TexasCHLforum.com

mr.72 wrote:To further this point, giving a "license" also has the effect of communicating that one is somehow qualified to do whatever thing it is that the license is intended to qualify. So you may say "I am a good enough driver, I have a license!" or "I am qualified to carry a weapon, I have a CHL!". But without the state giving a license, then it is incumbent on people to determine what establishes their qualification for the activity. For example, I don't have a license to play the guitar. So am I qualified to play the guitar? Well, maybe, maybe not. I have to work at it. I have been working at it for nearly 25 years now. I continue to improve. So do I need a license? How about to ride my bike? A lot of people think I should have a license to ride my bike. Does that mean that once I take whatever cheeseball test that the state is going to give me and everyone else over the age of 5 to ride a bicycle, then I can quit worrying about improving my awareness, my defensive riding skills, etc, because, you see, I have a license!

The fact is that on my bicycle, my safety is my own problem. Nobody tells me when I am good enough, safe enough. With the guitar, my skills are up to me to assess. If I am good enough to play inside my house and not cause the police to come on a noise complaint then so be it, but I probably have to be much better if I plan to play in public view. Why should carrying a gun be any different? Am I proficient enough to carry a gun? To use one when I might need it? Maybe. Maybe not. I am not sure, so I am still working at it, but you had better bet someone far less qualified and experienced than me could easily ace that state-mandated test and get a license. So is it the state's position that the person with very minimal skills is duly qualified to carry?

This is about personal responsibility. No there shouldn't be any license. There should be certain and swift punishment if you screw up with a gun, and nobody in the state gov't knows or cares if you don't. We don't need the state's licensing system to come under scrutiny when someone screws up with their firearm. That threatens everyone's free exercise of their rights. If you take away the license, then when someone screws up then they alone are holding the bag. The state didn't stamp them "qualified", the state didn't evaluate their shooting or knowledge of the law, so the state is under no obligation to take any heat. They just say "you know, the Constitution guarantees them their right to bear arms, to a fair trial, not to incriminate themselves, a jury of their peers, and they can now exercise all of those rights since they failed to train themselves for correct handling of their gun".

EXACTLY!!!!!!

mr.72 wrote:

yahoshua wrote: But then how do we get these people to be interested (if not at least aware) of how to maintain their firearms?

By "we", do you mean the State of Texas gov't?

I think "we", as in fellow gun owners and CHL holders, encourage people and help them, the same way you would if you wanted them to be interested in how to maintain their car, their home, their physical health, their grooming, whatever other thing it is in life that interests you.

But the state government has no business in this.

By "WE" I mean fellow gun-owners. I like to involve the govenrnment as little as possible.

KBCraig wrote:

mr.72 wrote:What really shocks me about this poll is that far and away more people voted that "the system is fine the way it is", 43%!

Except for "no opinion", it was the only option that wouldn't increase the difficulty of getting and maintaining a CHL.

No it isn't. READ all of the options.

CertifiedKJ wrote:I haven't got my plastic yet, but when I do, you best believe I'm going to still go to the range at least twice a week. I don't think that anything should change though, what purpose would that serve?

So id gun companies never made improvements to their firearms, even though those imnprovements would be for the better, you still wouldn't want it?

Just curious about your standpoint here.

phddan wrote:Let me throw out a different point of view here.
My wife and I were in a wreck where we got hit by a truck on motorcycle. She lost her leg, and had two long plates put in her left forearm. She has some serious problems loading a tight magazine or field stripping a gun.
Are you telling us that she shouldn't have a CHL? That a woman in a wheel chair shouldn't be able to defend herself or grandkids? Is this what you are really saying.?
I stood behind her in the shooting portion of the class, and loaded the magazines for her. And I am her armorer.
Fact is, she owns more guns than me.


Dan

No, I'm making an exception for people of her disability because they are INCAPABLE of field-stripping or loading their firearm entirely by themselves. I'm more geared to chewing on the of people who are too LAZY or IGNORANT to learn about their firearm, how to maintain it or even be proficient with it.

mr.72 wrote:I think this "we need more training" thing comes down to two sentiments:

1. elitism. Many CHL holders want to believe they are better people somehow than those who don't have a CHL. We are more prepared. More aware of our risks day to day. More responsible for our own safety. So we want to also say "and we have all this extra cool training, see?" We want people to have to jump through extra hoops to join our club.

Not my intent. Certainly never want that sort of result.

mr.72 wrote:2. fear. Some people are still afraid of guns and are still not comfortable with regular civilians carrying them so they feel like making something like training mandatory to set apart the CHL holders from regular civilians will alleviate some of that fear. This sentiment gets expressed over and over ...lately about the teachers carrying at that one school district, the common response is "as long as they have extra special training, then it's ok"

Not my motivation, see below.

mr.72 wrote:Those of us truly set on liberty look at this as a basic right with the expectation that some people are going to take it seriously and become educated and some others are going to remain ignorant and abuse their rights but it's still a right. We all have the right to defend ourselves with or without a gun. Some people are dangerous even without a gun, and they would be dangerous with a gun. Some are ignorant fools who get themselves into trouble all the time and they will be that way with or without a gun. But do we expect those fools to show great wisdom in restraining themselves from owning or carrying a gun just because of some law?

Nope. I don't expect them to bey because of a new law, but I expect for them to at least be imbued with basic knowledge if nothing else (even though it SHOULD be part of public school education, that line of thought isn't going anwhere for awhile).
Stupidity is unfixable, ignorance can be corrected with education. If somebody has been given the knowledge and they continue to remain ignorant and unsafe, so be it. That's what the Darwin Awards are for.

TexCaboCat wrote:Not at all. I was speaking directly about our "right to bear arms" and I don't believe it should be licensed, but that is not what I was specifically talking about in my response above. I was merely trying to say that "self responsibility" is the answer to the original posters question and that more regulation will never be the answer to irresponsible people and in fact only destroys the rights of the law abiding people. I would bet that 99.9% of the people on this forum would agree with this statement, but it amazes me that some of those same people are willing to throw away their own rights just because they think someone somewhere will not be responsible for themselves according to their own standards (Elitist), thus the state of Texas should require more standards, more training and more care taking of its people because we are not capable of it. After all, this is actually what some are saying on here. I for one don't want to give up anymore of my rights just because a few inept individuals own handguns and expect government to fix it for me. No thanks.

Elitism doesn't quite seem to be the issue here:

e·lit·ism Audio Help /ɪˈlitɪzəm, eɪˈli-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[i-lee-tiz-uhm, ey-lee-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. practice of or belief in rule by an elite.
2. consciousness of or pride in belonging to a select or favored group.

e·lit·ism or é·lit·ism Audio Help (ĭ-lē'tĭz'əm, ā-lē'-) Pronunciation Key
n.
1. The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources.

2. A.The sense of entitlement enjoyed by such a group or class.
B. Control, rule, or domination by such a group or class.

You seem to be pretty vocal about the issue TexCaboCat, so what are your suggestions on improving awareness of firearm safety and proficiency if regulating it via CHL classes or Public School Education is something you consider as ineffective/intrusive?

mr.72 wrote:To further this point, giving a "license" also has the effect of communicating that one is somehow qualified to do whatever thing it is that the license is intended to qualify. So you may say "I am a good enough driver, I have a license!" or "I am qualified to carry a weapon, I have a CHL!". But without the state giving a license, then it is incumbent on people to determine what establishes their qualification for the activity. For example, I don't have a license to play the guitar. So am I qualified to play the guitar? Well, maybe, maybe not. I have to work at it. I have been working at it for nearly 25 years now. I continue to improve. So do I need a license? How about to ride my bike? A lot of people think I should have a license to ride my bike. Does that mean that once I take whatever cheeseball test that the state is going to give me and everyone else over the age of 5 to ride a bicycle, then I can quit worrying about improving my awareness, my defensive riding skills, etc, because, you see, I have a license!

You don't whip out your bike or guitar to defend yourself or others in a situation requiring deadly force either now do you?

Remember a few posts back when I shot down the argument of cars vs. guns? Yeah that concept is wonderful when comparing accidents, but NOT for use of deadly force in self-defence. That license tells the state that you have been informed of the laws and can accurately use the sidearm. But I consider the course as lacking in that people don't remember/aren't trained to unload their firearm while cleaning it (therefore shooting themselves) and in that the qualificatio scores are something I consider as far too low. We're using pistols and our qualification targets shouldn't look like we went at it with a shotgun.

mr.72 wrote:The fact is that on my bicycle, my safety is my own problem. Nobody tells me when I am good enough, safe enough. With the guitar, my skills are up to me to assess. If I am good enough to play inside my house and not cause the police to come on a noise complaint then so be it, but I probably have to be much better if I plan to play in public view. Why should carrying a gun be any different? Am I proficient enough to carry a gun? To use one when I might need it? Maybe. Maybe not. I am not sure, so I am still working at it, but you had better bet someone far less qualified and experienced than me could easily ace that state-mandated test and get a license. So is it the state's position that the person with very minimal skills is duly qualified to carry?".

I'm not sure if this qustion is directed at me or someone else. Clarification please?

mr.72 wrote:This is about personal responsibility. No there shouldn't be any license. There should be certain and swift punishment if you screw up with a gun, and nobody in the state gov't knows or cares if you don't. We don't need the state's licensing system to come under scrutiny when someone screws up with their firearm. That threatens everyone's free exercise of their rights. If you take away the license, then when someone screws up then they alone are holding the bag. The state didn't stamp them "qualified", the state didn't evaluate their shooting or knowledge of the law, so the state is under no obligation to take any heat. They just say "you know, the Constitution guarantees them their right to bear arms, to a fair trial, not to incriminate themselves, a jury of their peers, and they can now exercise all of those rights since they failed to train themselves for correct handling of their gun".

Then with the same question I posed to TexCaboCat: What are your suggestions on improving awareness of firearm safety and proficiency if regulating it via CHL classes or Public School Education is something you consider as ineffective/intrusive?

What are your suggestions on improving awareness of firearm safety and proficiency if regulating it via CHL classes or Public School Education is something you consider as ineffective/intrusive?

I'm not TexCaboCat but I'll respond.

It is a moot question.

It is not the government's role to interfere with one's rights, and it isn't any of your business. If you want to be pushy and come off as being a gun snob, elitist, or just a jerk when interacting with other gun owners, then that is your right. Likewise it's every ignorant fool's right to ignore you and continue doing whatever they do.

However, there's no merit to any institutional regulation of firearms awareness, safety, or even the holy grail of field stripping your pistol, whether the institution is government regulation or merely social stigma. Whatever regulation you put into effect will have the ultimate effect of alienating those unwashed masses from gun ownership in general. Certainly if gun ownership and self defense appears to be a tedious and time consuming hobby then fewer people are going to engage in it.

Someone on this forum once said not to give advice, because wise men don't need it and fools won't take it. However in this case I am afraid that truly wise people will reasonably decide that guns are too much trouble if even well-meaning gun owners are pressuring them to learn to maintain their own weapons as some kind of minimum standard for ownership. Fools will just do it anyway. So wouldn't we rather have more wise people with dirty guns out there vs. just fools?

The point is that whether you like it or not, keeping and bearing arms are our rights. This is the only specific property right that is enumerated in the Bill of Rights. We cannot require any regulation of this right, however well-meaning or however intent on encouraging safety and security, without infringing it. Certainly we still do this, and it is still over the limit as it is. You do not fix the current problem of infringement of this right by adding even more infringement.

For further discussion, I think it can be noted that CHL classes are often attended by new gun owners or those new to the concept of using a handgun for self defense. I do not have any statistics to back this up, just a gut feeling, but I figure it is not like driving school where the primary determinant of entry to the class is simply coming of age. I believe it stands to reason that many of these beginners, or first-time gun owners, may not be skilled in the use of their guns, and may lack the ability, skill, or even the awareness of maintenance requirements concerning their firearm.

I might suggest, if we accept that having a CHL is necessary for concealed carry, that the requirements should be reduced as thus:

1. $25 fee
2. pass the written test
3. submit to background checks, license issued contingent on the same requirements as we have now with the exception of the debt requirements (property taxes, child support, student loans) which are absurd
4. temporary license, good for 60 days, is issued when the fee is paid and the test is passed, and the final license arrives in the mail after background checks are complete and supersedes the temporary license.

If we were to adopt this process for acquiring a CHL, I think it would have the following effects, which would alleviate your concerns about firearms awareness:

1. You would never be witness to the firearm handling proficiency of CHL applicants
2. More people would get a CHL, and it may become quite routine. I suspect the numbers would not be 1% or 2% of the population but more like 25%.
3. With a CHL within easy reach, far more people would own defensive handguns, including many thousands who are mechanically inclined, good teachers, and generous people who will help educate and train the others on gun handling and care

It is my belief that the onerous requirements for obtaining a CHL are at least partly responsible for both the lack of firearms awareness and handling skills of the general populace, as well as the lack of defensive firearms ownership of the average person. I believe these factors contribute heavily to the snobbery and elitism among CHL holders (not pointing fingers at you specifically, but there are some) and firearms owners, and also contributes to the fear of firearms ownership amongst the average citizen. Increasing the requirements, either in cost, time or training requirements, only tends to exacerbate these problems.

IMHO.

And FWIW, I am intentionally ignoring the political aspects of CHL in TX and the unfortunate means by which laws must be changed.

mr.72 wrote: I'm not TexCaboCat but I'll respond.

It is a moot question.

It is not the government's role to interfere with one's rights, and it isn't any of your business. If you want to be pushy and come off as being a gun snob, elitist, or just a jerk when interacting with other gun owners, then that is your right. Likewise it's every ignorant fool's right to ignore you and continue doing whatever they do.

However, there's no merit to any institutional regulation of firearms awareness, safety, or even the holy grail of field stripping your pistol, whether the institution is government regulation or merely social stigma. Whatever regulation you put into effect will have the ultimate effect of alienating those unwashed masses from gun ownership in general. Certainly if gun ownership and self defense appears to be a tedious and time consuming hobby then fewer people are going to engage in it.

Someone on this forum once said not to give advice, because wise men don't need it and fools won't take it. However in this case I am afraid that truly wise people will reasonably decide that guns are too much trouble if even well-meaning gun owners are pressuring them to learn to maintain their own weapons as some kind of minimum standard for ownership. Fools will just do it anyway. So wouldn't we rather have more wise people with dirty guns out there vs. just fools?

The point is that whether you like it or not, keeping and bearing arms are our rights. This is the only specific property right that is enumerated in the Bill of Rights. We cannot require any regulation of this right, however well-meaning or however intent on encouraging safety and security, without infringing it. Certainly we still do this, and it is still over the limit as it is. You do not fix the current problem of infringement of this right by adding even more infringement.

For further discussion, I think it can be noted that CHL classes are often attended by new gun owners or those new to the concept of using a handgun for self defense. I do not have any statistics to back this up, just a gut feeling, but I figure it is not like driving school where the primary determinant of entry to the class is simply coming of age. I believe it stands to reason that many of these beginners, or first-time gun owners, may not be skilled in the use of their guns, and may lack the ability, skill, or even the awareness of maintenance requirements concerning their firearm.

I might suggest, if we accept that having a CHL is necessary for concealed carry, that the requirements should be reduced as thus:

1. $25 fee
2. pass the written test
3. submit to background checks, license issued contingent on the same requirements as we have now with the exception of the debt requirements (property taxes, child support, student loans) which are absurd
4. temporary license, good for 60 days, is issued when the fee is paid and the test is passed, and the final license arrives in the mail after background checks are complete and supersedes the temporary license.

If we were to adopt this process for acquiring a CHL, I think it would have the following effects, which would alleviate your concerns about firearms awareness:

1. You would never be witness to the firearm handling proficiency of CHL applicants
2. More people would get a CHL, and it may become quite routine. I suspect the numbers would not be 1% or 2% of the population but more like 25%.
3. With a CHL within easy reach, far more people would own defensive handguns, including many thousands who are mechanically inclined, good teachers, and generous people who will help educate and train the others on gun handling and care

It is my belief that the onerous requirements for obtaining a CHL are at least partly responsible for both the lack of firearms awareness and handling skills of the general populace, as well as the lack of defensive firearms ownership of the average person. I believe these factors contribute heavily to the snobbery and elitism among CHL holders (not pointing fingers at you specifically, but there are some) and firearms owners, and also contributes to the fear of firearms ownership amongst the average citizen. Increasing the requirements, either in cost, time or training requirements, only tends to exacerbate these problems.

IMHO.

And FWIW, I am intentionally ignoring the political aspects of CHL in TX and the unfortunate means by which laws must be changed.

Thanks. You saved me from typing exactly what you did.

yahoshua wrote:
Elitism doesn't quite seem to be the issue here:

e·lit·ism Audio Help /ɪˈlitɪzəm, eɪˈli-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[i-lee-tiz-uhm, ey-lee-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. practice of or belief in rule by an elite.
2. consciousness of or pride in belonging to a select or favored group.

e·lit·ism or é·lit·ism Audio Help (ĭ-lē'tĭz'əm, ā-lē'-) Pronunciation Key
n.
1. The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources.

2. A.The sense of entitlement enjoyed by such a group or class.
B. Control, rule, or domination by such a group or class.

You seem to be pretty vocal about the issue TexCaboCat, so what are your suggestions on improving awareness of firearm safety and proficiency if regulating it via CHL classes or Public School Education is something you consider as ineffective/intrusive?

We can play semantics all you want, but I do believe your understand what I mean by elitist in my previous post but if not I will explain:

When you, or someone else feels that other people don't deserve the right to carry based on "your perceived superiority" on how gun owners should be able to field strip or operate their weapons I would call that "elitist". Who are you or anyone else to say I have to meet certain criteria to be able to own something that the Constitution of the US already allows us to do? I would call anyone who felt that they are more deserving than someone else of a Constitutional right because of what "they" perceive as being more qualified then I would call that an elitist thought. You can call it what you want, but it does not change the fact that one has or will be willing to deny another's rights because they have deemed another citizen not up to their own standards. Now, if you break the law and abuse that right, then it can and shall be taken away. That is called self responsibility, and it works.

yahoshua wrote:
You seem to be pretty vocal about the issue TexCaboCat, so what are your suggestions on improving awareness of firearm safety and proficiency if regulating it via CHL classes or Public School Education is something you consider as ineffective/intrusive?

I am vocal because it drives me nuts to see people giving our rights up so easily and it saddens me greatly. I understand the point of safety and the true concern some have and agree with that concern. With that being said, our rights of gun ownership will not be infringed upon for any reason (they already have been trampled on enough). Not only will more regulation not work, it only leads (albeit very slowly) to the ultimate demise of our right to gun ownership voluntarily by gun owners. The answer to this problem is, again, self responsibility. If you have a gun and don't train, prepare, properly maintain, store etc....then you will and should be held severely accountable if anything bad happens that is deemed your responsibility, by a court of law. I don't believe that punishing the law abiding citizens is the way to do it. In my mind it is the exact same problem we have with the anti-gun people trying to get guns out of the law abiding citizens, when we know that the criminals will keep there's. We all on this forum would agree that line of thought is not only stupid but dangerous. I would summit that more regulations against honest citizens is no different and would have no effect in making concealed carry any safer. Holding irresponsible concealed carry citizens responsible when they do break the law will send a message of the seriousness of carrying and will make it a safer practice over time without infringing on our Constitutional rights.

By the way, I am not against more classes or public education. We can all take those classes as "we" see fit, not when the "government" see's fit. In fact, I plan on taking many more classes to help me increase my ability to protect myself and my family. If I believe it is my responsibility to defend myself then it is my responsibly to prepare myself, too. Regulation, will not prepare an idiot and you can't make an idiot prepare, but regulation will always diminish the rights of the people. Every single time.

Excellent discussion.

Enough of this "mine is bigger and smarter than yours" ........ (Count the dots)!

If one has a CHL, one is expected to have minimum proficiency with one's weapon and the rules . If you know someone; e.g., Mrs. Oldgringo, who is licensed but lacks your familiarity with handguns and their workings, you are expected to teach the unfamiliar. Afterall, the unfamiliar one may (heaven forbid) be forced to protect one's superior and perhaps better informed, elitest ... someday (again count the dots).

'Nuff said - Burma Shave

[quote="mr.72]
I'm not TexCaboCat but I'll respond.....[/quote]



Thankyou for your informative post, it leaves me with alot to think about....

TexCaboCat wrote:
We can play semantics all you want, but I do believe your understand what I mean by elitist in my previous post but if not I will explain:

When you, or someone else feels that other people don't deserve the right to carry based on "your perceived superiority" on how gun owners should be able to field strip or operate their weapons I would call that "elitist". Who are you or anyone else to say I have to meet certain criteria to be able to own something that the Constitution of the US already allows us to do? I would call anyone who felt that they are more deserving than someone else of a Constitutional right because of what "they" perceive as being more qualified then I would call that an elitist thought. You can call it what you want, but it does not change the fact that one has or will be willing to deny another's rights because they have deemed another citizen not up to their own standards. Now, if you break the law and abuse that right, then it can and shall be taken away. That is called self responsibility, and it works.

I never once called for a revocation of a right we all possess. I expressed a frustration with the aparrent lack of knowledge and self-awareness from others and so I made suggestions, asked questions and sought answers. And my suggestions were a misguided effort to correct those flaws and perhaps enhance the education of fellow and rookie firearm owners alike. This is not about semantics or whipping out peter-meters to see who's is "more righteous than thou" attitude. I made direct suggestions and asked direct questions, for the most part I got direct answers and ideas. Most of them pointing out that while the principal of the concept (particularly better education) was a good idea, the ideas and methods of implementing them as so were not so great and at this time there would be no effective way of implementing those ideas without compromising what rights we still have.

TexCaboCat wrote: Excellent discussion.

I agree.

yahoshua wrote: I made direct suggestions and asked direct questions, for the most part I got direct answers and ideas. Most of them pointing out that while the principal of the concept (particularly better education) was a good idea, the ideas and methods of implementing them as so were not so great and at this time there would be no effective way of implementing those ideas without compromising what rights we still have.

Right on.

Takes backbone to post that on the internet, BTW. Kudos.

mr.72 wrote:

yahoshua wrote: I made direct suggestions and asked direct questions, for the most part I got direct answers and ideas. Most of them pointing out that while the principal of the concept (particularly better education) was a good idea, the ideas and methods of implementing them as so were not so great and at this time there would be no effective way of implementing those ideas without compromising what rights we still have.

Right on.

Takes backbone to post that on the internet, BTW. Kudos.

No it doesn't. It just takes a bit of my time and some finger-exercise. It takes backbone to start this kind of debate in a bar full of Irishmen of Scottish Highlanders.....THAT would take back-bone (and a good cosmetic surgeon).


(Oh I am so going to the "Big Burn" for that crack).