to carry a gun at work?

mojo84 wrote:Here's an interesting situation and I would appreciate your thoughts. My 18 year old college student son has qualified and applied for his Level III security officer commission. However, he is still not able to obtain a CHL. Just doesn't seem right to me. Shouldn't he be qualified to carry concealed if he is qualified to carry a gun at work?

Should be, but won't be. No provision for CHL under 21 for licensed security officer. And he will only be able to carry to/from and on the job in uniform. And must openly carry during that time.

There are some other regulations as well. Someone on here should be able to tell you.

Yeah, he and I are pretty up on the laws and rules. Just seems odd to me and was making expressing an observation.

mojo84 wrote:Yeah, he and I are pretty up on the laws and rules. Just seems odd to me and was making expressing an observation.

I smell what you're stepping in. On one hand, your son is being trusted to be a "Guardian of the Community" with all the rights and responsibilities that come with it. But on the other the state, in all its infinite wisdom, says he's not responsible enough yet.

TresHuevos wrote:

mojo84 wrote:Yeah, he and I are pretty up on the laws and rules. Just seems odd to me and was making expressing an observation.

I smell what you're stepping in. On one hand, your son is being trusted to be a "Guardian of the Community" with all the rights and responsibilities that come with it. But on the other the state, in all its infinite wisdom, says he's not responsible enough yet.

Exactly. How can he be mature enough to carry a gun at work but not when he isn't? Maybe the age should be changed to 18 or 21 for both.

mojo84 wrote:

TresHuevos wrote:

mojo84 wrote:Yeah, he and I are pretty up on the laws and rules. Just seems odd to me and was making expressing an observation.

I smell what you're stepping in. On one hand, your son is being trusted to be a "Guardian of the Community" with all the rights and responsibilities that come with it. But on the other the state, in all its infinite wisdom, says he's not responsible enough yet.

Exactly. How can he be mature enough to carry a gun at work but not when he isn't? Maybe the age should be changed to 18 or 21 for both.

Your son may be the exception, but he is definitely not the rule. I personally think 18 is too young. Again, there may be an exceptionally mature teenager
that would be fine carrying. But, most 18 y.o's ......no.

gemini wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

TresHuevos wrote:

mojo84 wrote:Yeah, he and I are pretty up on the laws and rules. Just seems odd to me and was making expressing an observation.

I smell what you're stepping in. On one hand, your son is being trusted to be a "Guardian of the Community" with all the rights and responsibilities that come with it. But on the other the state, in all its infinite wisdom, says he's not responsible enough yet.

Exactly. How can he be mature enough to carry a gun at work but not when he isn't? Maybe the age should be changed to 18 or 21 for both.

Your son may be the exception, but he is definitely not the rule. I personally think 18 is too young. Again, there may be an exceptionally mature teenager
that would be fine carrying. But, most 18 y.o's ......no.

I disagree with your reasoning. It all depends on how the person is raised and what his/her values are. When I was 18 it was not uncommon for that age group to be considered mature, depending where you were at. Eighteen year olds today, in a lot of cases from rural areas and cities, are much more mature than Paris Hilton was at 25. Mature 18 year olds can be found everywhere and I would venture to say there are more mature 18 year olds than immature18 year olds. It's mostly the immature ones you read about in the papers and see in the news. You want to see immature, look at a lot of the young Stars, both movies and music.

gemini wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

TresHuevos wrote:

mojo84 wrote:Yeah, he and I are pretty up on the laws and rules. Just seems odd to me and was making expressing an observation.

I smell what you're stepping in. On one hand, your son is being trusted to be a "Guardian of the Community" with all the rights and responsibilities that come with it. But on the other the state, in all its infinite wisdom, says he's not responsible enough yet.

Exactly. How can he be mature enough to carry a gun at work but not when he isn't? Maybe the age should be changed to 18 or 21 for both.

Your son may be the exception, but he is definitely not the rule. I personally think 18 is too young. Again, there may be an exceptionally mature teenager
that would be fine carrying. But, most 18 y.o's ......no.

I don't. Entered the military at age 17 (though mom and dad had to countersign the enlistment), so technically could carry a machinegun, though I didn't until I was 18. I'm tired of the extended adolescence to 26 (ACA aka Obamacare). The reason today's 18 year olds are challenged is that Mommy Government doesn't let them do anything OR suffer the consequences of anything until they're 30. Current law in US and Texas is you can buy and carry (in TX) and AR-15 semi-auto at 18. You can own a handgun at 17 in TX though you have to have someone else gift it to you due to Federal law. I bought a semi .223/556 gun when I was 18, with money saved from Reserve service. Dad from CT was surprised I could do it, but once he shot he was hooked.

Let's get over it. 18/19 year old MEN (now women too) serve us and help us keep safe. The least we owe them is qualification for CHL... and also think they ought to be allowed to drink a beer, even though I'm out of that game now.

My .02 from a Navy vet,

I don't think there is an easy answer... most of the 18 yo's I know shouldn't have a chl. But there are exceptions and maybe there should be an exception for that percentage of 18's that are different.... perhaps the military or security officer credentials as a prerequisite?

Maybe the age should be changed to 18 or 21 for both.

don't give them any ideas or they will undoubtedly raise the age vs lower it.

For know maybe he can run his errands on the way to or from work...

ScottDLS wrote:
Let's get over it. 18/19 year old MEN (now women too) serve us and help us keep safe. The least we owe them is qualification for CHL... and also think they ought to be allowed to drink a beer, even though I'm out of that game now.

,

You do realize a Military service member can get a TX CHL at 18, 19, 20 years old.. Yes?
http://dps.texas.gov/RSD/CHL/faqs/index.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

MeMelYup wrote:

gemini wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

TresHuevos wrote:

mojo84 wrote:Yeah, he and I are pretty up on the laws and rules. Just seems odd to me and was making expressing an observation.

I smell what you're stepping in. On one hand, your son is being trusted to be a "Guardian of the Community" with all the rights and responsibilities that come with it. But on the other the state, in all its infinite wisdom, says he's not responsible enough yet.

Exactly. How can he be mature enough to carry a gun at work but not when he isn't? Maybe the age should be changed to 18 or 21 for both.

Your son may be the exception, but he is definitely not the rule. I personally think 18 is too young. Again, there may be an exceptionally mature teenager
that would be fine carrying. But, most 18 y.o's ......no.

I disagree with your reasoning. It all depends on how the person is raised and what his/her values are. When I was 18 it was not uncommon for that age group to be considered mature, depending where you were at. Eighteen year olds today, in a lot of cases from rural areas and cities, are much more mature than Paris Hilton was at 25. Mature 18 year olds can be found everywhere and I would venture to say there are more mature 18 year olds than immature18 year olds. It's mostly the immature ones you read about in the papers and see in the news. You want to see immature, look at a lot of the young Stars, both movies and music.

Not a good argument for issuing 18 year old's a CHL (and I'm not arguing against it). When you say it depends on how the person is raised and what his values are you're introducing subjective criteria to the process which in the context of issuing CHL's would make issuance arbitrary for those under 21. The law has to be objective and it side steps the issue by assuming that people continue to mature with age, and setting a minimum age for that hoped for maturity.

There apparently are exceptions, as E.Marquez points out, but the exception is based on objective criteria such as military service. Either of my sons would have been mature enough at 18 but I can't say the same about some of their friends. I'm comfortable with exceptions, such as for those in military service, but I don't think it's a good idea for any 18 year old to be eligible for a CHL.

Based on what I am seeing from OCT and OCTC, there are plenty of people well over 21 that aren't mature or level headed enough to carry guns much less own them. However, we have to be careful when making laws to not make them in a way they can't be consistently applied as possible.

I understand the 18 vs 21 argument. I think my son is definitely one of the exceptions when it comes to 18 year olds being able to get a level III license to carry a firearm for work or a CHL. Funny thing, during his class to get his level III license, there were a couple young military vets attending that was asking him for advise as they said they had little to no training with handguns.

However, with that said, I was shocked when he let me know he had signed up for the level III training at the request of his boss as I had no idea at the time an 18 year old could get a license to carry while working.

mojo84 wrote:Based on what I am seeing from OCT and OCTC, there are plenty of people well over 21 that aren't mature or level headed enough to carry guns much less own them. However, we have to be careful when making laws to not make them in a way they can't be consistently applied as possible.

I understand the 18 vs 21 argument. I think my son is definitely one of the exceptions when it comes to 18 year olds being able to get a level III license to carry a firearm for work or a CHL. Funny thing, during his class to get his level III license, there were a couple young military vets attending that was asking him for advise as they said they had little to no training with handguns.

However, with that said, I was shocked when he let me know he had signed up for the level III training at the request of his boss as I had no idea at the time an 18 year old could get a license to carry while working.

I would take that as a compliment for your son. I have several Level III qualified guards working for me that I don't trust at an armed site so they stay working Level II posts. There's a ton of liability that comes with it. So, if your son's boss feels confident in his maturity and decision making then he's putting company money behind him.

TresHuevos wrote:

mojo84 wrote:Based on what I am seeing from OCT and OCTC, there are plenty of people well over 21 that aren't mature or level headed enough to carry guns much less own them. However, we have to be careful when making laws to not make them in a way they can't be consistently applied as possible.

I understand the 18 vs 21 argument. I think my son is definitely one of the exceptions when it comes to 18 year olds being able to get a level III license to carry a firearm for work or a CHL. Funny thing, during his class to get his level III license, there were a couple young military vets attending that was asking him for advise as they said they had little to no training with handguns.

However, with that said, I was shocked when he let me know he had signed up for the level III training at the request of his boss as I had no idea at the time an 18 year old could get a license to carry while working.

I would take that as a compliment for your son. I have several Level III qualified guards working for me that I don't trust at an armed site so they stay working Level II posts. There's a ton of liability that comes with it. So, if your son's boss feels confident in his maturity and decision making then he's putting company money behind him.

Thanks for the comments. I thought the same.

Last time I checked, you can carry a gun in your employment once you hit 18. Some police departments allow for "under 21" officers so long as they have a bachelors degree as well. As of this year if I'm not mistaken, even Bexar County has lowered it's age requirement for a deputy (Read below for more details) to 19 & 9 months. The age requirements are ridiculously across the boards here in Texas. Age requirements for jobs carrying a gun vary from 18-26yrs of age as I have seen during my job searching. (Even lower if you consider military.) I have no problem with an age requirement, but I would rather see 21 across the board. I am sick and tired of seeing "Age Requirement: 23 (due to insurance)," as to me, it seems unfair disqualification from jobs for young people that can otherwise legally perform such jobs. How can one employer compared to another say that a 21yr old can work for this company, but not another, due to age requirements. Can anybody else say discrimination based on age?

How can a 18yr old get a Class A Intrastate CDL, but not be allowed to get a job until he's 25 due to "Insurance requirements?" That kind of stuff really throws me off. Sure employers can have restrictions, but age restrictions are hurting young people looking for work. You can get your Intrastate CDL at 18, your Interstate CDL at 21, but no job until you're 23, or 25, or 26?


-Bexar County
I was recently told by an official at Bexar County, that the hiring age has been reduced to 19 & 9 months, which includes firearm qualification to carry as an officer. The two main Deputy positions, are Adult Detention Deputies, and Patrol Deputies. To become a Patrol Deputy, I was informed that you must be a Adult Detention Deputy. The real kicker, is that they no longer offer peace officer training for Deputies. MEANING, as explained to me, that if a deputy wants to work patrol, he must save up his own money, and pay to attend the Police Academy on his own time, should he be able to with his work schedule. (Doubtful in my mind.) What happened to the taxes going to the seventh largest municipality in the United States? Can the county not afford to train it's own officers? What might they require next? For Deputies who want to patrol buy and maintain their own patrol vehicles? I may be pessimistic right now, but goodness are things strange these days.


To sum up my feelings, as I may have just been ranting on, I just want there to be one age requirement, and further considerations based on something other than insurance reasons, such as whether or not the employer feels comfortable employing the 18yr old with a gun. Doesn't each employer already consider whether or not the believe we are fit for the job? If you've got a 20yr old who seems as sharp as a spoon, but an 18 year old who appears to be responsible and mature, I'm sure I know who you'd employ as an armed guard or any other jobs. I understand age requirements, but age requirements I believe shouldn't vary from company to company. It just doesn't seem right to me.