TexasCHLforum.com

Paragrouper wrote:

Salty1 wrote:I have spoken with many CHL holders who wish they did not remove the renewal training requirement. Unless every CHL holder stays on top of new legislation they have no idea of what changes have been made and the renewal classes provided this information. CHL instructors are looking for new ways to generate revenues since the removal of mandatory renewal training has gone away. The prices of CHL classes has dropped so those who own their own facilities and ranges need to replace that revenue stream. Personally I would have no issues if renewal training came back and I am not an instructor.

I would agree. periodic refresher training is a good way to ensure the CHL population is made aware of any changes to the laws that may impact on how or where they carry. We are all responsible for our actions; training helps us all to better understand those responsibilities under the law.

Are you saying the training should be required by law or are you saying we should all be responsible and obtain the training we determine we need individually.

Academic people are interesting critters. It's acceptable to praise Che Guevara but not Wayne Lapierre, and worship of Saint Che is just plain weird.

He is said to have been a homophobe. His face is on the Cuban three peso bill. There is irony there, somehow, that must surely cause the most politically correct professor a quiet snicker.

And, of course, he was a dirty commie and I don't say that without facts backing it up.

His other nickname was Chanco (pig) for his foul personal hygiene. Historians agree, ol' Che was a dirty commie.

And if academics can argue drunk 18 year-olds waving guns in class because of campus carry, I think I should be able to rant about professors and Che Guevara. They both apply to the campus carry argument with equal weight.

joe817 wrote:

K.Mooneyham wrote:I've got what may be a dumb question but here goes anyway: how do they pick who is allowed to speak to the committee? I mean, Alice Tripp, of course she should. And as much as I cannot stand them, the Mothers group is a "public advocacy group", so I can see that, too. But where do they get some of these people?

Actually the process is pretty straight forward. You fill in a 'request to speak card' and turn it in, and then wait your turn. Anybody can. You just have to get to Austin to speak. I don't think there's a "selection process".

Thank you for a straightforward reply. I seriously didn't realize that. I'm floored that the person doesn't have to have any expertise on the subject, just fill out a card and there you go. Yay for an open democratic process and all, but I really don't see how that helps when the bulk of the regular, law-abiding citizenry are at work, instead of in Austin ranting. I'd rather be represented by people like Mr. Cotton, for instance, or perhaps someone like John Lott, folks who have expertise on the subject and can speak in a rational, articulate manner on the topic.

K.Mooneyham wrote:

joe817 wrote:

K.Mooneyham wrote:I've got what may be a dumb question but here goes anyway: how do they pick who is allowed to speak to the committee? I mean, Alice Tripp, of course she should. And as much as I cannot stand them, the Mothers group is a "public advocacy group", so I can see that, too. But where do they get some of these people?

Actually the process is pretty straight forward. You fill in a 'request to speak card' and turn it in, and then wait your turn. Anybody can. You just have to get to Austin to speak. I don't think there's a "selection process".

Thank you for a straightforward reply. I seriously didn't realize that. I'm floored that the person doesn't have to have any expertise on the subject, just fill out a card and there you go. Yay for an open democratic process and all, but I really don't see how that helps when the bulk of the regular, law-abiding citizenry are at work, instead of in Austin ranting. I'd rather be represented by people like Mr. Cotton, for instance, or perhaps someone like John Lott, folks who have expertise on the subject and can speak in a rational, articulate manner on the topic.

Theoretically, you ARE represented by people like that...they are called senators and congressmen...

K.Mooneyham wrote: I'm floored that the person doesn't have to have any expertise on the subject, just fill out a card and there you go. Yay for an open democratic process and all, but I really don't see how that helps when the bulk of the regular, law-abiding citizenry are at work, instead of in Austin ranting. I'd rather be represented by people like Mr. Cotton, for instance, or perhaps someone like John Lott, folks who have expertise on the subject and can speak in a rational, articulate manner on the topic.

I agree. There's a HUGE amount of precious time wasted just sitting there listening to idiots who know utterly nothing factual, even at the most fundamental level, about the issues. They just want to feel important because they're "appearing in front of the committee" and listen to themselves talk. Look at court cases, where they have "expert witnesses" with real knowledge and expertise help the court make good decisions. Why can't they take the same approach to bill discussions?

I mean, good grief, has ANYBODY gotten up there and calmly, clearly pointed out that carrying a concealed firearm on a college campus is ALREADY legal with a CHL, and we're just talking about extending that to include carrying inside buildings? Think of the UT student and has to walk to and from a night class from one of those UT parking lots a mile away, or one of those mammoth UT parking garages. To avoid carrying the gun inside the building, they have to leave it in the car, thus rendering themselves defenseless. Has ANYBODY gotten up there and calmly, clearly pointed out that 75% of the college students in Texas are too young to own a handgun or get a CHL in the first place?

Nooooo. Instead, they just sit there for hours, days, weeks, listening to silly speeches that, for all the validity of their content, might as well be about little green men from Mars.

Ruark wrote:

K.Mooneyham wrote: I'm floored that the person doesn't have to have any expertise on the subject, just fill out a card and there you go. Yay for an open democratic process and all, but I really don't see how that helps when the bulk of the regular, law-abiding citizenry are at work, instead of in Austin ranting. I'd rather be represented by people like Mr. Cotton, for instance, or perhaps someone like John Lott, folks who have expertise on the subject and can speak in a rational, articulate manner on the topic.

I agree. There's a HUGE amount of precious time wasted just sitting there listening to idiots who know utterly nothing factual, even at the most fundamental level, about the issues. They just want to feel important because they're "appearing in front of the committee" and listen to themselves talk. Look at court cases, where they have "expert witnesses" with real knowledge and expertise help the court make good decisions. Why can't they take the same approach to bill discussions?

I mean, good grief, has ANYBODY gotten up there and calmly, clearly pointed out that carrying a concealed firearm on a college campus is ALREADY legal with a CHL, and we're just talking about extending that to include carrying inside buildings? Think of the UT student and has to walk to and from a night class from one of those UT parking lots a mile away, or one of those mammoth UT parking garages. To avoid carrying the gun inside the building, they have to leave it in the car, thus rendering themselves defenseless. Has ANYBODY gotten up there and calmly, clearly pointed out that 75% of the college students in Texas are too young to own a handgun or get a CHL in the first place?

Nooooo. Instead, they just sit there for hours, days, weeks, listening to silly speeches that, for all the validity of their content, might as well be about little green men from Mars.

The committee members invite testimony from people and/or experts that they think will provide valuable insight (for or against). That invited testimony is usually heard first. Then after that is the parade of "concerned citizens" who want to weigh in. As a representative democracy, this is actually a pretty good mechanism to have. Although I'd wager that none of the testimony has much bearing other than to provide debate points for later in the process as the committee members have probably already made up their minds ahead of time.

And yes; the TSRA, NRA and a couple of "students for concealed carry" representatives did bring up the fact that technically concealed carry is already happening on campuses - just not in the buildings yet. I seem to recall someone making the argument about the small number of students that in-building campus carry would actually apply to, but I don't remember who or when.

concealed carry is already happening on campuses - just not in the buildings yet.

I'm still new at this - a CHL can carry on the parking lots, sidewalks, etc. of a school, just not in the building?

treadlightly wrote:

concealed carry is already happening on campuses - just not in the buildings yet.

I'm still new at this - a CHL can carry on the parking lots, sidewalks, etc. of a school, just not in the building?

Correct, unless there is a school activity going on.

For instance, if a class was being held outside under the trees, then that area would be off limits until they finish.

mojo84 wrote:

Paragrouper wrote:

Salty1 wrote:I have spoken with many CHL holders who wish they did not remove the renewal training requirement. Unless every CHL holder stays on top of new legislation they have no idea of what changes have been made and the renewal classes provided this information. CHL instructors are looking for new ways to generate revenues since the removal of mandatory renewal training has gone away. The prices of CHL classes has dropped so those who own their own facilities and ranges need to replace that revenue stream. Personally I would have no issues if renewal training came back and I am not an instructor.

I would agree. periodic refresher training is a good way to ensure the CHL population is made aware of any changes to the laws that may impact on how or where they carry. We are all responsible for our actions; training helps us all to better understand those responsibilities under the law.

Are you saying the training should be required by law or are you saying we should all be responsible and obtain the training we determine we need individually.

While we're at it, why not require periodic refreshers on election law before one can get their voter registration? Why not require periodic refreshers on political science or world history before one can read a news source or comment on an issue on an Internet forum?

Slippery slopes......

RogueUSMC wrote: Theoretically, you ARE represented by people like that...they are called senators and congressmen...

Ummmm......yeah......let's just keep saying that.....

Jason K wrote:

Jasonw560 wrote: I quit watching after one or two of the "the teachers (professors) will be the targets if this bill is passed..." Um....this bill is geared towards you, dillweed.

My question to that kind of professor is, "What keeps someone from targeting you now?....a paper sign?" They must just like being helpless....

I am on some higher education chat boards. you're not far off.

mojo84 wrote:

Paragrouper wrote:

Salty1 wrote:I have spoken with many CHL holders who wish they did not remove the renewal training requirement. Unless every CHL holder stays on top of new legislation they have no idea of what changes have been made and the renewal classes provided this information. CHL instructors are looking for new ways to generate revenues since the removal of mandatory renewal training has gone away. The prices of CHL classes has dropped so those who own their own facilities and ranges need to replace that revenue stream. Personally I would have no issues if renewal training came back and I am not an instructor.

I would agree. periodic refresher training is a good way to ensure the CHL population is made aware of any changes to the laws that may impact on how or where they carry. We are all responsible for our actions; training helps us all to better understand those responsibilities under the law.

Are you saying the training should be required by law or are you saying we should all be responsible and obtain the training we determine we need individually.

I will put it this way, if it did come back I would not rant and rave about it and attend the class. If it came down to a negotiation point to get OC passed then I would not voice opposition although I may not like it. There is always give an take on such an issue even though we might not like certain aspects of it. We all know that most CHL holders do not stay up to date on the current laws, there are instructors still telling students of off limit places that have not been in effect for years. I feel that the members and frequent visitors to this site are the exception rather than the rule.....

Jason K wrote:While we're at it, why not require periodic refreshers on election law before one can get their voter registration? Why not require periodic refreshers on political science or world history before one can read a news source or comment on an issue on an Internet forum?

This is just too delicious to pass up. We all know that "they" would argue loudly and longly that voting is a right, and forcing someone to take periodic refresher course would infringe on that right as well as be racist (because minorities are somehow not as capable of taking care of themselves as majorities are.)

I'll leave it to the forum members to extend the argument to gun rights.

Salty1 wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

Paragrouper wrote:

Salty1 wrote:I have spoken with many CHL holders who wish they did not remove the renewal training requirement. Unless every CHL holder stays on top of new legislation they have no idea of what changes have been made and the renewal classes provided this information. CHL instructors are looking for new ways to generate revenues since the removal of mandatory renewal training has gone away. The prices of CHL classes has dropped so those who own their own facilities and ranges need to replace that revenue stream. Personally I would have no issues if renewal training came back and I am not an instructor.

I would agree. periodic refresher training is a good way to ensure the CHL population is made aware of any changes to the laws that may impact on how or where they carry. We are all responsible for our actions; training helps us all to better understand those responsibilities under the law.

Are you saying the training should be required by law or are you saying we should all be responsible and obtain the training we determine we need individually.

I will put it this way, if it did come back I would not rant and rave about it and attend the class. If it came down to a negotiation point to get OC passed then I would not voice opposition although I may not like it. There is always give an take on such an issue even though we might not like certain aspects of it. We all know that most CHL holders do not stay up to date on the current laws, there are instructors still telling students of off limit places that have not been in effect for years. I feel that the members and frequent visitors to this site are the exception rather than the rule.....

Do the instructors still have to take a renewal/update class for their instructor's license? And to think some still give bad info.

Like I tell my kids, it's up to the individual to learn and keep up. Not the job of some school or government. The information is provided. It's our responsibility to keep up to date.

You could take a CHL class any time you feel the need for refresher. Matter if fact, my instructor said we can attend his class any time we want in between renewals. The only time he would charge us would be when we needed the certificate for renewal. (That was prior to the law changing)


Another thought, how often do we have to retake our driving tests to maintain our license?

baldeagle wrote:

Jason K wrote:While we're at it, why not require periodic refreshers on election law before one can get their voter registration? Why not require periodic refreshers on political science or world history before one can read a news source or comment on an issue on an Internet forum?

This is just too delicious to pass up. We all know that "they" would argue loudly and longly that voting is a right, and forcing someone to take periodic refresher course would infringe on that right as well as be racist (because minorities are somehow not as capable of taking care of themselves as majorities are.)

I'll leave it to the forum members to extend the argument to gun rights.

By Jove, I think he's got it!

Salty1 wrote: I will put it this way, if it did come back I would not rant and rave about it and attend the class. If it came down to a negotiation point to get OC passed then I would not voice opposition although I may not like it.

Why give up ground that we've already won? Or do you just not like cake?.....

http://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/2013 ... epost.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I think another thing to remember is that in this issue and just about any other issue, legislators are accustomed to extremist loonies coming out of the woodwork and making all kinds of crazy speeches that make shock us, but they hear this stuff every day.