Changes I would like to see in CHL laws...

[Scruit]

- School district employees added to the list of people who don't have to pay the CHL application fee (list currently includes police/military etc)

- Renewals must show proof that they attended at least 12 hours range time per year (in any increments) as proven by receipts. Hours of training count double.

- End to most state CPZs. Schools/daycares especially, "soft targets" where our most precious citizens are yet we cannot defend them.

- Private CPZs should remain, but have new conditions:

-- No place may be a private CPZ if people are required by law to go there. (schools etc)

-- Private CPZs are for buildings only - no parking lots.

[jbot]

oh great, now there will be blood in the streets AAAAAAAND class rooms!!!!11!1!

[imaposer]

The proof of range time would be difficult. I have never been to a pay hourly range as I can shoot in my back yard and belong to a gun club that has a shooting range for those things I feel are too big to be shot at home. I have nearly zero hours of documented range time in my life, yet have probably put more lead down range than most my age.

[whaler]

The proof of range time would be difficult. I have never been to a pay hourly range as I can shoot in my back yard and belong to a gun club that has a shooting range for those things I feel are too big to be shot at home. I have nearly zero hours of documented range time in my life, yet have probably put more lead down range than most my age.

+1

[Scruit]

Then we do a log book like a pilot. Show receipts for ammo purchases instead.

What suggestions do you have for proving continued competency and marksmanship? How about an annual qualification shoot? Go to the gun range, pay then $5 to supervise you shooting a given target and then certify and notarize your score. This certified target must be kept on hand, and the most recent one must be shown at renewal.

Edited December 31, 2012 by Scruit

[jbot]

i think if we're doing the whole "teachers volunteering to carry in classes" thing, they can go the extra mile and ask the range for a receipt showing hours. i'm sure most ranges (indoor, outdoor, private or public) will be happy to provide a piece of paper with some numbers on it. better yet, the NRA or local gun advocates group will make an appropriate yearly course that has range time as well as other training at other intervals.

[Scruit]

i think if we're doing the whole "teachers volunteering to carry in classes" thing, they can go the extra mile and ask the range for a receipt showing hours. i'm sure most ranges (indoor, outdoor, private or public) will be happy to provide a piece of paper with some numbers on it. better yet, the NRA or local gun advocates group will make an appropriate yearly course that has range time as well as other training at other intervals.

Agreed. I'm looking for a simple way to show that you don't get someone who gets a CHL and never shoots it again, then 6 years later when the need it they couldn't hit the side of a barn.

[20thGix]

I think the NRA Basic Pistol Course should be a pre-requisite to the CHL course or be able to show competence in handling a firearm.

I believe the time would be better served going over the laws, situations and touching on various defensive shooting technics. Going over some basic shooting drills would also give a taste of more advanced classes that you could take to better your defensive shooting skill.

Also the AG should notify CHL holders of law changes by mail. Seems as if something significant changes every year. A guy i work with got his CHL when it was first passed and still abides and misinforms people of the laws that were in place then. I have had to correct him more than a few times when he explains some of the laws to other co-workers. Then physically show him the law change for him to believe me. Im no expert on them but i try to keep up on the when, where's and how you can carry.

[Pokey]

Agreed. I'm looking for a simple way to show that you don't get someone who gets a CHL and never shoots it again, then 6 years later when the need it they couldn't hit the side of a barn.

I used to feel that way, but no longer do. It is the right of a licensed or unlicensed civilian in some states to carry, who gives a rats ass if they can hit the broad side of a barn? In most shit hits the fan situations, it is gonna be less than 20 feet away. Many people will still choose "not to carry", it is more about gun safety for me than marksmanship. Have the CHL instructor highly recommend the student have the weapon they will carry for the course, that way each firearm can be checked and explained to the owner. There are law enforcement that can't shoot fish in a barrel, so what about their marksman skills?

[Uncle Punk]

The goal is to eliminate the license all together not add more stupid onerous bureaucracy bullshit.

You are confusing restrictions on where firearms should be with a licensing process, they are two separate issues.

[Pokey]

The goal is to eliminate the license all together not add more stupid onerous bureaucracy bullshit.

You are confusing restrictions on where firearms should be with a licensing process, they are two separate issues.

True.....but that will never happen "now".

[Scruit]

The goal is to eliminate the license all together not add more stupid onerous bureaucracy bullshit.

You are confusing restrictions on where firearms should be with a licensing process, they are two separate issues.

Good luck with doing away with the license in one fell swoop. On the other hand, liberalize the rules to a point where the permit is just a piece of paper... The liberalization has to come with reassurances of additional safety. (IBIWARS)

[snot]

I think doctors should be able to suspend license if you are on certain drugs or have symptoms of schizophrenia, Alzheimer's, etc.

[C-bus]

Grandma should still be able to defend herself, even if she can't qualify at a range. You're picturing mall ninjas, bent on stopping trenchcoat mafia style massacres.... I think training is necessary and important, but not mandatory to exercise freedom.

[Scruit]

Grandma should still be able to defend herself, even if she can't qualify at a range. You're picturing mall ninjas, bent on stopping trenchcoat mafia style massacres.... I think training is necessary and important, but not mandatory to exercise freedom.

Letting people take guns out into public requires a great deal of trust in that person's skills.

[2fat2fly]

Grandma should still be able to defend herself, even if she can't qualify at a range.

I agree 100% with this. Every citizen has a right to defend themselves..

Edited December 31, 2012 by 2fat2fly

[Bitani]

Would somebody explain the rationale behind disallowing firearms in schools and the like anyways?

I have never understood that. If there was somewhere where guns were needed, I would think those would be it.

[SecondLiar]

What suggestions do you have for proving continued competency and marksmanship?

How about if I shoot an apple off your head?

[Pokey]

Letting people take guns out into public requires a great deal of trust in that person's skills.

No skill involved, just gun safety and knowing your weapon.

[Scruit]

Would somebody explain the rationale behind disallowing firearms in schools and the like anyways?

I have never understood that. If there was somewhere where guns were needed, I would think those would be it.

Maybe children release a pheromone that causes law-abiding gun owners to become evil?

It's another of those laws that sounds helpful when you're not listening to what is actually being said.

If guns are the problem then why did no parents complain about the hundred or so ARs at the school right after the shooting? Maybe it's because guns in the hands of people with good intentions are harmless...?

[TSB67]

The goal is to eliminate the license all together not add more stupid onerous bureaucracy bullshit.

What he said.

True.....but that will never happen "now".

And unfortunately what he said, not because of current events but because we got a stupid CHL in the first place.

[imaposer]

I'm still for a two tiered CHL system. The current joke of training and competency test gets you a tier 1 CHL. it works just as it does now. Heck, better yet, scrap it and just make it a shall issue permit, nothing required to get it.

Then, there should be a tier 2 CHL. This requires semi annual training and re-certification shooting tests but allows you to carry anywhere except true gun free zones - court houses, airports, etc. The kind of places where they actually check to make sure everyone who enters is gun free.

[4DAIVI PAI2K5]

Maybe children release a pheromone that causes law-abiding gun owners to become evil?

It's another of those laws that sounds helpful when you're not listening to what is actually being said.

If guns are the problem then why did no parents complain about the hundred or so ARs at the school right after the shooting? Maybe it's because guns in the hands of people with good intentions are harmless...?

Stealing this.

[Uncle Punk]

Good luck with doing away with the license in one fell swoop. On the other hand, liberalize the rules to a point where the permit is just a piece of paper... The liberalization has to come with reassurances of additional safety. (IBIWARS)

No such reassurances are expected nor needed in a place where freedom exists. We get to pursue our own destiny the outcome is not guaranteed.

I'm not so sure you are grasping the concept of free men exercising a right. The people that live in Free states don't jump through stupid made up bullshit hoops to carry a firearm. The rest of the free citizens of those states that choose not to touch a firearm have laws to punish the ones that cause harm. I cannot figure out why you feel the need to complicate such a system. If you can point me to some information that leads to problems in states that don’t require a license to carry a firearm I'm all ears. In the mean time sounding like a socialist bureaucrat won't win you any friends with the people that value freedom so you should expect opposition to your inclinations of a nanny state.

[Scruit]

No such reassurances are expected nor needed in a place where freedom exists. We get to pursue our own destiny the outcome is not guaranteed.

I'm not so sure you are grasping the concept of free men exercising a right. The people that live in Free states don't jump through stupid made up bullshit hoops to carry a firearm. The rest of the free citizens of those states that choose not to touch a firearm have laws to punish the ones that cause harm. I cannot figure out why you feel the need to complicate such a system. If you can point me to some information that leads to problems in states that don’t require a license to carry a firearm I'm all ears. In the mean time sounding like a socialist bureaucrat won't win you any friends with the people that value freedom so you should expect opposition to your inclinations of a nanny state.

If we are a free state then why don't we already have this? Why did we not have this under a Republican majority?