TexasCHLforum.com

Charles L. Cotton wrote:PSC, but you know that already.

I thought PSC was in Brazoria County.

It's hard to tell in that area.

- Jim

frankie_the_yankee wrote:If there were demand for those activities, as there would be if it were a requirement of the state test, there would be places that would meet that demand.

There is a demand, but it is being met by private clubs run by volunteers.

The number of safety officers required for IDPA-type shooting would make a public range costly.

- Jim

Liberty wrote:

seamusTX wrote:These multiple-assailant and magazine-change scenarios are appropriate to police work, but I think they are overkill for a CHL.

They can be a lot of fun in a drill or competition though

I hope I didn't give the wrong impression.

Shooting complicated stages is fun and valuable training. I do it on my own time. However, I don't think it should be required for the CHL shooting test.

BTW, most ranges prohibit multiple targets and moving while shooting. There isn't a range in my county (Galveston) that allows them.

- Jim

Liberty wrote:Has there been issues with CHL holders making bad calls in these situations.

No. I have never heard of a Texas CHL accidentally shooting an innocent person. In the very few cases where a CHL has to shoot, typically one to three shots are fired.

These multiple-assailant and magazine-change scenarios are appropriate to police work, but I think they are overkill for a CHL.

- Jim

Sorry, my memory was faulty.

There are other bases for private parties to sue each other in federal court besides civil rights violations. I don't exactly what they are.

You could write state law in such a way as to relieve someone of civil liability if his actions were taken in self defense, but not otherwise.

I'm pretty sure that's how current Texas law will be interpreted.

If, for example, you accidentally shot someone, you could not be charged or found not guilty in criminal court, and still be sued. That is probably as it should be.

- Jim

Liberty wrote:

frankie_the_yankee wrote:I would also broaden the Castle Doctrine law so that civil immunity would apply if someone was either not charged or if they were no billed after the lawful use of force or deadly force.

This would mean someone like OJ would have gotten off Scott free.

OJ was sued in federal court. That could still happen no matter what a state does.

- Jim

If I could only change one law, I would make having a CHL an exception to Penal Code 46.03, places weapons prohibited, and abolish 46.035.

If I had carte blanche, I would abolish chapter 46, except maybe the part of 46.06 that makes it illegal to transfer a firearm to a minor, criminal, or drunk. Then, of course, CHLs would be unnecessary in Texas. They could still be issued for use in states with reciprocity and NICS bypass, and to carry in schools (otherwise federal law would prohibit that).

I would also amend the Texas Constitution to say

No act of the legislature or regulation or ordinance of any agency or political subdivision shall limit the right of an adult to keep and bear arms, except during an arrest, prison sentence, probation, or parole, or upon a judicial finding of mental incompetence.

- Jim