TexasCHLforum.com

How about some ideas on advanced training/additional ratings?

Do we need an additional rating such as a CHL Rating or an additional rating requiring advanced schooling, training and qualification?
A rating such as an instrument rating for pilots or a specialty rating as seen in law and medicine.
Could we use the training and skills taught by the most experienced trainers and first responders if we ever had to defend ourselves or family members?
Would the public benefit from an individual that, if he had to defend himself or his family, was trained to a higher standard? A standard able to deliver pinpoint, precision accuracy to stop threats. A standard which would be the antitheses of pray and spray.

Would it be pertinent to allow an individual after schooling, training, qualification and the appropriate rating obtained to be named respectively under PC 46.15 Non-applicability or at a minimum their children's schools, family events or gatherings where security may be an issue? The intent is that a man’s God given inalienable right to self defense and the protection of his family not be infringed by those that would deliberately try to prevent him from protecting them and those that would deliberately take advantage of a man’s inability to protect himself or his family.

Looking for some input. Here are a few pro’s and con’s. Lets see what Texas thinks about the idea and what other pitfalls may exist.

Pro’s

Advanced training to CHLr
Advanced training is safer for the public “if” an event occurs
Advanced training increases confidence and performance
Puts the UT CFP argument to rest
First of it’s kind for the CCW permits?
More funds to the state
More opportunities for instructors
Number of applicants would send a serious message
May backdoor campus carry
Criminals put on notice that Texas and Texans will not allow crime to pay and are competently trained to prevent and defend themselves should a criminal underestimate

Con’s

Greater responsibility for the CHLr
Greater responsibility for the state to administer
No applicants would send a serious message
May hinder campus carry
No peace officer license, privileges, or immunities as granted under 1701, citizens already have certain understood authority as explained in “We the People” etc.
(Not trying to start a Lone Ranger fan club)

I personally think we are fine just as we are. No need for additional red-tape

But, if there was one thing I WOULD like to see, it would be that you don't need a CHL to carry.

Keith B wrote:I personally think we are fine just as we are. No need for additional red-tape

But, if there was one thing I WOULD like to see, it would be that you don't need a CHL to carry.

Amen brother.

Im just a new guy to CCW but at face value...no.

I dont believe in a tiered licensing system for anything. Either keep things as they are, or change the laws to open up more places for legal CCW.
Since CCW is meant to be for personal protection I dont see what "additional" training would be needed for carrying in a restricted zone and sounds like it lends itself to the idea that the "super ccw" license turns you into some kind of entry level LEO.

"(Not trying to start a Lone Ranger fan club)"


Just trying to get a little closer to the original term of "shall not be infringed".

I thought the additional training would alleviate some of the anti's fears.

I think ratings would be of little value since you are supposed to be discreet about having the chl and especially when carrying.

I personally look at advanced training and practice as necessary, but I don't want to see it as mandatory or government regulated!!!! As in many certifications, "continuing ed" as most call it become a way to charge for butt-time in a chair and only serve to raise money for the educator/licensing entity. As it is today, anyone with the desire to learn and train can do so- only limited by their own time or money.

I vote to leave it like it is. (or add some realistic training to the already required class)

The recent "3-headed monster" topic showed how having additional training was used against the CHLer. I'm willing to bet that most instances where a CHLer has to use his weapon are going to be very tense. Huge margin for error as his body dumps adrenaline and I could see any misses or unintentional hits being more serious for a "better trained" person.

Leave it alone, it's working fine. I honestly thought you meant adding a "fully auto" option, after semi and revolver only.

sf340b wrote:"(Not trying to start a Lone Ranger fan club)"


Just trying to get a little closer to the original term of "shall not be infringed".

I thought the additional training would alleviate some of the anti's fears.

I can understand and respect your thought process. They're concerned about poorly trained people posing inordinate risks in sensitive locations so you offer, "OK, what if we can show you they are well-trained and safe people?"

This will, in my opinion, backfire. If it takes that level of training to carry in churches, then what does that say about those who didn't go get that training? And should those lesser trained people be allowed to carry in this situation or that one? All of a sudden, the higher level of training is considered the minimum and anything below that is substandard. Look at the Utah CFP discussions and how many people who believe we should have constitutional carry also say that the 4hr Utah class is insufficient for teaching the 10-15hr Texas info. People who believe in constitutional carry--who say there should be no educational requirement to carry--also say that TX residents should not be allowed to carry only a Utah non-resident permit because those people won't have sufficient training. The 10-15hr TX class is their minimum standard now that it is in place, and these are CHL advocates who believe there should be no educational minimum standard. And well meaning CHL advocates like you are willing to increase that standard in order to seek a compromise.

But it won't be successful in seeking a compromise because their issue isn't one of facts. There's no evidence that there's a problem with poorly trained people putting lives at risk. They just FEEL awkward, scared, worried, intimidated, or whatever else they feel and raising standards on paper isn't going to do anything to change their feelings. The same is true about the Utah CFP issue. There's no factual issue at play about people having insufficient training and shooting up the town or about a string of gun crimes by those who could not legally get a TX resident permit but could get a Utah non-res permit, or by those from out of state coming in with other states' permits and raising our gun crimes levels. Why then are we discussing increasing burdens? Because of a particular hypothesis that it could happen, joined with emotions, and that's it.

Charles has posted data before about the extraordinarily low rates of CHL holders having their licenses revoked or committing gun crimes. What I would like to see is a complete challenge of the underlying beliefs that are taken for granted. If we compare apples to apples, accounting for whatever disparities in demographics there are, or whatever it is that honest statisticians do (can a statistician not be in the business of propaganda? I'll save that conversation for another day...), and we look at each state's level of requirements, availability of licenses, restrictions on licenses, and the gun crimes committed by licensees, IS there a governmental interest in promoting greater requirements? If so, does it reach a point where those requirements have adverse effects? If not, why are we hindering citizens as much as we are already without a positive governmental interest in the regulations? The premise that more education will move us from unsafe to safe is one that on its face is not, in my opinion, a compelling one based on the facts that are currently available. If the facts showed that to be the case, I believe the government could only, if they were to act responsibly and in accordance with the law (can a politician not be in the business of... nevermind) then reduce the regulations that it is currently placing on its citizens' constitutional rights.

,

I do not think any additional rating is needed.

I think the only rating that would be an improvement over our current system would be "VSC" - Vermont Style Carry

the only thing I'd like to see an additional rating for would include reducing restrictions.

if i could prove i shoot better then most
more level headed then most
first aid/what ever better then most,,,

I want to carry in a school / vote / bar ect...


if your not going to give me more locations, then i don't want more red tape

Any time you compromise your principles to make your point of view easier for the other side to accept, you lose. Just ask the Republican Party.

sf340b wrote:"(Not trying to start a Lone Ranger fan club)"


Just trying to get a little closer to the original term of "shall not be infringed".

I thought the additional training would alleviate some of the anti's fears.

The only way to alleviate anti's fears is pile all the guns up in the town square, start a bonfire, and sing koombaya.