TexasCHLforum.com

apostate wrote:Florida doesn't require a renewal class. That doesn't seem to hurt their reciprocity.

Same with Utah.

Shall not be infringed
Edited to add I believed wholeheartedly in the second amendment. I believe the2 A is my carry permit.
I voted yes in case you were wandering

lrpettit wrote:Perhaps if you're a member of this forum no renewal class is necessary?

This actually has a little bearing on the results of the survey. Those of us here primarily keep up to speed on the laws. Many/most practice with our weapons.

What about those that get a CHL, but just keep that little wheel/pocket gun in a pocket holster or purse, but never go to the range? What impact does it have when there are CHL holders that haven't shot since they were certified?

There is a risk there. 1) They can hurt/kill someone due to their lack of training and practice. 2) They can raise doubts to the validity of the CHL program as a whole and give fodder for the anti-gun folks.

I would rather be inconvenienced by renewal testing than have these individuals become that risk.

Would a system like other professional certifications have for Continuing Professional Education (CPE) credits be over the top - probably. One could earn credits simply by going to a range and shooting. More points could be awarded for taking a class. Much more complicated and detailed than can be outlined here.

I don't really want some entity tracking my range usage. Nor do I want to see incur additional costs. No simple answer for me.

Zen wrote: What about those that get a CHL, but just keep that little wheel/pocket gun in a pocket holster or purse, but never go to the range? What impact does it have when there are CHL holders that haven't shot since they were certified?

There is a risk there. 1) They can hurt/kill someone due to their lack of training and practice. 2) They can raise doubts to the validity of the CHL program as a whole and give fodder for the anti-gun folks.

I would rather be inconvenienced by renewal testing than have these individuals become that risk.

The simple answer is that we have other state examples to guide us on whether or not this would be an issue.

Indiana has a lifetime CHL. Vermont, Arizona, Alaska and Wyoming all have Constitutional Carry (no license or training of any sort needed to carry concealed)

I haven't seen any dire reports of untrained and underpracticed citizens getting into bad situations in any of those states.

74novaman wrote:

Zen wrote: What about those that get a CHL, but just keep that little wheel/pocket gun in a pocket holster or purse, but never go to the range? What impact does it have when there are CHL holders that haven't shot since they were certified?

There is a risk there. 1) They can hurt/kill someone due to their lack of training and practice. 2) They can raise doubts to the validity of the CHL program as a whole and give fodder for the anti-gun folks.

I would rather be inconvenienced by renewal testing than have these individuals become that risk.

The simple answer is that we have other state examples to guide us on whether or not this would be an issue.

Indiana has a lifetime CHL. Vermont, Arizona, Alaska and Wyoming all have Constitutional Carry (no license or training of any sort needed to carry concealed)

I haven't seen any dire reports of untrained and underpracticed citizens getting into bad situations in any of those states.

And so the risk may be so small it wouldn't make sense to add that complexity and cost.

Perhaps the untrained/underpracticed don't continue to carry and become a non-risk. I know I've talked to plenty of CHL holders that "claimed" they still carried , but were extremely ignorant about the law and in some cases their own carry guns.

74novaman wrote:

Zen wrote: What about those that get a CHL, but just keep that little wheel/pocket gun in a pocket holster or purse, but never go to the range? What impact does it have when there are CHL holders that haven't shot since they were certified?

There is a risk there. 1) They can hurt/kill someone due to their lack of training and practice. 2) They can raise doubts to the validity of the CHL program as a whole and give fodder for the anti-gun folks.

I would rather be inconvenienced by renewal testing than have these individuals become that risk.

The simple answer is that we have other state examples to guide us on whether or not this would be an issue.

Indiana has a lifetime CHL. Vermont, Arizona, Alaska and Wyoming all have Constitutional Carry (no license or training of any sort needed to carry concealed)

I haven't seen any dire reports of untrained and underpracticed citizens getting into bad situations in any of those states.

This seems to be a phenomena prevalent when the subject is guns. Each state that eventually got CHL passed had the same horrific predictions of blood in the streets etc... Each state seemed oblivious to the experience of their neighbors. A bloody battle in Arkansas recently over church carry, despite the fact that none of the predicted horrors happened elsewhere. Campus carry, open carry, restaurant carry, parking lot bills, constitutional carry...each state acts like it is inventing the wheel and gambling with apocalyptic disaster despite the fact that somewhere else, usually close by, they have the risky item in place with no problems. Strange.

Luggo1 wrote:

74novaman wrote:

Zen wrote: What about those that get a CHL, but just keep that little wheel/pocket gun in a pocket holster or purse, but never go to the range? What impact does it have when there are CHL holders that haven't shot since they were certified?

There is a risk there. 1) They can hurt/kill someone due to their lack of training and practice. 2) They can raise doubts to the validity of the CHL program as a whole and give fodder for the anti-gun folks.

I would rather be inconvenienced by renewal testing than have these individuals become that risk.

The simple answer is that we have other state examples to guide us on whether or not this would be an issue.

Indiana has a lifetime CHL. Vermont, Arizona, Alaska and Wyoming all have Constitutional Carry (no license or training of any sort needed to carry concealed)

I haven't seen any dire reports of untrained and underpracticed citizens getting into bad situations in any of those states.

This seems to be a phenomena prevalent when the subject is guns. Each state that eventually got CHL passed had the same horrific predictions of blood in the streets etc... Each state seemed oblivious to the experience of their neighbors. A bloody battle in Arkansas recently over church carry, despite the fact that none of the predicted horrors happened elsewhere. Campus carry, open carry, restaurant carry, parking lot bills, constitutional carry...each state acts like it is inventing the wheel and gambling with apocalyptic disaster despite the fact that somewhere else, usually close by, they have the risky item in place with no problems. Strange.

Not strange at all.....just means our opponents are unscrupulous liars who count on the ignorance of those whose support they are seeking. The antis are never going to recognize or accept any fact about gun use or ownership that undermines their agenda of eliminating guns from private possession. They exploit the assumption made by decent human beings that they also want less crime and more good guys surviving criminal attacks: they don't. They want more crime and more dead good guys and a population that can't defend themselves because that creates dependency, giving them greater power and control.

Should there be a class required on the law before someone can carry under MPA? What about LEOSA?

There's no logical reason to believe some Yankee cop knows Texas law given that they are, you know, Yankees.

While I understand the wish of many active, healthy and well-informed shooters not to have to mess with the renewal classes I also know that there are probably many who never do anything with their firearm after the CHL is acquired, some who will not keep up with current laws, and also some whose health and/or mental state have changed. Drivers license has been used as a comparison in several posts, and I can attest to the fact that there are many elderly folks who should not be driving any longer. I think the renewal class serves as a good check and balance. I sure wont mind going back in four more years for another class. It was a lot of fun.

Thats a great point songbird. Requiring renewal tests for driving would save many more innocent lives than renewal classes and tests for concealed carry.

As far as carry laws go, have they got stricter or more reasonable? It seems they get more reasonable even if its slow. So the renewal without a class isn't likely to carry in some new prohibited place. They are more likely to go unarmed in a place that is newly legal. That could stink for them but I'm not sure how that would result in bad press for the rest of us.

Russell wrote:LEOSA - Irrelevant, the officers have already been through training given that they are, you know, police officers :)

You know, you might think so, but if you look at everyone who is actually covered under LEOSA, you might be surprised. For example, it covers jail guards who have had no legal training, just how to run a prison. It covers military police who have no civil law training and have completely different rules of engagement. And, as has been pointed out, it covers out of state officers who don't know Texas law.

The last, though, is also a problem with recognizing CHLs from other states so I would not bring it up in a debate with the public too often.