CHL class too easy??

[Azzy]

I think about 80% of people that get their CHL or now LTC will never actually carry in their life. It a piece of comfor for them. Both my mom and dad have had their CHL for over 10 years and only carry a handful of times. They both carry a car in the gun but never on them except for certain occasions.

When I took my CHL class, it was about 6 hours and the instructor reviewed the questions with us before we turned in the test. Basically making sure the whole class passed 100%...
I do think it is more lenient, but maybe the government is more worried about criminal background than anything else. Who knows

[krisw]

The gov is worried about the fee. They don't care about anything else.

[JW]

CHL class too easy??

The CHL is unconstitutional to begin with.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[trad"Doc"53]

It all falls back on the quality of the person doing the classes. I helped with this before and the gentleman would spend several hours or however long it took for the folks to be comfortable with their weapon. He performed these extras free of charge. By the time they stepped to qualify in his class they were very confident in handling their weapon and all scored highly if not with a perfect score. Some instructors are in it strictly for the money.

[Bisch]

I had some of those same sentiments when I took the class in January!

Bisch

[HoustonHunter]

so,
One should have to take a hard test in able to exercise what little constitutional rights we have left ?

'nuff said!

[Skinny]

I took the class at eagle gun range in lewisville. The instructor was great. He pointed out test questions as we went through the class but did not go over the questions per se. Our tests were graded and any missed questions were marked against score. I'm pretty sure everyone in our class has firearms experience so there was no issues with anyone not knowing their weapon. Several of us got perfect scores on the shooting portion. No one failed either portion of the class.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BenBen]

I agree with trad"doc"53. It's all on the INSTRUCTOR! Respectfully I've seen some of the pricing for these CHL classes and I've seen and read these stories. When I took my class I'd already been in the Army for 8yrs and been shooting handguns for what seemed like a lifetime. That being said I cleared my head and let my instructor do his thing. I never experienced what those who posted above but I believe it. In some of these classes the "STUDENTS" don't have their own firearm and use the instructors so the knowledge curve can be steep. That being said I have sat in on a few other states CHL courses and BELIEVE ME when I tell you that TX has the best class/certification that I've experienced.

[mmoses]

Nope. There should not be a test or a class.

[JW]

CHL class too easy??

Nope. There should not be a test or a class.

2nd Amendment. [emoji1417]

[Mike D]

Nope. There should not be a test or a class.

Yup even Mississippi recently passed Constitutional carry along with a couple of other Yankee states.


"An honest government has no fear of an armed population".

[Bobby Ferguson]

"keep and BEAR arms"

No I wouldn't want my wife or kids carrying without being safe, nor do I want anyone else carrying without being safe, but its their right, plain and simple. It no different than requiring someone to take a civics class before voting. IMO there should be no CHL/LTC. Your can legally own a firearm, you can legally carry that firearm. Do i think we all need more gun safety? Sure. But not gov't required gun safety.

This may be the best post i've seen on this website. This is exactly how I feel.

[35remington]

Every constitutional "right" has reasonable limitations. The Second Amendment is no exception. The only remaining question is whether adequate training should be required in order to carry firearms amongst the public. I think that argument has a decent chance of prevailing.

When the Bill of Rights was written, those who exercised their right to bear arms knew exactly how to use them. Today, half the women out there are carrying one ONLY because their husbands signed them up for the class and stuffed a weapon in their purse. As evidenced by the stories in this thread, many CHL/LTC holders have no clue what they're doing. Some training would do them—and the rest of the public—good.

I have an open mind and invite anyone to argue differently.

[critter69]

The class I took here there was nobody but you and the instructor on the line. You had to load (your self), shoot, and show clear to pass the shooting part. We only shot at one distance, don't remember what it was, but is was close. And I was surprised how many of the guys that bragged the whole class, were all over the place on paper. And they thought they shot great. I do feel like it should be (harder ) more strick.

[mmoses]

Every constitutional "right" has reasonable limitations. The Second Amendment is no exception. The only remaining question is whether adequate training should be required in order to carry firearms amongst the public. I think that argument has a decent chance of prevailing.

When the Bill of Rights was written, those who exercised their right to bear arms knew exactly how to use them. Today, half the women out there are carrying one ONLY because their husbands signed them up for the class and stuffed a weapon in their purse. As evidenced by the stories in this thread, many CHL/LTC holders have no clue what they're doing. Some training would do them—and the rest of the public—good.

I have an open mind and invite anyone to argue differently.

Reasonable and government do not go together.

By adding tests and skills, it allows the government to have the chance to deny the second amendment.