TexasCHLforum.com

Oldgringo wrote:Things in Oldgringo's world may be a little simpler and less defined than in the world of others? For instance: knowing the law of concealed carry is not synonymous with knowing the rules of concealed carry.

The rules of concealed carry can be imparted on a reasonably intelligent and mature adult in four hours. Learning the law of concealed carry probably takes years longer. Not to pick at nits, I'm just sayin'...

If someone already knows the rules, making them take a class is a waste of their time and money. Just sayin'

If someone takes a class and still doesn't know the rules, the class was a waste of their time and money. Just sayin'
(No judgement on whether the fault lies with the student or the teacher. It could be either or both.)

Let's lower the 10 hour minimum and make the class optional. Some people want or need a prep class. Some people don't. We're all adults so the government should stop playing mommy and let us choose what's right for us. If we pass we pass. If we fail we fail. Isn't that what freedom is all about? Opportunity. The opportunity to succeed or fail like adults.

Assuming the test and fees are reasonable restrictions, unlike literacy tests and poll taxes for voting.

Jumping Frog wrote:

tbrown wrote:Maybe the CHL written test should be done at DPS offices like the DL written test. Get randomly selected questions from a big pool. We would either have to know the answers or fail.

Sounds pretty elitist to me.

What's the purpose of GC §411.188. HANDGUN PROFICIENCY REQUIREMENT?

If the purpose is to make sure we know the law, then testing is the best way to ensure that. The class could be any length from 4 hours to 10 hours, as long as the person passes the test. The class could even be optional, because the tests do more to demonstrate knowledge and proficiency than sitting in a classroom. Is testing elitist? Maybe, but it's a lot less elitist than testing and requiring someone to have both the leisure time and the discretionary income to take a class before they're allowed to take the test.

If the purpose is to make applicants jump through hoops, then it's successful, but it infringes on the individual's right to bear arms without any benefit to society as a whole. So, whether someone favors individual rights or collective rights, they must admit that jumping through hoops to exercise a right serves no legitimate purpose. If that's the purpose, we should get rid of the proficiency requirement completely, like we did with literacy tests for voting.

If the purpose is to transfer money from one pocket to another, then we should get rid of it along with other socialist plans to redistribute wealth.

So you can see that we should figure out the purpose of the proficiency requirement and then change the rule to accomplish what society is legitimately trying to accomplish and remove the illegitimate hoops that infringe our human rights.

Maybe the CHL written test should be done at DPS offices like the DL written test. Get randomly selected questions from a big pool. We would either have to know the answers or fail. If they did that, I think lower minimums would be great. Good instructors can teach shorter classes and still have a high pass rate. Mediocre instructors might have to teach longer classes, or tutor their students who don't pass the first time.

If DPS published the first time pass rates for students by instructor, new applicants would have extra information to help them pick an instructor.

I have heard of and met a lot of new CHLers who

• don't know where is off limits
• don't understand the 30.06 law
• don't know churches are no longer off limits unless there's 30.06 notice
• don't know the Chapter 9 rules for deadly force
• don't even know the Chapter 9 rules for force
• don't know there's a difference between MPA and the castle doctrine
• are confused about "printing"
• are confused about CHL and alcohol or prescription drugs
• aren't familiar with their carry gun
• know little or nothing about nonviolent dispute resolution

Should I go on? It looks like 10 hours is not enough for a lot of instructors to teach the required classroom topics in a useful way.