TexasCHLforum.com

tbranch wrote: I don't disagree with the concept but I think the case studies and open classroom discussion have real value in creating understanding of the material. Is it worth 10 hours? That's hard to say...

Tom

I think these case studies etc. can be written into a written training material.

I think the opinions of many CHL instructors, as I have heard about on this and other forums, are varied enough to make open discussion in a classroom have dubious value.

But the question is not "is it worth 10 hours", but rather, "is it worth infringing our 2nd Amendment right?"

IMHO.

It's not. 10 minutes or 10 seconds is infringement. The information does not depend on a human conveyance for it to be effective as a training tool.

I wasn't really sure how to vote in your poll.

I actually liked my CHL class. (Yes, I realize that makes me a freak of nature.) I found it informative, and it certainly made the written test at the end so much easier. I learned things that I didn't know before walking into the class. I left with a better understanding of the law and more prepared to walk around with a gun on my hip.

I've also taken a few extra classes (NRA sponsored, etc.) and attended lectures. I think doing this has been to my benefit, as well as that of society. However, I took these additional classes of my own free will.


However, I'm not comfortable with the government tightening requirements on anything related to our basic rights. I can't help but look through history books and see how this type of thing gets out of hand very quickly. Often, these safety laws start with such good intentions, but they end up being more of a burden than an asset to society.

I voted #6, "other improvements not listed"
We should not have to have a license Period!
You can't fix "stupid" no matter how many laws you pass. You can't make people obey laws. You can only punish them after they have broken the law, if you catch them.

We are all in greater danger from people who do not drive safely, than we are from people who carry guns and don't know how to shoot them or clean them.
That's what I think, OE

mr.72 wrote:"is it worth infringing our 2nd Amendment right?

According to SCOTUS that right is not absolute and is subject to state and federal regulation. Rather than turn this into another 2A thread (we should all be able to carry any weapon at any time without no Federal or State involvement), let's put it back on topic.

While I have extensive training on use of deadly force (US Military and CHLs in other states) and could have done self-study, I actually enjoyed the case studies and the discussion. While opinions varied, the instructor did a good job of getting the point across. 10 hours of it was a bit too much and I agree it could be cut down some. I'm willing to bet the vast majority of CHL applicants have little to no training and no real understanding of the law. We've make great progess with concealed handgun laws in the US. It will not take too many problems for that progress to be eroded.

Tom

Venus Pax wrote:I wasn't really sure how to vote in your poll.

I actually liked my CHL class. (Yes, I realize that makes me a freak of nature.) I found it informative, and it certainly made the written test at the end so much easier. I learned things that I didn't know before walking into the class. I left with a better understanding of the law and more prepared to walk around with a gun on my hip.

I've also taken a few extra classes (NRA sponsored, etc.) and attended lectures. I think doing this has been to my benefit, as well as that of society. However, I took these additional classes of my own free will.

....

Same here. It made me think about things that I probably wouldn't have just reading out of some study guide. And from some of the questions asked during the class, self-study would not hack it for some individuals. Also, if I hadn't taken the CHL class I probably wouldn't have gone on and taken the tactical classes.

man, look at all the noobs!

anyway, I thought the range portion was the "reward" for sittin' through the class!
I agree with the "You can buy a car without knowing how to adjust the timing belt" mentality.

this goes back to the other noobs thread about people knowing the law prior to taking the class. I know I thought I was going to "learn" in my class. If I was supposed to know it, they's gon' teach it. that was my thought process.
I knew how to hit the broad side of the barn. I was no super-secret-squirrell-mallninja-sniper when I took that class. and I took it upon myself to get better. same thing with the law.

but that's just me...

DoubleJ wrote:man, look at all the noobs!

anyway, I thought the range portion was the "reward" for sittin' through the class!
I agree with the "You can buy a car without knowing how to adjust the timing belt" mentality.

this goes back to the other noobs thread about people knowing the law prior to taking the class. I know I thought I was going to "learn" in my class. If I was supposed to know it, they's gon' teach it. that was my thought process.
I knew how to hit the broad side of the barn. I was no super-secret-squirrell-mallninja-sniper when I took that class. and I took it upon myself to get better. same thing with the law.

but that's just me...

I've taken the class four times. I'd give the first instructor a passing grade because back in Fall '95, it was the first class he had taught. There really was something to learn back then so I figure it was worth it. The last three times it was just sit in class, take the test, shoot the gun, nothing but fulfilling a requirement.

Each instructor made mistakes and by this time I knew when they made them. Nothing is gained by trying to correct an instructor in class so you just hope the other students will take the trouble to learn on their own.

Well said ,Annoyed Man.

by The Annoyed Man on Wed Aug 13, 2008 8:00 am

First of all, I don't buy a gun but I field strip it at soon as I get home so that I can both learn how and make sure that it's clean inside. Furthermore, I do range practice pretty regularly.

Secondly, I believe that most people who go to the extent to obtain their CHL also make the effort to know their guns, and to get in some range practice at least a few times a year.

Government has no place ensuring anything. If you can justify that government has a place in ensuring your continued qualification to carry by means of exams, then you can justify government's authority to make you pass an annual parenting exam, or an annual religious exam, etc., etc., etc.

I think we should be able to purchase a lifetime license with range tests every 4 or 8 years, kind of like the drivers license renewal dates.The range test and maybe a 2-3 hour class updating people in Laws changed.

I voted for other improvements too.

Vermont style carry, with an option for open carry, forget the tests and qualifications.

OTOH, my bride fired a perfect score the last time around, so I know she enjoyed it.

Interesting responses.........

To better explain myself it goes like this:

I agree that for the government (local,state, fed etc.) to require a license in order to carry a concealed weapon is something I consider of an infringement (these licenses should last for life not every 5 years and it shouldn't cost me any money to exercise a right). I view the CHL license primarily as a "skip the NICS call" card when buying another firearm than anything else, not as a "state-sanctioned-permit" to carry concealed. I agree that the CHL class didn't teach me anything I wouldn't have gone and learned on my own. Personally (and going out on a limb without any basis for my opinion other than conjecture), I believe the CHL classroom portion would have greater benefit if it were partially a lecture (with some Q/A time) and some time in which various scenarios are thrown at the students and asking how they're (legally speaking) supposed to respond and why. Or I could just leave it alone

OTOH I'm more focused on the range qualification and the applicants' knowledge of their firearm than anything else. And I never said that an applicant would fail the class if they didn't know how to field-strip their firearm (be honest and raise your hand if that's what you thought I meant). But I'm less flexible (or tolerant) of poor accuracy at the range qualification exam.

For those that bring up the point of "Well you aren't required to prove that you know how to change your oil or disassemble your car for your drivers' test" : Okay, that is true (but gee, why do you think that inspection sticker is required to be on your window?). You never see anyone going to the DMV and tell them "I've never had any driving lessons and I want to get a drivers' license". You really think DPS is going to let you get a drivers' license at this point and time? Now apply that to potential CHL applicants who come through our shop "I've never fired a gun before, I don't know anything about guns, but I want to get a CHL".

Wait a second, we're going to teach them to point and shoot (maybe how to load their own magazine), address the laws in a boring 4 hour lecture, but we're not going to teach the applicants the other important parts of owning a firearm? What about firearm safety procedures? Basic stuff like: Fingers off the trigger until you're ready to shoot, treat each firearm as if it were loaded etc. Or how about instilling the concept that being proficient with their sidearm is a DUTY, not a request. I have no problem with people who are completely new to firearms that want to buy a firearm. I try my best to give them a crash-course education, but I don't want them to walk out the door consciously knowing that they're most likely to NEVER read the instruction manual and that they're likely to hurt themselves doing something unsafe when a half-hours' worth of instruction could avert such an event.

I'm not looking to legislate stupidity (let darwinism take its' course so I can read about them in the Darwin Awards) but this is about educating ignorance and helping to drive into peoples' skulls that you need to properly train with and maintain your sidearm. After all, it's not like you leave your car in a garage for 15 years, never get any drive time anything in between, and then take it out on the road to find out that there's something wrong with it. No, most people drive their car everyday (a form of PRACTICE) and take their car to a mechanic for major repairs and if they're capable of doing so they'll change the oil and filters themselves. In comparison, how many of you train with your firearm as often as you drive your car? Once a week? Twice a month, once every 3 or 4 months or longer in between? If people are going to bring up the comparison of another tool in comparison to guns at least be consistent with the amount of use each one gets.

(and for those who ask, no I don't change the oil in my car myself because I don't have any blocks to raise the car onto to do it, I pay a mechanic to do a full inspection every time I change my oil).

So if making the range qualification more stringent (I thik anything below a perfect score is just horrendous, but that's just me) and "requiring" applicants to demonstrate that they know how to field-strip their firearm is considered a "bad idea", then what exactly would you guys suggest about this? (Hint: I'm looking for constructive criticism here).


I may be harsh and thick-skinned but I'm a realist here, both of my feet are on the ground and my head is on it's shoulders where it belongs.

yahoshua wrote:For those that bring up the point of "Well you aren't required to prove that you know how to change your oil or disassemble your car for your drivers' test" : Okay, that is true (but gee, why do you think that inspection sticker is required to be on your window?). You never see anyone going to the DMV and tell them "I've never had any driving lessons and I want to get a drivers' license". You really think DPS is going to let you get a drivers' license at this point and time?

YES! It happens all the time. Pass the test and get the license.

I know I'm coming out of the woodwork here but this needed a reply.

In regards to OP, I understand being frustrated, but forcing people to learn through legislation is not going to prove productive. Instead of being frustrated with customers for not knowing what they're doing, how about offering some help. Instead of "telling them their gun is dirty and getting a look like you slapped them in the face" How about doing something like this:

You: "you know while I was looking at your ________ I noticed the slide was not moving freely and the trigger was a little gritty. If you have a second, I'd love to take you over here to the side and show you how I recommend you clean it regularly. Not only does it keep it functioning, but it also helps it last longer and maintain value."

It sounds cheesy, but it would BLOW MY MIND to see a salesperson do that. Do what you can to change the world around you and lead the way, but please don't force these things on me by asking for tougher laws.

In regards to having a problem with this:

"I've never fired a gun before, I don't know anything about guns, but I want to get a CHL".

I will assure you that I too think they should be properly trained with a gun first. But, the 2A guarantees that right regardless of any proficiency. I think that individual has the responsibility to themselves to train, learn, etc...but not to you or I. They are exercising a constitutionally protected right.

OP is having good insights, but there are better ways to make this happen.

-nick

When I moved to Texas last year, I went to a local DPS office, gave them my NC DL, paid the fee and received a temporary TX DL that was valid immediately. DPS mailed the plastic DL within a week or two.

Compare that quick, simple and inexpensive process to the flaming circus hoops I had to jump through to get a TX CHL.

gigag04 wrote:....Instead of being frustrated with customers for not knowing what they're doing, how about offering some help. Instead of "telling them their gun is dirty and getting a look like you slapped them in the face" How about doing something like this:....

....It sounds cheesy, but it would BLOW MY MIND to see a salesperson do that. Do what you can to change the world around you and lead the way, but please don't force these things on me by asking for tougher laws.

I try and follow along these lines as best I can and show these people how to field-strip and clean their firearm and I even go back onto the range with people who rent our guns (and are obviously new shooters) in order to show them proper and safe handling and firing procedure. But every hour I spend on the floor having to explain the basics to a "veteran" (ie. 5 years or more) firearms owner is time stolen from other customers who are also in need of this vital education. I have little tolerance for a "veteran" firearms owners whom didn't bother to take the time to educate themselves on basic accuracy or how to field-strip their firearm isn't going to get a whole lot of sympathy from me. But I'll educate them the same way I would a rookie owner.

gigag04 wrote:....In regards to having a problem with this:

"I've never fired a gun before, I don't know anything about guns, but I want to get a CHL".

I will assure you that I too think they should be properly trained with a gun first. But, the 2A guarantees that right regardless of any proficiency. I think that individual has the responsibility to themselves to train, learn, etc...but not to you or I. They are exercising a constitutionally protected right.

OP is having good insights, but there are better ways to make this happen.

-nick

Point taken.