CHL class too easy??

[txdukklr]

I think of the class as a technicality. Candidly i don't agree you need a license to carry a concealed weapon.

i could care less that someone is getting help, I care they are armed when the bad guys show up.

[Mac...]

My wife needed help loading her fire arm during the shooting portion of the test.

She qualified with my SW.40 shield, but she carries an SR22.
She couldn't qualify with hers for obvious reasons and she had a hard time loading the mags in my .40. So what do you do?

My wife is 6'2" so she needs a full frame gun, but she's not a strong chick, so a low caliber was necessary in order for her to control the recoil and stay on target.



And just to throw it out there, I still haven't seen anyone open carry.




.

[44mAG]

When I was taking mine, I felt very unsafe. I stood a good 3 ft. behind everyone else because bullets were flying all kinds of directions. One lady next to me was by herself, and shooting I guess her husbands .45. With every shot, she shook like a leaf before the gun finally went off and no telling where the bullet would end up. The barrel would be pointing straight up in the air after every shot also. Pretty scary.

[texaggie17]

Tough subject to comment on...I see the need for a more "challenging" and rigorous class in some cases, but I understand why people believe that there should be a universal carry in this nation (as granted under the 2nd Amendment).

[dustoffer]

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

No--one shoud have to demonstrate proficiency in safe gun handling and shooting with it.

I think some instructors are reluctant to fail folks as it costs them money--and if their rep gets around as a tough grader or stickler for details, then folks take their money to the easy instructor's class.

[JW]

No--one shoud have to demonstrate proficiency in safe gun handling and shooting with it.



I think some instructors are reluctant to fail folks as it costs them money--and if their rep gets around as a tough grader or stickler for details, then folks take their money to the easy instructor's class.

Thought you were a constitutionalist?

[snappertapper]

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

agreed.

[Ætheling]

The CHL is unconstitutional to begin with.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

YES SIR!

[texasnavy05]

I may be missing something here, but how is the chl unconstitutional?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[txdukklr]

I may be missing something here, but how is the chl unconstitutional?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

[txdukklr]

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

• legal resident
• not a felon

Unreasonable to me would be the ability to load a gun without help. I believe anyone willing to carry should be expected to reasonably be able to operate a weapon, but I DO NOT BELIEVE it is the right of government to regulate that.

[Mike D]

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.

I don't recall seeing that in the constitution or the BOR. What has happened is we have let politicians decide what "reasonable restrictions" are. And it's screwed us every single time.


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

[fishingsetx]

I may be lookin at this wrong but I see it this way:
The state wants to make money, create a mandatory class with some very easy rules and set a price. Make the people with the license 100% responsible for their actions no matter what. All risk is on the CHL holder. No risk to the state. Who cares if they know how to shoot or how safe they are. Potentially more money to the state coffers for trials caused by irresponsible CHL holders.

The government would make the same amount or even more if they did away with the class completely. The only fees they get are from the license and renewal fees.

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.

If that is the case, both the instructor and the students could be prosecuted. The law is very clear on the shooting distances required as well as the class length.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

[35remington]

I don't recall seeing that in the constitution or the BOR. What has happened is we have let politicians decide what "reasonable restrictions" are. And it's screwed us every single time.

You'll recall Article 3, in which the Supreme Court was created. And the Supreme Court gets to decide what the reasonable restrictions are. I don't blame you for seeing each restriction as a personal loss of freedom, but that's not about to go away.

[Skyjunky]

The class is about learning the laws.