Cops shoots daughter as an intruder

You have to admit that some people will never be helped by "training" and some people have the judgement and discipline that "training" will never provide. This is another failure of the government knows best mindset. We'll just create a program for training so we can issue (at cost) a license to do something that really requires no cost to access. Government set it up and makes money off of it.

You have to admit that some people will never be helped by "training" and some people have the judgement and discipline that "training" will never provide. This is another failure of the government knows best mindset. We'll just create a program for training so we can issue (at cost) a license to do something that really requires no cost to access. Government set it up and makes money off of it. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Some true, some false IMHO.

Yes, some people will gain nothing from a CHL class -- either will not pay attention (although there is a written test at the end in Texas -- how difficult to pass without paying attention? No idea.) or will pretty much know everything being taught in the class from prior experience/knowledge. I'd bet that the average person in the class
wants to learn and takes ownership of a handgun seriously.

Where I differ with you is that the CHL requirement was set up to protect not only the CHL applicant but the general public. If you want to believe that it was set up by government as a money-making scheme, feel free to do so.

What is your "opinion"? That no CHL be required in order to carry a concealed handgun?

I'm confused by that first statement. Are you saying that a person does not need a CHL to carry a concealed handgun in Texas? Or are you saying he can have a handgun in his possession as long as it is not concealed? Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

#1, I wrote: "in Texas I don't have to have a CHL to have a firearm in my possession." I meant exactly that.

A "handgun" is a "firearm," but not all "firearms" are "handguns." Got it?

#2, the penal code has defenses and exemptions to possession of a firearm, and the defines those firearms that can be possessed (by omission) and under what circumstances they can be possessed (by inclusion and omission).

Then the other "issue" is whether or not there are Federal restrictions.

Where I differ with you is that the CHL requirement was set up to protect not only the CHL applicant but the general public. If you want to believe that it was set up by government as a money-making scheme, feel free to do so. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

CHL, I think, is off topic of the OP, but ...

.. When qualifying and re-qualifying you must declare the weapon used. Right?

And you must be carrying the weapon with which you qualified/requalified. Right?

The statute was modified effective 2013 regarding type/category.

As much as people like to bad mouth the "wild west", it was not that wild. Yes, people were killed but for cause usually. You may not agree that cheating at cards, stealing a horse, raping your wife, or insulting you in front of your family deserves death but due to the fact that you could get killed it was not done all that often. Particularly if you weren't the fastest gun in the west and the other man could be armed. In general people were more polite but there is always the occassional bastard like John Wesley Hardin. Still get a bunch of towns people together, arm them, and you bad ass goes down in the dirt like anyone else.

If we want to lift restriction on gun possession then we need to overhaul our criminal codes as well. If a gang banger (or even a high school student) pulls a gun and demands your money, you should have the right to shoot him (or her) in self defense. Same thing if some jackass tries to knock you out on the street for fun. If he takes a bullet for being stupid the system should support the lawful person. They should not have to worry about civil prosecution of the criminal system excuses them. After a while, the thugs and idiots on the street will know that even if they carry a gun (and they face serious criminal penalty for unlawful use) that they could wind up dead or wounded just for being themselves.

If we want to lift restriction on gun possession then we need to overhaul our criminal codes as well. If a gang banger (or even a high school student) pulls a gun and demands your money, you should have the right to shoot him (or her) in self defense. Same thing if some jackass tries to knock you out on the street for fun. If he takes a bullet for being stupid the system should support the lawful person. They should not have to worry about civil prosecution of the criminal system excuses them. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

I'm sure OJ would agree with you, although clearly distinguishable facts.

As much as people like to bad mouth the "wild west", it was not that wild. Yes, people were killed but for cause usually. You may not agree that cheating at cards, stealing a horse, raping your wife, or insulting you in front of your family deserves death but due to the fact that you could get killed it was not done all that often. Particularly if you weren't the fastest gun in the west and the other man could be armed. In general people were more polite but there is always the occassional bastard like John Wesley Hardin. Still get a bunch of towns people together, arm them, and you bad ass goes down in the dirt like anyone else.

If we want to lift restriction on gun possession then we need to overhaul our criminal codes as well. If a gang banger (or even a high school student) pulls a gun and demands your money, you should have the right to shoot him (or her) in self defense. Same thing if some jackass tries to knock you out on the street for fun. If he takes a bullet for being stupid the system should support the lawful person. They should not have to worry about civil prosecution of the criminal system excuses them. After a while, the thugs and idiots on the street will know that even if they carry a gun (and they face serious criminal penalty for unlawful use) that they could wind up dead or wounded just for being themselves. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Coffeeville, KS, and Northfield, MN, are excellent examples.

CHL, I think, is off topic of the OP, but ...

.. When qualifying and re-qualifying you must declare the weapon used. Right?

And you must be carrying the weapon with which you qualified/requalified. Right?

The statute was modified effective 2013 regarding type/category. Originally Posted by LexusLover

In Kansas you can qualify with a .22 and elect to carry a .44 magnum if you so choose. I qualified with a .45 automatic.