
I think we're getting horribly off topic.
Does anybody have any links to news stories or anything about this?
Return to “CHL Instructor Arrested for Selling CHL-100's”
::Cracks Knuckles::seeker_two wrote:1. Is the violation of a contract b/t a person and the "state" something that we should be handling in a criminal court and with the cost of utilizing the prison system?....or should contract law be left in the civil courts? And just how is the "state" a victim here?PracticalTactical wrote: 1. The state (as elected by the people) was wronged. The instructor voluntarily agreed with the state to do the classes and not just sell the CHL-100s. Said instructor violated that agreement. There should be ramifications, as agreed to when he/she became an instructor. If he/she doesn't like that, he/she shouldn't have become an instructor.
2. See above, the state reserves the ability to use taxpayer funds to prosecute people who don't comply with the law as created by the officials who were elected by the taxpayers who were willing to come out and vote. If the taxpayers don't want to foot this bill, they need to get out and vote for somebody who won't spend the money.
3. I used to think this wouldn't be dangerous, that is until I taught my first few classes. If somebody at my skill level were to buy a CHL-100 without actually taking the class, it's doubtful anything bad would happen. 99.9% of people don't know how to use a gun safely enough to handle it at the range, let alone in a defensive situation. There are also quite a few people out there with no idea about use of force laws.
2. Point taken and vote cast....and yet Perry, Dewhurst, and Co. still got reelected....
3. Again, do you have proof that any of the "bought" CHL's have done anything dangerous? And can you be certain that those who received these CHL's don't know safe gun-handling (which is more a case for NRA gun safety training than CHL training) or proper self-defense protocol?
My opinion: anyone who supports Constitutional Carry but is calling for this instructor's "punishment" really needs to look at the hypocracy of his/her position....
1. The state (as elected by the people) was wronged. The instructor voluntarily agreed with the state to do the classes and not just sell the CHL-100s. Said instructor violated that agreement. There should be ramifications, as agreed to when he/she became an instructor. If he/she doesn't like that, he/she shouldn't have become an instructor.loadedliberal wrote:1. all of us who went through the proper trainingseeker_two wrote:I do have a question or two on this crime.....
1. Who was victimized by the commission of this crime?
2. Why should taxpayer money be spent to prosecute this crime to the fullest?
3. Does the fact that some CHL holders did not attend the class yet have CHL's make the world a more dangerous place?
Thanks in advance for your answers....
2. a crime has been committed and it should be punished
3. Yes. It's gives us all a bad name when something like this happens and having people out there without knowing if they could shoot or understand the law is dangerous for us all.
They go by whatever is on the headstamp, not the actual diameter.SQLGeek wrote:That's weird...especially since the actual size of a .38 Special bullet is .357 inches. Is .38 Spl being superior to .357 Magnum actually in the New Mexico law or is it a rule/regulation? I guess the bonus to that is you load your .357 revolver with .38 Spl and have an easier time qualifying to carrying both. I'm guessing the folks that came up with this one are not gun people.PracticalTactical wrote:It's goofy, because if you qualify with .357 you can't carry .38 special because it's a "higher caliber".