Texas HB 47

[dldeuce]

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

So are you trying to say that legislators on both sides of the CHL issue thought that everyone that was inclined to carry would sign up right away for the CHL training and DPS bureaucracy? That only a few hundred thousand would sign up out of 25million was accidental? Oh yeah, they intended for the few hundred thousand to get the CHL, but they also intended that the rest of the population wouldn't.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[dldeuce]

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.

So, let's assume this person has been carrying the handgun in the car for years, which is perfectly legal and no training is required at all. He should have to pay $120 and sit through 8 hours of class to stand at the gas pump or go into the convenience store with the very same gun? Hmmm, I wonder why no one is willing to tackle that point I've been making.

[9MMare]

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.

Minority? Why does that matter? It seems to work here and if it works, no amount of state legislators who feel differently...in my state or any other...makes mandatory anything right.

I guess we (some of us) were trying to explore what makes mandatory requirements worthwhile.....are they effective? Just claiming 'it's the only way they'd let us' is a terrible reason IMO. It may be true....but all it does is lead to more govt control (over anything).

[farronwolf]

Minority? Why does that matter? It seems to work here and if it works, no amount of state legislators who feel differently...in my state or any other...makes mandatory anything right.

I guess we (some of us) were trying to explore what makes mandatory requirements worthwhile.....are they effective? Just claiming 'it's the only way they'd let us' is a terrible reason IMO. It may be true....but all it does is lead to more govt control (over anything).

In order to determine if it is worthwhile or not you would have to put the figures together to see whether the conviction rates are better or worse in states that don't require training vs. those that do. I have posted the numbers for Texas, and they are extremely low, but I have yet to see any numbers from any other states.

[Hopyard]

So are you trying to say that legislators on both sides of the CHL issue thought that everyone that was inclined to carry would sign up right away for the CHL training and DPS bureaucracy? That only a few hundred thousand would sign up out of 25million was accidental? Oh yeah, they intended for the few hundred thousand to get the CHL, but they also intended that the rest of the population wouldn't.

Don't put words in my mouth or the legislatures. That wasn't the intent. You know, just because folks here on this
b0ard carry, doesn't mean EVERYONE just naturally thinks its the greatest idea in the world.

[Hopyard]

So are you trying to say that legislators on both sides of the CHL issue thought that everyone that was inclined to carry would sign up right away for the CHL training and DPS bureaucracy? That only a few hundred thousand would sign up out of 25million was accidental? Oh yeah, they intended for the few hundred thousand to get the CHL, but they also intended that the rest of the population wouldn't.

Don't put words in my mouth or the legislatures. That wasn't the intent. You know, just because folks here on this
b0ard carry, doesn't mean EVERYONE just naturally thinks its the greatest idea in the world. Its been guestimated that of the 300,000 + licenses outstanding only a small % of license holders carry regularly. Everyone is free to car carry (unless they
are a criminal or insane) but relatively few actually do.

The present training requirement isn't a bar to carry for anyone who is serous about doing it.
That said, I think the training could be done far more effectively and inexpensively, and uniformly if DPS
put a computerized learning style training program on-line, or available on DVD or similar.

If it were done that way at least ALL would be getting exactly the same message. Now, the law is presented
as filtered through the minds of the instructors; and I doubt exactly the same messages are being conveyed
in every classroom.

[velo99]

I actually enjoyed my class. It`s not often that you get that many gun people in one place, discussing the issues of chl. My instructor is an active duty sherriff, who is dedicated to his profession. He regularly attends meeting and conventions as a LEO and instructor. I felt pretty confident he was quailfied and unbiased in his presentation. He had short discussion periods between some of the subjects and always had time to answer a question. I still think an 8 hour course is preferrable
As far as the guy at the gas pump, leave your gun on the seat within easy reach. If you take it into the store, SHTF and you shoot someone you will be in big trouble.
Remember we are supposed to follow the law and be above the rest of the fray as chl holders.

[suntzu]

I actually enjoyed my class. It`s not often that you get that many gun people in one place, discussing the issues of chl. My instructor is an active duty sherriff, who is dedicated to his profession. He regularly attends meeting and conventions as a LEO and instructor. I felt pretty confident he was quailfied and unbiased in his presentation. He had short discussion periods between some of the subjects and always had time to answer a question. I still think an 8 hour course is preferrable
As far as the guy at the gas pump, leave your gun on the seat within easy reach. If you take it into the store, SHTF and you shoot someone you will be in big trouble.
Remember we are supposed to follow the law and be above the rest of the fray as chl holders.

I am trying to to get my head wrapped around this. Why on earth do somebody people who profess to support the 2nd A think it is a good idea to have a mandatory CHL class. If I want to hang out with a bunch of guys and talk about a guns I can go out with some biddies and not have to pay the government to allow me to exercise my right.

Thisis getting weird. We have a lot of hunters and other folks in one group that think it is fine to have an AWB because it won't affect them, we have grandmothers with a 1930's revolvers that have not been fired in decades in their nightstands thinking it is OK to have limited capacity magazines, and now we have a bunch of folks thinking it is hunky doory to have mandatory CHL classes....

It feels like I woke up and entered the Twilight Zone.

Fellas's I am here tot tell you that you are not special nor annointed because you went to a class. I don;t give a hoot about anyones stats about CHL holders being these angels. The stats are scewed becuase you are basing it off of a group of folks that have to have a background check and want guns to the rest of the population. If the data ws available or a study was done it would probably show that anyone that can pass a background check for a CHL but chooses not to would probablly have same or close to the same crime rate as CHL holders.

I have seen CHL holders at the range and knwo many of them and they are idiots. Not because they have a CHL, but because they are just plain idiots.

[velo99]

Sun,
Let me explain my position. Like it or not we have to play the game to exercise our 2A in some cases. I am not saying it is right or wrong. I am saying at this point I feel blessed to have been permitted by the state of Texas to carry a concealed weapon. I support the right to self defense in the home without interference. I support having your choice of weapon as defined by common use. I don't support government intrusion into our privacy or registration of our weapons.
When I got my CHL I was green as could be but I wanted to take my RESPONSIBILITY as a CHL holder seriously. I started surfing reading & training. I could be one of those who got a permit does nothing with it and is clueless by choice. Those are the holders who will fail when shtf. They might survive , they might not. They might kill the BG, they might kill the little old lady across the street. IMO I wouldn't want one covering my back.
This is not a game this is not some bs my gun is bigger & my way is better. This is each one of us on this forum contributing & learning to the level he feels comfortable. This forum & the other hundred just like it are the militia.
Together we are strong. Together we are 2A.

[9MMare]

In order to determine if it is worthwhile or not you would have to put the figures together to see whether the conviction rates are better or worse in states that don't require training vs. those that do. I have posted the numbers for Texas, and they are extremely low, but I have yet to see any numbers from any other states.

Please dont regress. We already discussed that criminals dont bother with mandatory training. And if a permit holder decides to commit a crime, then that changes their status, doesnt it? Training would have little to do with that either.

We're discussing whether or not law-abiding permit holders WITH training are safer to the public (& others in general) than the same WITHOUT. And there seems to be nothing outstanding that shows there is. Your data didnt show this. You're right, I'm not sure there is data on it but again....if it was an obvious issue, there probably would be.

[9MMare]

I actually enjoyed my class. It`s not often that you get that many gun people in one place, discussing the issues of chl. My instructor is an active duty sherriff, who is dedicated to his profession. He regularly attends meeting and conventions as a LEO and instructor. I felt pretty confident he was quailfied and unbiased in his presentation. He had short discussion periods between some of the subjects and always had time to answer a question. I still think an 8 hour course is preferrable
As far as the guy at the gas pump, leave your gun on the seat within easy reach. If you take it into the store, SHTF and you shoot someone you will be in big trouble.
Remember we are supposed to follow the law and be above the rest of the fray as chl holders.

I've enjoyed my classes too.

But none was mandatory. No one disputes that training is important. Some of us, however, are disputing whether or not mandatory training makes any real difference in the public's safety from permit holders. Because there are states with no such requirements and there isnt anything that shows there are more incidents with permit holders in states with mandatory training requirements and those without.

[9MMare]

. I am saying at this point I feel blessed to have been permitted by the state of Texas to carry a concealed weapon. I support the right to self defense in the home without interference.

This just makes me sad.

Just like how sad I feel when I read that it takes 3 or 6 or 18 months for law-abiding citizens to RECEIVE the cc permit they lawfully applied for. THere is NO EXCUSE for that time frame and people just are thrilled to death when it comes 2 weeks earlier! Grateful.

It makes me sick, the hoops we have to jump thru.

[Hopyard]

How come you guys in WA are so concerned about what we do here in TX?

We are nice to you. We recognize your license even though you have no training requirement.
You won't reciprocate and you don't recognize ours--- though our folks are at least recipients of some
training and have demonstrated that they know which end the bullet comes out of.

Time to dismount from the high horse.

[dldeuce]

Don't put words in my mouth or the legislatures. That wasn't the intent. You know, just because folks here on this
b0ard carry, doesn't mean EVERYONE just naturally thinks its the greatest idea in the world.

Are you a legislator? If not, then I didn't put words into your mouth. Even though you're saying don't put words in your mouth, I don't have to. The words are coming out of your mouth right here.

The legislators and a lot of folks just like in this thread didn't think it was a good idea, and still don't, to open up CHL or open carry of handguns to the whole population. They intended to not do that. It wasn't an accident.

[dldeuce]

The present training requirement isn't a bar to carry for anyone who is serous about doing it.

Who are you kidding? It's certainly a barrier to anyone who doesn't have $250 to spend on government bureaucracy and unnecessary training on top of the cost of even an inexpensive gun and ammunition. It's certainly a barrier to everyone for the time frame that the DPS takes to issue the license, and we've seen indefinite delays in this state and others at the whim of DPS in flagrant violation of the law. Plus, who gave you or anyone else the authority to dare tell people how serious they need to be before they can exercise a fundamental God given right?