TexasCHLforum.com

Guys,

Okay I'm confused-I assumed that all CHLs would be against restricted carry, but this is the second thread here that I've had to defend it. Am I strange because I believe in defending myself/family 100% of the time, or am I just missing something?

If someone is going to argue the "It's their business they can do what they want" card, then why can't they discriminate based on race, sex, or handicap-no one forced any of them to enter the building; so why would it be such a stretch to require businesses to be required to respect the individual's right to self preservation?

It's not a big deal now because there are very few legal 30.06 signs, but what happens when insurance companies start requiring them and a 30.06 sign becomes the rule instead of the exception.

Embalmo

Embalmo wrote:Guys,

Okay I'm confused-I assumed that all CHLs would be against restricted carry, but this is the second thread here that I've had to defend it. Am I strange because I believe in defending myself/family 100% of the time, or am I just missing something?

If someone is going to argue the "It's their business they can do what they want" card, then why can't they discriminate based on race, sex, or handicap-no one forced any of them to enter the building; so why would it be such a stretch to require businesses to be required to respect the individual's right to self preservation?

It's not a big deal now because there are very few legal 30.06 signs, but what happens when insurance companies start requiring them and a 30.06 sign becomes the rule instead of the exception.

Embalmo

While I'd hate to speak it, if any and every establishment posted a 30.06 our CHL would be moot.

I hate the 30.06 out. At the same time I believe that every property owner is the king of their castle and it's their rules. I don't want someone coming into my property telling me what to do. There in lies the conflict.

Embalmo wrote:Guys,

Okay I'm confused-I assumed that all CHLs would be against restricted carry, but this is the second thread here that I've had to defend it. Am I strange because I believe in defending myself/family 100% of the time, or am I just missing something?

If someone is going to argue the "It's their business they can do what they want" card, then why can't they discriminate based on race, sex, or handicap-no one forced any of them to enter the building; so why would it be such a stretch to require businesses to be required to respect the individual's right to self preservation?

It's not a big deal now because there are very few legal 30.06 signs, but what happens when insurance companies start requiring them and a 30.06 sign becomes the rule instead of the exception.

Embalmo

I see your point. It would be great if we could carry without the need for a CHL. However, given the unlikely chance of doing away with the CHL, I can see different classes of CHL's like driver's licenses. A standard one, like we have now and an enhanced one that would give us privileges to carry everywhere an LEO can. Maybe even to ignore 30.06 signs.

My question is: Would you guys go through more training, and even possibly as much as a priest's religious training if it meant being able to believe in God everywhere, and if it would make anti-religious shut up?

lil red wrote:My question is: Would you guys go through more training, and even possibly as much as a priest's religious training if it meant being able to believe in God everywhere, and if it would make anti-religious shut up?

I smell a trick question. lol

Seminary school is four years. So, no. The anti-religious will never shut up.

lil red wrote:My question is: Would you guys go through more training, and even possibly as much as a priest's religious training if it meant being able to believe in God everywhere, and if it would make anti-religious shut up?

Good comparison-Last I checked, Jesus was restricted in the same places as guns (schools, federal buildings).

Embalmo

Zee wrote:I heard about a guy who shot someone in Reno, just to watch him die.

....very funny Johnny

Someone in another thread pointed out that even if we were not required to have a CHL to carry here in Texas it would be nice to have to carry in other states that did still require a license.

I'm not sure I'm interpreting the question correctly. If the question is, "would you go through more training as a requirement for a CHL"? then I guess I am a dissenter here. I would not want to have to go through the equivalent of police/tactical training as a requirement to obtain a CHL. Such a requirement would automatically disqualify some of those people whose personal security most depends on having a CHL - namely the disabled and the elderly.

OTH, If a person wants to obtain additional training to expand the scope of their skills, I think that is commendable. But making it a requirement simply puts one more barrier to an individual being able to exercise his/her RKBA.

I'm not in favor of further restricting that right. Please let me know if I am not understanding the question correctly.

The Annoyed Man,

My original question was, "Would you undergo additional training if it meant you could carry concealed anywhere without restriction?"

Embalmo

Not mandatory.

1. How much more training are we talking about timewise. I don't come from an LEO background so not sure what that entails. I don't this would have any impact whatsoever on anti-CHL'ers.

2. I'm all for more training, not sure that much should be a requirement of a CHL though. Some more training should be required though. Both I and the wife have ran into too many yahoos preparing for the CHL who were clearly not competent.

Does anyone know anyone who actually failed a CHL test short just spinning in the air and randomely shooting at moving objects?

Embalmo wrote:Guys,

I disagree with businesses legally having 30.06, profusely. My right to defend myself is imposed upon when a 30.06 sign is posted; I would compare it to not being allowed to carry my rescue inhaler, hearts meds, or insulin (all I really need is the inhaler, but you get the point). Now if there were a way to really keep bad guys from carrying, like LEOs and medal detectors, then it would be a debate that we're not having at the present; I disagree with my rights being infringed upon so some people can play pretend fantasy games. I'm sure there's a high percentage of the 30.06 posters who would love to include LEOs in the ban, and would disband the U.S. military, but since they legally cannot, does that mean their rights are being infringed upon?

Embalmo

There has never been such a right in Texas. If you don't want your right to be impinged you don't go in. Your right ends where their right begins-at the doorway of that property.

lil red wrote:My question is: Would you guys go through more training, and even possibly as much as a priest's religious training if it meant being able to believe in God everywhere, and if it would make anti-religious shut up?

I love these arguments where we bring in a totally unrelated subject and equate it to a third...

BTW, I didn't realize that those "anti-religious" folks were making so much noise. Generally they lie low because they know that the vast majority of humanity doesn't share their opinion. Am I missing something here?

OK. My bad. I'm for slightly more training in general as a requirement (slightly being still enough to do in one day) and am all for the option [abbreviated profanity deleted] additional training including LEO level training.

I am not for the ability of CHL'ers to overcome a 30.06 sign. Having said that I am:
1. All about keeping the particulars of a 30.06 sign difficult
2. Making it a state law prohibiting insurers from requiring this in any way (thats what we really should look at) or standard leases from requiring it.