TexasCHLforum.com

Zee wrote: I think more the more really-anti-gun folks begin to shift towards well-lets-take-a-second-look when it appears there is some degree of assurance that someone somewhere is monitoring the whole thing. This is important to some people and these people should be assured.

I am a voter, and I would like some assurance that someone is monitoring your voting. Same logic, right?

I don't think you get it. The whole REASON the 2nd Amendment is in the Bill of Rights in the first place is to EXPRESSLY PREVENT the gov't from monitoring or interfering with your right to keep and bear arms. So you know, it's not a compromise to allow the gov't to do that. It is complete surrender.

I give up!

DoubleActionCHL wrote: You're missing MY point entirely. You're so caught up in the constitutionality and the fact that the class or license shouldn't even be required that you're actually in favor of further dumbing down the class so it truly is a complete waste of time.

I understand your point, and I just disagree with your reasoning.

I think we need to avoid actions that appear to validate the concept that it requires special training or classes for us to exercise our right to carry. So I support your intention of making a class available that is useful and informative and I think we should be able to voluntarily take such a class. But so long as we are forced to participate in an invalid idea (bearing arms requires special training and screening), then we need to be sure that it is shown to be invalid.

So at the time when a legal challenge is offered to remove the licensing restriction or reduce it in TX by law makers, it would be much better if supporters of our rights could point to the fact that the classes and screening have always been a useless waste of time and have not had the result of improving safety or whatever. So I want to remove the teeth from this monster as much as possible.

DoubleActionCHL wrote:Does anyone actually take the defensive driving class seriously? And who here has ever taken it because they actually wanted to learn something? Most people take defensive driving because they have to, not because they want to. It's a royal pain in the behind and folks do everything they can to put as little effort into it as possible.

That is absolutely true, because this is a class that is mandated by the state in order to gain some benefit. At least in terms of Defensive Driving class, you almost always have a choice in the matter (pay the ticket or take Defensive Driving). But still DD is often considered an alternate punishment compared with paying for a ticket.

Likewise, I think the CHL class is regarded exactly the same way. It is a state-mandated waste of time, and IMHO it is truly put in place as an impediment to lawful carry and little else. I don't think DPS or the lawmakers who put this into place actually believe that there is anything worthwhile that is going to be taught. They just figure that by putting a 10-hour class that costs $100-150 in addition to the $140 application fee, most people will not be able to find or take the time to do this. For example, my wife would be carrying right now and for the last year if it were not for the cost (monetary as well as time) of the class. I had to take a day off of my weekend job (which is hard enough to begin with) to take my class and I sold a piece of music equipment to finance the class+fee. So while I sympathize with the instructor's desire to make the class a valuable thing (hey, I am a guitar teacher after all), I do think that this misses the point. The point of the class is to make acquiring a CHL and lawfully carrying a concealed handgun as painful as possible.

If we're going to require a license to carry, I believe the curriculum should actually mean something and the test should challenge the students.

Again I think this misses the point entirely. Rather than making an effort to make the class more difficult, challenging, or valuable, we need to work to get rid of the requirement altogether. It is unconstitutional (subject to your interpretation of the applicability of the Constitution... if it applied to any other "right" than the right to keep and bear arms we would not tolerate such infringement) and it reinforces the idea that guns are intrinsically dangerous and require special, state-sponsored screening and instruction on the part of anyone handling them. In other words, it gives ammo to the antis. It is a mistake, IMHO, for us to continue to give them more and more ammo by saying "let's not make the class easier" or for us to willfully engage in friendly fire with talk about perceived merits of the class and license screening the unworthy from the free exercise of their rights.

Sorry for all of the shooting metaphors :)

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

fizteach wrote:Sorry

My post followed yours but was not directed to your post. Disagreement isn't the problem; the the method of delivery that is growing thin.

Chas.

I know to whom your post was directed.

Sorry about that. It just seems so hypocritical to me, makes me quite upset.

Anyway, Back On Topic: I support whatever movement the State makes that results in less infringement or restriction of our right to carry. So if making a CHL class available online is an option, which may reduce the cost or time necessary to get a CHL, then I am all for it, as in it being an inch further in a thousand-mile journey. I am not of the belief that making something illegal makes it impossible, nor the converse.

I understand the point of CHL instructors who see that they may be run out of business. However the opportunity for that business depends upon the state imposing a restriction to the free exercise of your rights, so I think a few people losing some business opportunity is a fair trade for millions of Texans gaining increased freedom.

Zee wrote:I sure hope not. One of the instructor's tasks is to stop those from getting a CHL who obviously do not need state-approval to carry a loaded gun either due to iffy mental state or inability to safely carry a gun.

This would be a potentially anti-gun factor. No live, in-person assessment of a person's capacity to responsibly carry a gun? It would be like Oswald-style mail-ordering. You know how that ended up.

Wow. So a nut decides (allegedly) to use a RIFLE to commit a CRIME, and that is a reason to restrict law-abiding citizens to carry a concealed handgun? If you are going to use the JFK series of events to restrict the carry of concealed handguns, you really should be trying to get LEOs restricted from carrying concealed handguns since it was Jack Ruby who used a concealed handgun to commit a crime on that day.

Zee, I suppose you support the repeal of the 2nd Amendment? Because that says nothing about screening by the government for your right to keep and bear arms. Suppose the state government were to require a government-approved class, high fees, a test, background checks, proof of proficiency, and the same kinds of restrictions as we have for a CHL in TX in order for you to be able to exercise your freedom of speech? Posting on this forum, for example? Should you have to have a license and prove you know the laws before you can carry a pen and a pad of paper? Or maybe you should be licensed by the state in order to be able to exercise your "freedom of religion"? Perhaps you would like to waive your right to not incriminate yourself unless you have a license and have taken a state-approved class, at your expense? Maybe we can move some of the Fort Hood soldiers into your home until you get a license and take a class to prove you are competent to exercise your 3rd Amendment rights? Howabout if you are subjected to a daily search and siezure of your property until which time you have taken a course and gotten a license to exercise your 4th Amendment rights?

I couldn't agree more, this would be VERY DANGEROUS if it were to happen, but you never know.

Yeah, almost as dangerous as letting people go to church, vote, evade unlawful searches, speak their minds, have a trial in case they are accused of a crime, without being duly screened and licensed by the government.

M4Dogg wrote: M4Dogg wrote:Agreed, but one could also argue that the knowledge gained from the class is truly how one would defende themselves (both physically and legally). Also, some people are stupid enough to kill themselves w/out formal training, thus taking the class helps to protect them from them.

Furthermore, mandating such a training helps to protect ME from them and their stupidity, so thusly I would vote to keep having such formal classes and organization around the CHL license.

And I will vote to keep from letting anyone who does not uniformly support the Bill of Rights from being able to vote at all.

Do you really think that keeping someone from getting a CHL is going to prevent an idiot from injuring you? I guess the only people who can acquire a deadly weapon and do harm to themselves or others are those who are given a CHL by the State of Texas... the reports of other such criminals and fools are fiction?

This is the anti-gun playbook, people!!

The "stupidity" you think you are being protected from is far and away more dangerous when this person does things like getting into a car and driving it on the street. But frankly, the real dangerous stupidity is exercised at the ballot box.

gotta love the so-called "defenders of our rights" who show their elitism once the barrier to lawful carry begins to wear thin.

it's not a right if I have to acquire a license. That's a privilege.

and let's face it: some of us really get a boost out of knowing that we have a privilege that others do not.

the license requirement in itself is an infringement of our rights.