TexasCHLforum.com

I was checking out chron.com and saw a banner add for a 4 hour chl course? I didnt click on the banner but how is this possible? If this is posted in a different section, my apologies.

If you look at the link it is for a Florida non-resident license. AND, he is charging $299.

The link wasnt working on m computer for some reason. Must be some filter or something on my work computer.

These instructors are going to keep it up until someone other than F-rated Lon Burnam files a bill that Texas residents can only carry on a Texas CHL. This is exactly the same type of irresponsible advertising that caused the "Utah" problem.

This instructor isn't intellectually honest enough to admit that you don't even have to take a class to get a Florida license. All you have to do is show that you can shoot a handgun. Before CHL passed in Texas, I got a Florida license without a class simply by sending a copy of my USPSA membership card. You can use a DD-214, NRA class certificate, etc. I wouldn't be surprised if you could use a 4-H certificate.

Chas.

The so called Utah problem is really a Texas problem. Not enough Texans are pro gun and even fewer support the right to keep and bear arms without licenses and other restrictions to infringe those rights.

snorri wrote:The so called Utah problem is really a Texas problem.

I could not disagree more. The "Utah problem" is the result of irresponsible advertising by instructors who only care about money. They intentionally promote their classes as a way to circumvent Texas law and they do it solely for money, not to help gun owners. There's nothing wrong with teaching Utah classes, but they should be advertised as providing reciprocity with additional states. What do you think about advertising a Florida class without disclosing that a class is not even required for many if not most people?

snorri wrote:Not enough Texans are pro gun and even fewer support the right to keep and bear arms without licenses and other restrictions to infringe those rights.

What's the basis for this statement? What are the facts and statistics to back up this wholesale indictment of Texans and Texas gun owners?

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

snorri wrote:The so called Utah problem is really a Texas problem.

I could not disagree more.

Then we will have to agree to disagree.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:What do you think about advertising a Florida class without disclosing that a class is not even required for many if not most people?

I don't think there's anything wrong with it if the class satisfies the Florida proficiency requirements.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

snorri wrote:Not enough Texans are pro gun and even fewer support the right to keep and bear arms without licenses and other restrictions to infringe those rights.

What's the basis for this statement?

http://law.onecle.com/texas/penal/chapter46.html

res ipsa loquitur

snorri wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:What do you think about advertising a Florida class without disclosing that a class is not even required for many if not most people?

I don't think there's anything wrong with it if the class satisfies the Florida proficiency requirements.

So it's okay to take money from people when they don't need the class. And you indict Texas gun owners as a group. Quite a double standard you have going.

snorri wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

snorri wrote:Not enough Texans are pro gun and even fewer support the right to keep and bear arms without licenses and other restrictions to infringe those rights.

What's the basis for this statement?

http://law.onecle.com/texas/penal/chapter46.html

res ipsa loquitur

That's what I thought; you have no grounds for the absurd statement. You blast Texas gun owners as a group without one shred of evidence to support your claims. Where's your proof that Texas gun owners like having to get a CHL to carry handguns? Where's your proof that Texas gun owners like the ambiguous "other restrictions" you reference?

Chas.

I can settle this with one statement. Carrying a Concealed Weapon is a major responsiblity not to hurt yourself by not knowing the law. The 10 hour class at least gives people the basics of understanding the legal and finnical situations that can arise. Education is a good thing.
I agree in the 2nd ammendment and the state should not impose local rules abouve the constitution however I don't know about you but I feel much better if the person carrying has had at least minimual training.