Texas HB 47

[jrclen]

I could spit the info out in 4 hours, maybe. I could probably teach it all in 6 hours. I certainly would not be able to talk about carry methods or guns, scenarios, or anything else that is helpful to those who are taking the class.

Don't get me wrong. I am all for education. But realistically one person might need very little training and someone else might need 100 hours. The right to keep and bear arms does not come with a training requirement any more than freedom of speech does. Let the individual decide how much training he wishes to get.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[dldeuce]

You do realize that circuit court rulings are only valid in that circuit, not nationwide. You also need to read Heller. No where did the SCOTUS say that regulations can not be put in place for public safety. They did say that DC can not blanketly forbid people from having handguns in their home for self defense. Ok that is a very short summary of a very long ruling.

You can't just brush off an appellate court ruling like that. It's a significant ruling that will influence courts all over the country. I've read the Heller ruling and so have the three justices on the 7th circuit appeals court. I've been listening to the argument you've made since the Heller ruling. I didn't agree with it then, and now I have the 7th Circuit Appeals court backing me up. The states aren't free to regulate our rights away however they please anymore. It was wrong in 1871. It was wrong in 1876. It was wrong in 1995, and it's just as wrong now.

[Mike1956]

Currently, Texas law requires a minimum of 10 hours and maximum of 15 hours including range time for first time CHL applicants. So I can not plan a 16 hour course even if I want to. If they pass the written and handgun proficiency they can not be held in class longer than 15 hours.

The new legislation the way I understand it to be, would say that the minimum classroom time be 4 hours, with no maximum being stated. Based on what I have read so far, that would mean that at the end of 4 hours, the student would be free to leave the classroom portion and I need to be finished with all the required materials and test.

OK, so can you not set up and bill your class to include all the requirements of the state, with additional material covered after those initial requirements are met? The students would be willingly signing up and paying for the required training, plus any additional training you include.

[farronwolf]

Does that also mean that if I am confident that I can drive 130 mph on public roads, I should be able to ignore speed limit signs. Nope. The laws are put in place based on what is considered reasonable for the general public.

The RKBA, at the state level, comes with whatever restrictions each state places on them. That is the simple truth. If the people of that state don't like the restrictions or lack of them, they either enact new laws or remove old ones.

That is exactly what will happen with this Bill. Whatever the outcome, I will abide by the law.

[dldeuce]

We charge for the class, not for the time. If you think my class fee will be reduced because the time that is required is reduced, you are mistaken. I am certain there are instructors that think this is a fantastic idea. I am sure some of them are already cutting the required time short as it is. Those are the ones that are simply out to make a buck, not there to give the students the best class they can.

I have an idea farronwolf. If your teaching skills are so valuable, why not let them stand in the free market on their own without the state mandating we pay you in order to exercise our fundamental rights?

[farronwolf]

OK, so can you not set up and bill your class to include all the requirements of the state, with additional material covered after those initial requirements are met? The students would be willingly signing up and paying for the required training, plus any additional training you include.

I will have one fee. If folks want to stay after the required time, I will not charge them any more for that time. Well within reason. I certainly won't let them come home wth me and keep discussing it indefinately.

[farronwolf]

I have an idea farronwolf. If your teaching skills are so valuable, why not let them stand in the free market on their own without the state mandating we pay you in order to exercise our fundamental rights?

They do stand in the free market, since there are multiple instructors in our area people can choose from. The state doesn't mandate a student pay the instructor, they simply mandate that you receive a CHL 100 from a qualified instructor. If folks want to teach classes for free, they are more than welcome to do so.

[dldeuce]

Does that also mean that if I am confident that I can drive 130 mph on public roads, I should be able to ignore speed limit signs. Nope. The laws are put in place based on what is considered reasonable for the general public.

That old tired canard? Driving vs the Paladium of all fundamental rights?

The RKBA, at the state level, comes with whatever restrictions each state places on them. That is the simple truth. If the people of that state don't like the restrictions or lack of them, they either enact new laws or remove old ones.

That is exactly what will happen with this Bill. Whatever the outcome, I will abide by the law.

You lost. The Supreme Court ruled against you. Our fundamental rights do not come from the government with whatever restrictions the majority want to place on them.

[dldeuce]

They do stand in the free market, since there are multiple instructors in our area people can choose from. The state doesn't mandate a student pay the instructor, they simply mandate that you receive a CHL 100 from a qualified instructor. If folks want to teach classes for free, they are more than welcome to do so.

Your idea of freedom and mine seem to differ quite a bit. It's state mandated training. It's certainly not a free market.

[farronwolf]

That old tired canard? Driving vs the Paladium of all fundamental rights?



You lost. The Supreme Court ruled against you. Our fundamental rights do not come from the government with whatever restrictions the majority want to place on them.

Really? Then why are there still laws related to firearms on the fed or state books. Why are folks worried about the proposed assault weapons ban.

BTW, you are way, way, way off the topic of this thread.

[Toorop]

It appears that there will be a bill introduced this legislative session in Texas, HB 47, which will change the required time for CHL instruction from a minimum of 10 hrs, maximum 15 hrs for first time, to a maximum of 4 hours of instruction required for both first time and renewals and then the range time.

Folks in the know think this has a good chance of passing. It has the NRA support as well. The thought is to bring Texas requirements more in line with some of the other states time requirements.


83(R) HB 47 - Introduced version - Bill Text

I am not so sure I agree with this proposed legislation. We will be required to teach all the same material for first time students, but will have 4-6 hours less to teach it. I don't think the material can be covered adequately if you are simply spitting it out there for them with no time for any discussion.

The instructor/student would have the option of offering longer sessions, but the student would not have to stay. The material would have to put out there, the test given, and then if they want to leave they can. If they wanted to stay for additional classroom time, it would be up to them and the instructor to do more time.

So, for those who have endured the 10+ hrs of a Texas CHL course, what are your thoughts on a speed class that simply highlights the minimum stuff to pass the test and then send you on your way?

There should not be any classes required or anything like that. I don't think it is fair to make people take a class to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights. Sorry but it doesn't matter and the less time people have, even if it is hours, until they are able to exercise their rights the better.

[Toorop]

Wouldn't it be better if you let people volunteer to take the course rather than as a requirement? Whatever happened to freedom? Sounds like a lot of people who are going to support the new AWB because they are scared of freedom. Sorry but freedom is scary and you have to trust that your fellow man will be competent. After all they do you.

[dldeuce]

The Second Amendment clearly states - Shall not be infringed.

Lot's of people, along with gun grabbers in Washington, seem to believe that only applies after the whim of the majority has eliminated the definition of our right altogether. Sure Sure. They won't infringe on what's left of our rights.

Should a woman who is suddenly faced with a dangerous stalker be denied the right to self defense before she can schedule and attend a class?

According to many here, yes absolutely. I'm just curious how much training they think the state should mandate for the stalker she's terrified of.

Does a military veteran or a person who has been handling firearms for 40 years need a 10 hour class?

Again, yes absolutely. How else will he learn to bow down to the government and all their onerous laws limiting his freedoms that he fought so gallantly for?

How many hours does it take to explain the laws and the responsibilities? Are we training lawyers or the bearing of arms?

Let's not forget that we are talking about people's livelihood here. We have a whole government sponsored cottage industry to consider.

Asking an instructor is like asking a car mechanic how long it should take to fix your car. More is always better.

It's not just instructors here. Some people just thrive on following other peoples rules. They want their guns but they have no problem making sure they are amongst an elite group blessed by all the benefits and privileges of the government.

[farronwolf]

There should not be any classes required or anything like that. I don't think it is fair to make people take a class to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights. Sorry but it doesn't matter and the less time people have, even if it is hours, until they are able to exercise their rights the better.

'

The Texas legislature disagrees with you.

Does your state require training?

[dldeuce]

Really? Then why are there still laws related to firearms on the fed or state books.

For the same reason they were put on the books in the first place. Politicians and the government will never voluntarily limit their power in favor of respecting our rights.

Why are folks worried about the proposed assault weapons ban.

We can never rest on our laurels and let the the government decide on what our rights are and what their power over us should be.

BTW, you are way, way, way off the topic of this thread.

Your OP was that you oppose this Texas bill that will make it easier for us to exercise our rights, and you asked for our opinion. That's exactly what I'm doing.