Search found 5 matches

by ea40ss
Tue Jul 26, 2005 10:04 pm
Forum: 2005 Texas Legislative Session
Topic: Goals for 2007
Replies: 74
Views: 20397

After a great deal of thought and re-reading many of the topics and posts..You've changed my mind. The air must have been thin on my soap box. I lost sight of the real issue. The license itself. Criminals carry anytime anywhere, so why should we as law abiding citizens need a license that is expensive and restrictive.

+ 1 for easier renewals as a first step towards Alaska style carry!

I still feel the same about training and practice but I realize that is a personal choice. We all have to accept the consequences of our own actions but also take responsability for our own safety. I can only hope as I said before that someone who decides to carry at least fires the handgun once to make sure it is capable of fireing and learns some safety. And maybe practice drawing from concealement and ...there I go again.

Thanks,

Eric
by ea40ss
Sun Jul 24, 2005 12:04 pm
Forum: 2005 Texas Legislative Session
Topic: Goals for 2007
Replies: 74
Views: 20397

More Texans are killed or injured in Automoble accidents caused by sober drivers each year than all the CHL related deaths or injuries since the laws inception in 1996.
(44.7325% of all statistics are made up on the spot.)

We don't require testing for drivers license renewals.
You just show up, get your thumb print taken, your eyes checked, and your picture taken.
This sounds like a good case for more driver testing. :)
Seriously though most folks who renew their drivers license probably practice that skill on a regular basis. I'm not quoting any statistics just pure speculation. I know there are people who never drive but still renew or haven't driven in ten years but can still drive.

And I also understand that there are people who have never fired a gun and can manage to use one for self defense. There are probably people who have never used a lug wrench but could probably figure out how to use it. I don't mean that in any way as an insult just making a point. I know that you are a very intelligent person and I respect your opinion. Wouldn't you rather have someone learn how to use it before they needed it. Now I will admit that I don't read my NRA magazine. I would speculate that most of these people were at home where maybe you can let a few rounds fly while trying to figure out how to use the gun and find the target and make a meaningful shot? I would hope that anyone who carries a gun has at least fired a gun at some point in their life. Seriously.

As far as the shooting: I don't think four hours and 50 rounds every four or five years is asking too much.

I'm not disparaging CHL holders who don't shoot on a regular basis, I'm married to one.

Respectfully,

Eric

Just a CYA edit. I was being sarcastic about letting a few rounds fly. Please try not to do that.
by ea40ss
Fri Jul 22, 2005 11:40 pm
Forum: 2005 Texas Legislative Session
Topic: Goals for 2007
Replies: 74
Views: 20397

On second thought, Maybe I do like easier renewals. Just not less shooting to do it.

Thanks again,

Eric
by ea40ss
Fri Jul 22, 2005 10:48 pm
Forum: 2005 Texas Legislative Session
Topic: Goals for 2007
Replies: 74
Views: 20397

Hello all, sorry my last post on this topic was off topic. Let's try again.

I like almost every thing Mr. Neal said. My only exception would be the easier renewals. In my first renewal and my wife's first and second renewals there were folks in the class that had not shot their weapon since their last CHL test. It was obvious and they admitted it. For folks who shoot on a regular basis and/or, are great shots, doing away with the renewal shooting test might be ok. Sadly however most CHLers, at least the ones I know never shoot. Maybe the problem isn't as rampant as I percieve it to be. Hopefully!

How about a complete renewal online for the classroom part with a printable certificate. If a CHLer is actively involved in a pistol shooting sport such as IDPA, or IPSC, or Bowling Pins, etc and can prove it with a score card or has taken some sort of advanced training with a certificate then the shooting test could be waved. If no advanced training within the last four (or five years now) then the regular shooting test should be required. Lets face it, a bad score in IDPA is better training than a good score on the CHL shooting test. I breezed the CHL tests but do terrible in IDPA! But I'm getting better. :lol:

Then take the online class certificate and Proof of shooting activity to DPS for Thumbprint, Picture and Payment. I'm lost on the affidavids. Maybe while online have an electronic signature for them like the IRS for online filing..

Some of this may have already been mentioned and added to.
Does any of this sound resonable? Or am I rambling again.. :?
Sounds maybe a little too complicated.

Anyway... what do y'all think?

Thanks,
Eric
by ea40ss
Wed Jul 20, 2005 9:45 pm
Forum: 2005 Texas Legislative Session
Topic: Goals for 2007
Replies: 74
Views: 20397

Baytown, I couldn't agree more with everything you said. And I'd like to add...

Anyone who is carrying a firearm should not have even a single drink of alcoholic beverage. When you drop that firearm into your holster you are making a statement. That statement is that you are of the most sound mind and judgement you can have. You are in a mode of heightened awareness about your surroundings. You are taking proactive personal responsability for your safety and for the safety of your loved ones and possibly even a third party. Alcohol even in small quantities will impair your judgement, awareness, and abilities.

You can probably guess how I feel about carrying in bars.

My wife and I rarely drink and when we do, it is usaully at home. If out at a resturant and I or my wife have a drink, which is unusual, the other will not drink and will be the driver. Yes even after only one drink. Further, it is usually decided before we go if one of us wants a drink. If it is me, then I won't carry. If it is her, then she won't carry. Either way one of us is still armed.

As far as Bars are concerned, I wouldn't have a problem with having a breathilyzer at the door. Coming and going! I know "violation of civil rights", "illegal search". Blah, Blah, Blah

I read another post about someone who was aggravated about being stopped for not dimming his headlights. Would I be aggravated? You bet. But, the officer issued a warning and basically explained the reason for the stop. The Bar. Maybe they have had problems with drunk drivers from that Bar. Do you think the stop might have gone differently if the driver ,with his CHL, had a drink while waiting to pick up his wife and the officer smelled alcohol? Would the officer believe the CHL'er when he said "no I haven't' been to that bar."? Maybe, but I bet the stop would have taken a different tone and would have lasted alot longer.

Thanks for letting me ramble

Eric

Return to “Goals for 2007”