Rumors about future CHL classes?

[M4Dogg]

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.

[DoubleActionCHL]

On one renewal, the Instructor will go to another Instructor to shoot the course, then two years later we will have to go to DPS to shoot again.

Chas.

That's what we were told at the last instructor renewal, although the trooper said DPS is considering moving the CHL student test to an online vendor and HINTED that they were discussing the possibility of online CHL video courses. It was a big IF and LONG WAY OFF hint, but the fact that they're even seriously talking about it is bothersome. I'm afraid this could go the way of Defensive Driving.

I take this very seriously, but I get the idea that DPS does not. The whole program seems to have been created with a wink and a nod. The test questions are embarrassingly absurd and they concentrate on the more trivial concepts. In my opinion, a quarter of the test should be dedicated to the use of and consequences of using force and deadly force. Another quarter should address places and situations the CHL holder can't carry. To me, the test insults the intelligence of everyone who takes it. They should at least attempt to make it challenging, rather than...

John has 2 apples and Sally gives him 3 more. How many apples does John have?
a) Purple
b) Gettysburg Address
c) Sir Isaac Newton
d) 5

[Crossfire]

On one renewal, the Instructor will go to another Instructor to shoot the course, then two years later we will have to go to DPS to shoot again.

Chas.

That's what we were told at the last instructor renewal, although the trooper said DPS is considering moving the CHL student test to an online vendor and HINTED that they were discussing the possibility of online CHL video courses. It was a big IF and LONG WAY OFF hint, but the fact that they're even seriously talking about it is bothersome. I'm afraid this could go the way of Defensive Driving.

I take this very seriously, but I get the idea that DPS does not. The whole program seems to have been created with a wink and a nod. The test questions are embarrassingly absurd and they concentrate on the more trivial concepts. In my opinion, a quarter of the test should be dedicated to the use of and consequences of using force and deadly force. Another quarter should address places and situations the CHL holder can't carry. To me, the test insults the intelligence of everyone who takes it. They should at least attempt to make it challenging, rather than...

John has 2 apples and Sally gives him 3 more. How many apples does John have?
a) Purple
b) Gettysburg Address
c) Sir Isaac Newton
d) 5

[mr.72]

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.

[DoubleActionCHL]

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.

Call it what you will. I take issue with the state creating an effective industry and then killing it with the stroke of a pen. Personally, I make my living elsewhere, but the classes are a nice side job. More than that, I enjoy teaching and I feel like I'm making a difference.

I don't believe a license should be required to carry, but it is... and here we are. As long as the state is going to require that CHL holders take a class and we instructors are required to teach certain concepts, I'd appreciate it if the test was at least a bit challenging and actually addressed the pertinent material. Otherwise, we're making a mockery of the whole program. I'm not one of them, but I'd be willing to bet that there are instructors out there who do bare minimum in the teaching department because the test is so very simple.

[fizteach]

The right to bear arms is a right, not a privilege. I am glad the state let's us exercise our right, after we pay our concealed-carry tax.

[Zee]

The right to bear arms is a right, not a privilege. I am glad the state let's us exercise our right, after we pay our concealed-carry tax.

I've always felt the federal government acknowledged the right and the state took it away but will rent it back to us.

[chabouk]

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.

This forum's members are not a representative sample of people who have taken and passed a Texas CHL course. Just being here proves they're interested in more than the basics, so they're not typical, at all.

Look at all the examples we have of duly-licensed CHLs (and CHL instructors!) who don't really know what the law is. How many times have we seen people who have had a CHL since '96 ask about hospitals and churches, since "the law says those are off limits"? How many threads have there been about the post office?

I really do think this is the best-educated gun forum when it comes to one state's specific laws, but birds of a feather flock together. The other birds (those without a clue) are flittering about all over the state, still stuck in the mindset of "if you shoot a burglar and he falls out the window, you better drag him inside!"

[Dudley]

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.

Looking at the 2008 election, you should have the same kind of class and assessment before someone can vote.

[M4Dogg]

This forum's members are not a representative sample of people who have taken and passed a Texas CHL course. Just being here proves they're interested in more than the basics, so they're not typical, at all.

Look at all the examples we have of duly-licensed CHLs (and CHL instructors!) who don't really know what the law is. How many times have we seen people who have had a CHL since '96 ask about hospitals and churches, since "the law says those are off limits"? How many threads have there been about the post office?

I really do think this is the best-educated gun forum when it comes to one state's specific laws, but birds of a feather flock together. The other birds (those without a clue) are flittering about all over the state, still stuck in the mindset of "if you shoot a burglar and he falls out the window, you better drag him inside!"

I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me or what but I know when I took my CHL class, there was a kid in there who barely looked 18 (I'm sure he was 21 though, as at the end of the day his TR-100 paperwork was finalized and he passed the tests), he barely spoke English (he said he was a Russian immigrant), and had never handled a gun before in his entire life - he both said this and also demonstrated this when we got to the range portion of the day.

It's funny, several years ago when I was a "gun novice" I took heard/thought about things like "if you shoot him, drag him inside" - I have not once ever came across any stipulations or points in the penal code about differences between a shoot inside or outside your house.

[mr.72]

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: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.

[Zee]

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: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.

Its nothing but de-caf for you from here on.

[fizteach]

Mr72 needs no decaf.It's the non supporters of the Second Amendment, which requires no training, who need caffiene so that they can wake up and smell the coffee. It would also behoove them to smell the stink of the gungrabbers who would take all guns and ammunition away from us so they can better control the populace.

After all, it is for the children, so that we can keep them safe from evil guns.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Stick to the issues and not very lightly veiled personal insults and attacks or I'll lock this thread in a heartbeat. The OP was about changes to future CHL classes and the "usual suspects" have once again turned it into a purist v. traitor diatribe.

Even if this thread had not been hijacked, if you can't disagree without being disagreeable, then take it somewhere else.

Chas.

[fizteach]

Sorry