Texas HB 47

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dldeuce

This is the result you expect. I think it's fair to assume that you oppose that result. Why do you oppose Texans carrying under CHL who are not as well prepared or well versed in these laws?

---

It is a given if less time is spent teaching/learning material, the result will be people being less prepared or knowledgeable. Why would I oppose folks being less knowledgeable about carry laws or anything else for that matter? Well lets see. The less knowledgeable you are about something the more likely you are to get it wrong, and have to suffer the consequences.

You know what happens when you assume don't you.

Why do you support people being less knowledgeable about the laws that they are carrying under?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 9MMare

So instead if clarifying whether or not you believe it is effective, or Constitutional, or appropriate, you fall back on....it's what the govt demands?

Paycheck or preference to accept the govt's restrictions on ou rights without question?

---

Read the title of the thread and the text of HB 47, yes that is what the thread is supposed to be about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by farronwolf

It is a given if less time is spent teaching/learning material, the result will be people being less prepared or knowledgeable. Why would I oppose folks being less knowledgeable about carry laws or anything else for that matter? Well lets see. The less knowledgeable you are about something the more likely you are to get it wrong, and have to suffer the consequences.

---

So by suffer the consequences you mean they are more likely to violate the law right? They are more likely to commit crimes against society right? You think that's more likely, and you oppose that right?

Hmm, lets see, do I oppose people violating the law?

Why yes, yes I do oppose people violating the law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by farronwolf

Read the title of the thread and the text of HB 47, yes that is what the thread is supposed to be about.

---

We have asked, politely, for you to support reasons for that mandatory training. And I quoted your answer...because the govt mandates it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 9MMare

We have asked, politely, for you to support reasons for that mandatory training. And I quoted your answer...because the govt mandates it.

---

Whether I don't like it, you don't like it or whomever doesn't like it, mandatory training is a reality, and that isn't likely to change any time soon. Living in a dream world and simply wishing it wasn't so does no good. That isn't reality.

It is sort of like discussing what coinage the tooth fairy should leave.

If you want me to say, yes, I support mandatory training for CHL's, I will. Are you happy? Or would you be happier if we had no mandatory training and no CHL like it was before 1995? Because that is the reality of the situation, without the mandatory training there would be no CHL, and I prefer we have CHL in Texas.

Which would you prefer? I know you would prefer no training to get the CHL. Guess what that is pretty much fantasy, you are free to have all of it you want.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by farronwolf

Whether I don't like it, you don't like it or whomever doesn't like it, mandatory training is a reality, and that isn't likely to change any time soon. Living in a dream world and simply wishing it wasn't so does no good. That isn't reality.

It is sort of like discussing what coinage the tooth fairy should leave.

If you want me to say, yes, I support mandatory training for CHL's, I will. Are you happy? Or would you be happier if we had no mandatory training and no CHL like it was before 1995? Because that is the reality of the situation, without the mandatory training there would be no CHL, and I prefer we have CHL in Texas.

Which would you prefer? I know you would prefer no training to get the CHL. Guess what that is pretty much fantasy, you are free to have all of it you want.

---

Thanks.

The support of training to enable cc permits.

Your fantasy is my reality here in WA. And we dont seem to be the worse for it. I guess that is my point. I commend you for being a teacher of important material and skills for TX permit holders....it IS important stuff.

Where we differ in opinion I guess, is in it's necessity. If you think its necessity is because it's the only way you are allowed to exercise a right...well, dont know what to say. IMO that should never be a goal but something that is continually challenged with a goal of being overcome.

I am not being arrogant...I, now more than ever, see the possibility that such infringements (and more) will be brought down on me in my state. The knee-jerk acceptance of it elsewhere...with no necessity founded in reality....depresses me.

For the record, I believe in Hopyard's online testing...and would support that. Knowing the laws does protect us as individual carriers AND may lessen the possibility of more accidentally breaking laws (both legitmate and 'socially acceptable') that make us ALL look bad and put our rights to carry at risk. (Imagine that...a RIGHT being at risk. )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by farronwolf

Hmm, lets see, do I oppose people violating the law?

Why yes, yes I do oppose people violating the law.

---

You support the specific number of hours mandated for training, not just because the state mandates it like you've claimed, but because you believe CHL holders will commit crimes against society without at least that much training. Despite all your fantasy land comments, you oppose this bill that you've admitted will allow more people in society to exercise their 2A rights, and you oppose that because you believe law abiding citizens will become criminals without the mandated training. You can weave, bob, and evade all you want, but there are two camps in this thread, and many others I've participated in over the years, and it's clear which camp you're in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dldeuce

You support the specific number of hours mandated for training, not just because the state mandates it like you've claimed, but because you believe CHL holders will commit crimes against society without at least that much training. Despite all your fantasy land comments, you oppose this bill that you've admitted will allow more people in society to exercise their 2A rights, and you oppose that because you believe law abiding citizens will become criminals without the mandated training. You can weave, bob, and evade all you want, but there are two camps in this thread, and many others I've participated in over the years, and it's clear which camp you're in.

---

You really need to stop trying to think for other people and conscentrate on that they actually say.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 9MMare

Thanks.

The support of training to enable cc permits.

Your fantasy is my reality here in WA. And we dont seem to be the worse for it. I guess that is my point. I commend you for being a teacher of important material and skills for TX permit holders....it IS important stuff.

Where we differ in opinion I guess, is in it's necessity. If you think its necessity is because it's the only way you are allowed to exercise a right...well, dont know what to say. IMO that should never be a goal but something that is continually challenged with a goal of being overcome.

I am not being arrogant...I, now more than ever, see the possibility that such infringements (and more) will be brought down on me in my state. The knee-jerk acceptance of it elsewhere...with no necessity founded in reality....depresses me.

For the record, I believe in Hopyard's online testing...and would support that. Knowing the laws does protect us as individual carriers AND may lessen the possibility of more accidentally breaking laws (both legitmate and 'socially acceptable') that make us ALL look bad and put our rights to carry at risk. (Imagine that...a RIGHT being at risk. )

---

Your state and a few others that don't require any type of training are the minority. For better or worse, that is the reality of what each state legislators have decided.

For the states that require such training, that is the only way concealed carry was going to be allowed. If it is a question of not carrying at all, or carrying after certain requirements, certainly you would agree that meeting those requirements and carrying beats the alternative.

Taking Texas as an example, the initial law that allowed concealed carry in 1995, has undergone quite a few changes, almost all being for the good. As long as things head in that direction, and things don't start coming up that head the other way, we are making progress.

If your state chooses to put more restrictions in place for whatever reason, it will be because those elected by the people make the changes. Hopefully they don't get knee jerky over this past incident. Knee jerk is never good IMO.

HB 47 has the language for online testing in it, if it passes, we will have to see if that is left in there. One question though. You would support the online requirement as an alternative to the classroom portion of the training, isn't that still mandating they spend the same amount of time learning the same materials before they are eligible to get their CHL?

If I offer the online course, I will still have to test them for both proficiency and knowledge, and sign off on the CHL 100 before it is valid. At that point, we really are simply splitting hairs.

What amazes me is how many here seem to think the American people are to stupid to understand the law without taking a formal state approved course. And that the approved course must contain a government mandated minimum number of hours. Some states enjoy constitutional carry no required course. Can someone please provide proof or examples of the severe problems being suffered by the people of those states due to the lack of a mandate for training?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by farronwolf

You really need to stop trying to think for other people and conscentrate on that they actually say.

---

I'll leave it to the other readers who have already called you on it just like I have.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jrclen

What amazes me is how many here seem to think the American people are to stupid to understand the law without taking a formal state approved course. And that the approved course must contain a government mandated minimum number of hours. Some states enjoy constitutional carry no required course. Can someone please provide proof or examples of the severe problems being suffered by the people of those states due to the lack of a mandate for training?

---

It just so happens that Texas is one of those states. It's been that way for almost 200 years. There is no prohibition on possession of long guns in Texas. If you want to take a stroll with an AR-15, loaded up with a fresh 30 round magazine, you're good to go. No training or licensing is required. Also, no training or licensing is required to carry a handgun in your car. It's only if you take the 38 special with five rounds out of your car to stand at the gas pump that all of the sudden you need all this training.

It doesn't have anything to do with training. The intent was to continue the tradition of prohibiting most of the citizens from exercising their rights.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dldeuce

It just so happens that Texas is one of those states. It's been that way for almost 200 years. There is no prohibition on possession of long guns in Texas. If you want to take a stroll with an AR-15, loaded up with a fresh 30 round magazine, you're good to go. No training or licensing is required. Also, no training or licensing is required to carry a handgun in your car. It's only if you take the 38 special with five rounds out of your car to stand at the gas pump that all of the sudden you need all this training.

It doesn't have anything to do with training. The intent was to continue the tradition of prohibiting most of the citizens from exercising their rights.

---

re: Part in bold--- IMO what you wrote is complete and total nonsense. (5 paragraph rant deleted)

Wow 4 hours! That should be for renewals only. If its the persons first time they should have to sit through an 8 hour class.