woman gun open carry constitution
(AP Photo/Ted S. Warren)

The good news from here in the Lone Star State is that HB 1927, a bill that would eliminate the need for Texans over 21 to get a state permit in order to carry a firearm, was passed out of committee recently and is scheduled for full House consideration tomorrow, followed by a vote.

We talked to the GOA’s Rachel Malone who, as always, has her finger on the pulse of the Texas legislature. The bill’s progress in the lower chamber can be chalked up to the fact that Dennis Bonnen is no longer sitting in the Speaker’s chair.

Bonnen was no fan of constitutional carry. Current Speaker Dade Phelan, on the other hand, ensured that the current bill would get full consideration at the committee level and has now scheduled HB 1927 for a floor vote.

If the constitutional carry bill passes the House, as expected, that will force the cautious Senate’s hand, pressuring them to consider the bill. But the latest effort to pass constitutional carry in Texas hasn’t gotten as far as it has without some vocal opposition.

As always, the usual suspects are screaming BLOOD IN THE STREETS at the prospect of constitutional carry. The same groups — Bloomberg’s red-shirted minions and big city police chiefs — have warned of parking lot shootouts and fender bender gun fights in almost every one of the 20 states where constitutional carry is now the law. Strangely, none of their apocalyptic predictions have come true. Anywhere.

But also joining the bought-and-paid-for activists and the politicized cops in speaking out against Texas constitutional carry is a group of Texas license to carry (LTC) instructors who claim they care about safety…but are likely much more worried about their bank accounts than they are about Texans’ right to keep and bear arms.

From the Dallas Morning News (paywall). . .

Three instructors and several law enforcement officers, including Dallas police Chief Eddie García, called on lawmakers Tuesday to reject the legislation, which they branded as dangerous.

“The last thing we need is untrained individuals out in public carrying guns that don’t know what the hell they are doing,” Raul Camacho, who teaches the course Texans are currently required to take in order to carry a handgun, said at a news conference outside the Capitol. …

At the Tuesday news conference, Lon Krieger said the handgun licensing process is important because it requires people to take a four-hour course on firearm laws, safe storage and conflict resolution.

“What’s the downside of being trained?” said Krieger, one of three firearms instructors featured at the event. “There’s a downside of people walking around with dangerous weapons who don’t know how to use them.”

Krieger and his fellow Quislings are worried they’ll lose business if a state permit is no longer required. But as has been seen in other constitutional carry states, plenty of gun owners still get training and permits even when it’s no longer required. There won’t be any shortage of business for them.

There had actually been more LTC instructors expressing their opposition…until, that is, they found out that their names would be made public. The bill’s opponents had earlier claimed that 54 instructors had signed onto a letter in opposition to constitutional carry.

But that letter never materialized. Throwing in with Everytown and allowing your name to be publicly associated with efforts to maintain state-mandated fees and hurdles to lawful gun ownership isn’t a good a good look for a firearms instructor.

 

Here’s a Gun Owners of America press release regarding the LTC instructors’ opposition . . .

Rachel Malone, Texas Director of Gun Owners of America, responded to License to Carry (LTC) instructors who are opposing efforts to restore the right of self-defense in Texas, stating:

“Earlier today, a small contingent of License to Carry instructors sided with Bloomberg-funded organizations and opposed pending legislation to restore Texans’ right to carry a handgun without having to obtain a permit. We find it unconscionable that anyone in the firearms community would betray our liberties based on an obvious financial interest.

“As Chair James White and Representative Matt Schaefer stated earlier today, ‘Experience shows that residents will continue to voluntarily seek out training and licenses in permitless carry states, recognizing the benefits of instruction as well as acquiring and maintaining a license, for reciprocity with other states while traveling and other purposes.’

“We agree with Wallace Dunn, President of the Texas Concealed Handgun Association, who stated: ‘Training should not be a condition to exercising a constitutional right.’

“And we applaud instructors such as Jerah Hutchins, firearms instructor, GOA member, and Director of Training at Tier One security company, who stated: ‘Supporting Constitutional Carry as an LTC instructor is the difference between capitalism and greed. As instructors, our job is to teach and influence Texans to be responsible gun owners. This can be accomplished without an infringing licensure.’

“While Gun Owners of America encourages gun owners to obtain quality training, we would hate for any Texas gun owners to give their hard-earned money to the tiny fraction of instructors who actively fight against their core values. We urge our members to seek training from those who advocate in favor of our liberties and support Constitutional Carry.”

 

113 COMMENTS

    • “Training should not be a condition to exercising a constitutional right.”

      If training is necessary, then we should have to take a course in English and Speech before exercising the right to Free Speech. And courses in religion too.

        • You pay for a background check and you can load up and open carry. To do nothing more than “wear a coat” they want you to jump through more hoops and pay lots extra. Any so called “instructor” who goes along with that BS is not an instructor. They are a clown running a racket and their racket belongs in the crapper.

        • Debbie: That may be true in some states (I believe NM is one), but not in Texas. Open carry of a handgun in Texas is restricted to LTC holders only (except for recognized exceptions like being on your own property).
          But I agree that these guys are doing nothing but rent seeking.

        • LKB – You are right, THESE guys ARE doing nothing but “rent seeking”. (To spare a thousand googles, “rent seeking” refers to anything someone does to get a license from government to charge others for use of his property or service. Getting a patent on an invention is an example of “rent seeking”.)

          The truth of your statement notwithstanding, our concern should be focused on answering the question of how best to respond. Is shouting “Myyyyy Riggggggghts!!!” over and over the most clever thing we can think of?

          If it is, we are not smart enough to win the war for the 2A.

        • In my State it is open carry handguns, etc. Nonetheless if you pay and pass an unnecessary background check then you should be able to carry concealed without some further permit to do so. Of course if a property does not allow firearms then you must go along or just don’t go there which is much more prudent self defense thinking.
          It all boils down to being free to wear a coat over a Constitutional Right. Those who have a problem with that have a common sense problem or they do not want to give up making money off of nonsense.

      • That’s not a great example because one has to learn how to speak and communicate before the whole free speech thing happens.

        • Great comment! Where do I sign up a one year old for classes to teach him/her to speak, so I don’t have to bother??

          Or are you really that uptight? Just because someone doesn’t have a license does NOT mean they are untrained. In my experience, most noobs who acquire firearms get training from someone – relative, friend, or professional instructor – on how to handle them. Oh, some don’t? Yeah, and some folks don’t get training on how to use utensils to eat – they just pick it up. Some parents don’t know how to teach their kids to talk/eat/read/whatever? OMG, we must require the parents to get a license to teach their kids!!!!

          Just lovin’ the freedom, aren’t we?

        • “Great comment! Where do I sign up a one year old for classes to teach him/her to speak, so I don’t have to bother??“

          You might want to check with a developmental specialist or a speech therapist who specializes in early intervention, got to make those vocabulary milestones!

    • With “friends” like this . . . .

      The post ID’s two of these guys as Lon Krieger (based near Wimberly) and Raul Camacho (Austin area). This is confirmed by:
      https://www.caller.com/story/news/local/texas/state-bureau/2021/04/13/bill-remove-handgun-license-requirement-advances-texas-legislature/7201443002/
      The third one is ID’d in the Caller article as Jorge DeLeon (San Antonio).

      Make up your own minds, but like Springfield and Rock River Arms I know who I won’t be recommending or patronizing.

  1. I really don’t think “shall issue” permits that involve some sort of training are a bad idea.

    Training on holsters, carrying conditions, ammo, and the laws are a good idea. Hunters do hunter education, why not have CCW education? I live in Texas, and I’m scared shitless of these Cholos NDing at range. No they can do it in a supermarket :/

    • You are, sadly, combining one ‘good idea’ with a ‘horrendous idea,’ and coming up with an abomination.
      Surely, ‘some sort of training’ is a GOOD idea. Everyone knows that getting training is a wise thing to do, considering the complexity of firearm laws and the power that firearms give, for good or evil.
      Just as surely, a ‘permit’, a permission slip with provisions and codicils and caveats, is anathema, a direct and obvious infringement upon the 2nd Amendment.
      Whether you like it or not, ‘those Cholos’ have the same rights, if they are citizens, as do you, and neither of you should need a ‘permit’ from any government to exercise them.

    • J R …. so you think it’s o k to need a permission slip to exercise a God given constitutional right , really ? All adults are responsible for their own actions, leave it at that. Seems like a solution to problems that are not happening.

      • If gun owners were a problem, we would have known about it decades ago. Training is a personal choice and not a requirement.(nor should it ever be a requirement) Personal protection is a “right” and everyone has this God given right of self preservation. Some need to ponder the question:
        Do you want a person to NOT respond because of their lack of training, if they could save your life?

    • We need to think about the ‘perfect is the enemy of the good-enough’ aspects of these political battles.

      We have hunter-education laws under a pretext of “a regulation on hunting, not on bearing arms”. It’s a pretty thin excuse for making a distinction between education on hunting in the field/forrest vs. bearing in the public square.

      Are we not clever enough to think our way around this?

      For example, suppose we could think of a law’s text which would make it a (minor) misdemeanor to bear arms in a school zone without a permit – having a training requirement. Under such a requirement, most of us would get the permit; and the training.

      A few die-hards would refuse to get a permit and would accept the risk of being fined on the occasion of a traffic-stop in a school zone. They would also face Federal GFSZ charges for not having a permit in a school zone.

      We would be very close to having Constitutional-Carry under such a law, substantially freeing people who suddenly recognize an urgent need to carry but don’t have the time/opportunity to take the training and get the permit.

      • You’re advocating finding a way around the Constitution? Shall we find a way around letting blacks and women vote, while we are at it? There has been plenty of finding our way around the 4th Amendment, the 5th Amendment and others, there are plenty of countries without constitutions, move to one and leave our institutions alone.

        • Larry, if you were a PotG of principle you would rail against hunter education.

          Winning any ground whatsoever by any means necessary isn’t good enough for you. You must win on precisely your own terms.

          It might have been true that our grandparents should have stood up when the Post Office ruled-out against handguns being mailed. Had they stood on principle, we wouldn’t be in this mess.

          Our grandparents didn’t stand-up to stop the NFA`34 nor the Sullivan Act. Nor our fathers against the GCA`68. (Three generations of my ancestors were gun dealers in this tragic era of the 20th Century.)

          They tied OUR hands TODAY. WE – the CURRENT generation of PotG – must refrain from using any tactic short of the perfect one they eschewed. Should we even toy with the possibility of some impure tactic we will rot in hell with them.

          Sorry, I’ll join with others less pure-of-heart than you.

      • “We have hunter-education laws under a pretext of “a regulation on hunting, not on bearing arms”.“

        The preamble of the second amendment requires regulation:

        “A well regulated militia,”

        Webster’s dictionary of 1828 is online and defines regulated as “subject to rules or regulations”.

        To ignore the preamble of the second amendment is as invalid as ignoring the preamble of the United States Constitution.

        • “Webster’s dictionary of 1828 is online and defines regulated as ‘subject to rules or regulations’.”

          http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/regulated
          “REG’ULATED, participle passive Adjusted by rule, method or forms; put in good order; subjected to rules or restrictions.”

          That definition defines “regulated” not “well regulated”. These are distinct terms. Well regulated means closer to “put in good order”; but that’s still not quite right.

        • “Adjusted by rule”

          Exactly, Congress is required to provide rules for the militia that are affective and fulfill the purpose of maintaining a proper militia.

          The phrase ‘well trained’ was available to the founders yet they chose rather to use the phrase “well regulated”.

          The preamble of the Second Amendment makes it clear that what follows pertains to the militia, as “well regulated” by Congress.

          You know, Websters of 1828 defines “regulated” as “adjusted by rule”, I’d be interested in viewing whatever competing contemporaneous definition you might have to offer.

        • @Miner49er: Research the term “well regulated” in 18th Century usage. Hamilton used the phrase in the Federalist papers. The term has a variety of usages generally meaning functioning well, fit to purpose, effective. “A well regulated clock keeps correct time” is an example of typical usage.

          It’s really hard to make a plausible case for the idea that “a well regulated militia” was intended to mean a “well regimented militia”.

          If you want to make that argument you would be better starting from Article I Sec 8 giving Congress the power to organize, arm and discipline the militia.

          I have doubts that Article I Sec 8 really refers to one-in-the-same notion of militia as the 2A. This implies that the notion of militia is singular; but this doesn’t accord with the militia as understood at the time of ratification.

          Each state had its own militia; 13 different militia institutions conforming to a common notion. Article I Section 8 described a Federalized militia. These two: the 13 collectively, and, the Federal militia, were substantially overlapping; but not necessarily precisely identical.

          I read Article I Sec 8 to speak of the militia upon which Congress would impose a duty to perform service. I read 2A to refer to the militia in which the People had the right to serve.

          Congress could neglect to organize any militia upon which it would impose no duty. But, then, would there exist no militia absent Congress’ pleasure? This makes no sense.
          The Anti-Federalists insisted on a militia composed of “the body of the People”. It was this militia which Congress could not destroy by neglect.

    • This mentality you’re demonstrating is the same that historically led to current restrictive gun laws. It started by restricting guns to black folks and continues until today. All Americans deserve the same absolute 2A rights and no ones should be restricted based on someone else’s fear of “the others”. You want to restore your 2A rights that have been restricted? Get more people under the tent by inviting them in and making them feel welcome. Rights over feelings without exception.

      • “It started by restricting guns to black folks and continues until today.”

        In any legislative debate, we have to remember our context. Are we in VT? Or TX?

        If in VT “it started” in 1776. And, we are having the discussion in the context of 250 years of satisfactory experience with Con-Carry.

        If in TX, “it started” when Texas started regulating carry of handguns. The context is a state being over-run by immigrants from CA. They are trying to move from a relatively restrictive regime toward a less-restrictive regime.

        It makes much more sense to argue a path of incrementalism vs. a stand-your-ground posture. If winning is, indeed, the only thing then that’s the goal. To win yards.

    • Requiring a training course and a “permit” is an infringement, thus clearly unconstitutional, and that should be the end if the story for any American. If you wish a “training course” which must be “passed”, then require the course in order to graduate from High School, of *everybody* regardless of whether they want it or not, and given at no cost to the student, paid for by those who think it is necessary, such as yourself. By the time I took your wonderful course, I had been shooting handguns for over 30 years, was retired military and served in 3 wars. I did NOT need the course and had been shooting before the instructor was born, yet I had to PAY for it? If you want me to take a course (in anything) which I do not want or need, then *YOU* should pay for it, including my time off work.

      • Training? Training? I didn’t need no stinking training! As an 8-yo I figured it out all by myself, playing with guns.

        My father and others were available to answer questions but I have no memory of ever asking them. Didn’t have a negligent discharge in 60 years.

        When I was 16 or 17 I got a little informal coaching. But, that was it. Only in my 60s did I start taking about 100 hours of training. It was useful; I did learn quite a lot. Found it well worthwhile, including the cost which I cheerfully paid.

        We have to be clever about navigating the permit/training/testing/qualification field. Purity of policy might not be the MOST productive route.

        Can you find anything in Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals that prescribed philosophical purity? Just trying to check for the best practices on strategy.

        • Because no one is smart enough to get training on their own, and only government-licensed trainers know how to train.

          Right.

          And in other news, the government will tell us how to avoid getting the ‘rona – and then change their advice, tomorrow.

          Sorry, not buying it.

    • Here’s all the mental training you need…You screw up using a firearm you could be in legal dodo up to your eyeballs and your life is by all accounts over for the foreseeable future. Now that you understand that do you have what it takes to own a firearm? If the answer is no then do you have what it takes to be unarmed, bound and tortured to death by a murderous pervert? Once again…Do you have what it takes to own a firearm?

      As for training…Why some people are trained for years and in a crisis situation they don’t know the difference between a tazer and a Glock and could start a riot…So much for “Training.”

      • All good points. Moreover, there are rare cases where some grandmother, who had a gun (perhaps left by her departed husband) picked it up and used it effectively the first time she fired a shot in her life. And, in the heat of a home invasion.

        Use of a handgun isn’t rocket science. The ergonomics have been largely worked-out already.

        We ought to be investing our efforts in improving our methods of training-to-arms and mass-marketing this training.

        Dustin Salomon in his Building Shooters is making innovations. Worth studying.

        Once we have techniques that are demonstrably efficacious for the police then we will be in a much better position to impose them on the People exercising their rights. Perhaps we are not yet convinced that the police training agencies have the right answers yet.

        There is always brute force. If Americans really insist that we SHALL have training, whether it’s quite optimal or not, then the path is clear. Congress has the undeniable POWER (that’s what this is about) to organize, arm and PRESCRIBE THE DISCIPLINE for the militia. The states have the responsibility to train according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.

        Let Congress do its sacred duty and order universal training to arms. As for me and my house, we will humbly submit to the Constitutional powers of Congress.

        • And your point would be????

          I trained my youngest son in firearms safety. He’s now a RSO at the range he works at, as well as an instructor. OF COURSE he’s taking training classes since . . . and corrected several of his instructors who didn’t understand the Four Rules.

          EVERY responsible gun owner gets trained by SOMEONE. Most continue training. The government licenses drivers, and we all know that there are no incompetent drivers out there, right???

        • “Congress has the undeniable POWER (that’s what this is about) to organize, arm and PRESCRIBE THE DISCIPLINE for the militia.“

          Correct.

          And the preamble of the second amendment clearly states the requirement that the militia be “well regulated”, that is, ‘subject to rule or regulation’.

          Any right granted or recognized by the second amendment is defined and limited by the preamble of the second amendment.

        • @miner49er: “the requirement that the militia be “well regulated”, that is, ‘subject to rule or regulation’.

          Any right granted or recognized by the second amendment is defined and limited by the preamble of the second amendment.”

          I’m stunned that you think you can pass this drivel on TTAG. Well regulated meant and means “effective” (among other things). In American jurisprudence the prefatory clause does NOT limit the operative clause. That would be correct only in British jurisprudence.

          Making such obviously foolish comments will get you only derision here.

        • MIner49 & MarkPA need a basic English lesson on punctuation !
          COMMA RULES – THE COMMA IN A COMPOUND SENTENCE: >
          A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. > Use a pair of commas in the middle of a sentence to set off clauses, phrases, and words that are “not essential” to the meaning of the sentence. = “being necessary to the security”
          > Don’t put a comma after the main clause when a dependent (subordinate) clause follows it – The right of the people – is Not a dependent clause of “A well regulated militia. > The Right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Stands on its own! As does > A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, shall not be infringed.

        • “In American jurisprudence the prefatory clause does NOT limit the operative clause.“

          So the preamble to the United States Constitution does not set forth the entire scope and limits of what follows, and should just be disregarded as fluff?

        • @Minor49er: “So the preamble to the United States Constitution does not set forth the entire scope and limits of what follows, and should just be disregarded as fluff?”

          No, that’s not entirely true; but it’s close. Under American jurisprudence you read the operative clause and determine its meaning. If your interpretation is in doubt then you can see whether the prefatory clause could resolve the doubt. If it could so contribute, then you take it into account.

          So, the operative clause states that the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

          Now, suppose you are trying to figure out whether the arms include a garrote, a punt gun or an AR-15. Not clear from the operative clause. Now, you are entitled to look to the prefatory clause to see if it might help to resolve the doubt.
          Does each of these weapons tend to contribute to the creation and maintenance of a well regulated militia? The garrote; the punt gun; the AR-15. To what extent does each of these weapons – or some analogue – tend to be used in military functions? Can you work this out? A trial court should consider testimony on these possibilities.

          The argument that the 2A doesn’t authorize weapons of war falls apart in light of the prefatory clause. That the 2A doesn’t authorize a weapon not used in military activities but rather by criminals might carry some weight. Does a punt gun have any analogue in military usage?

          I’m not at the top of my game in this aspect of statutory interpretation. It’s been several years since I read about it. You would be well advised to research it yourself.

          Also interesting that the British rule of interpreting a prefatory clause is the reverse of the American rule.

  2. I expect that the Texas legislature can simply rely upon historical precedent to see whether or not these pillars of Public Safety are correct about the wanton blood orgy that always takes place right after Constitutional Carry, or even Shall-Issue CCW permitting, is allowed in other states.
    Living in Alaska, and witnessing the firestorm of random and planned shootings, street-corner murders, gun duels in 7-11s, Wal-Marts, and bingo parlors, with the ERs, ORs, mortuaries and morgues filling up with shooting victims both intended and accidental, streets slippery with flowing gore, I can bear witness that letting normal people, untrained people, people who might not be able to tell the difference between a pocket comb and a revolver (let alone the difference between a Taser and a Glock) who are not as rigourously trained as are police officers, the military, or even FBI and ATF agents is just asking for a rapid decrease in the population of minorities, babies, puppies, and White Supremacists.

    No, really. Think of the children!

    • The problem is that these LEOs and instructors are the “useful idiots” for the gun-controllers.

      These objectors give cover to legislators to vote against a permit-less-carry law because of “legitimate concerns about public safety” expressed by credible witnesses.

      All of the purists would rather see the not-quite-perfect Con-Carry bill fail to pass because they prefer to engage in a pissing match with sheriffs and instructors who are not sufficiently idealistic.

      • MarkPA,
        What does your last paragraph mean? The article criticizes “instructors who are not sufficiently idealistic” because they want the bill to FAIL, in a pissing match with “purists” who want it to PASS.

        • Forgive me when, in haste, I fail to make myself clear.

          These LEOs and instructors have some motivation to oppose Con-Carry. Perhaps the LEOs think they are “the only ones”. Perhaps the instructors fear a loss of revenue.

          We can – and should – try to neutralize these opponents of liberalization of gun-control laws.

          I confess I don’t know precisely what issues are at stake in the TX debate. No doubt the bill being debated isn’t PURE. Likely, there are possibilities for amending the bill in ways that will neutralize objections. Bitter pills to swallow to make any concessions, but such is life in politics.

          My beef is with the purist crowd who regard it as vastly more important to confront the heretics (opposing LEOs and instructors) for their apostasy. Arguing with opposing players is more gratifying than the sweet taste of victory then the bell rings.

          In my not-so-humble opinion, I think it more important to find the tactical moves necessary to move relaxation of gun-controls along incrementally. That will often require taking smaller bites of the apple multiple times rather than trying to eat the entire apple in a single bite.

          The purist attitude is to accept, begrudgingly, failure after failure rather than settle for less than a purist position in incremental advances.

        • “The purist attitude is to accept, begrudgingly, failure after failure rather than settle for less than a purist position in incremental advances.” – MarkPA

          This reminds me of a Navy principle that I always thought was a pretty good metaphor for thinking / planning in general: Radar and GPS are great tools, but shiphandling also requires looking out the window (comparing your computed or deduced solution with observed facts). Both you and the instructors have made arguments with some philosophical validity, but contrary to empirical data.

          For nearly a century and a half, 2A (like the rest of the Constitution) meant what it says – no [federal] compromises and no “failures” inflicted on the “purists” for unwillingness to compromise.

          There has only ever been one US federal gun law that could be considered a “compromise” in any real, two-sided way (FOPA 1986) – and that’s being generous.

          From 1934-1994 I count three “compromises” of the Sudetenland variety – i.e. we get nothing, while the other side “compromises” by only taking half of what they want, fully planning to come back for the rest in the future. Then the “purists” smacked down both the Hitlers and the Chamberlains of 1994, and have subsequently managed to hold the line for the most part without incurring “failure after failure”.

          At the state level (while a small handful of Leftist strongholds keep marching further left) nearly everywhere else went Shall Issue. Now many states are adopting Con-Carry, which brings me to my second “glance out the window”.

          In a philosophy classroom, the 2A hardline vs. “training” debate would be an interesting one. In real life, we have 20 CC states bearing ZERO resemblance to the dire predictions of the antis (and the rent seekers, as you eloquently noted) – just like Shall Issue! What benefit could possibly accrue from compromise with a blatant lie (in Texas of all places)?

  3. I currently live in one of the many “Constitutional Carry” states. I have been volunteering as an RSO on firearms ranges for citizens to get their state issued CWL. I can assure you, there is no shortage of people attending these courses. We are booked solid for several months in a row. People are still getting trained and learning skills, regardless of the requirement.

    • We ought to bear in mind that the GFSZ act makes it essential for a resident to get a permit in a Con-Carry state.

      If you are found to be carrying without a permit from THAT state in a school zone you could be charged with violating the GFSZ act. (I wonder how residents of Vermont cope with GFSZ.)

      It seems perfectly clear to me that the GFSZ violates the Commerce Clause (it’s an over-reach of the Herpes Doctrine). Moreover, the exception for having a permit from THAT state is absurdly narrow and inconsistent with the scheme of Reciprocity and Recognition. Finally, there are Shall-Issue states as well as May-Issue states that make no provision for issuing CWPs to non-residents. In such cases it is impossible for a non-resident to carry in a school zone with a permit from THAT state.

      Con-Carry is a really good idea for reasons of principle and practicality. However, it is not the blanket we think it to be because of GFSZ.

      • GFSZ is unconstitutional and has been since day one. AFAIK, *everybody* ignores it, it’s a joke. One direction from my home passes within 1000 feet of both an elementary and a middle school, the other way passes within 1000 feet of a high school. That has been the case for 25 years, I have probably violated that stupid law at least ten thousand times, and thus far not one student has died from my gun going rogue without warning. Please do not pretend anyone should even consider that law when deciding on bearing arms.

        • Absolutely true; every word. Nevertheless, it’s the law of the land.

          Why would you refuse to USE the law (GFSZ) as the basis for an argument that states deny us the right to carry when they refuse to issue us NON-resident permits?

          We are all very unhappy with the Reciprocity/Recognition scheme we live under. We want to attack the system on its own terms to get something better; if not perfect, better.

          One of the countless soft-underbellies in the law as it stands now is: GFSZ; PLUS the fact that some states won’t issue NON-resident permits. Therefore, it is impossible for us to carry under Reciprocity/Recognition in those states without violating GFSZ.

          We didn’t make this situation as it is; it was Congress and these state legislatures. THEY made these laws the way they are. This combination can’t withstand Constitutional scrutiny. Something has to give.

          I live in PA; bordering DE. DE won’t issue me a permit simply because I’m not a resident. They will cheerfully allow me to drive through their jurisdiction with my Glock on my dash; but if I conceal it, I’m in violation.

          Drive through a school zone without a DE permit and I’m in violation of Federal law. No matter that there is no Fed working as a school-crossing guard to arrest me (PA plates, Glock on my dash; prima facia probable cause). I’m still in violation of Federal law.

          To whom to I address by grievance? Congress? Delaware legislature? The Courts?

          Why not make this an issue? We might get a circuit split. We might get SCOTUS to take up the issue on a Constitutional discrimination basis against non-residents.

        • At the time, there WERE no ‘Christians,’ so, yeah, Jesus, a Jew, was miffed at other Jews. What was your implication, if any? If it was the word ‘-changer,’ and not ‘-lender,’ I concede the point. Nevertheless, unless they were wandering Tibetans, Lapps, or Burmese who took a wrong turn at Albuquerque, they were, indeed, Jews.

    • Vichy? You mean like protecting the church and rejecting things like a 10 day week?

      The gun community when I was growing up was like “oh cool, check out my Luger.” Now it’s boomer who watch too much TV and call leftists they don’t like “Nazis.” (Failing to see the irony that Nazism was, indeed, a right-wing movement. Nazis even repealed Weinmar gun control laws.)

      I know it doesn’t fit well with your public school, liberal Hollywood brainwashing… but if you can’t square that circle- at least just STFU.)

        • “Nazis are far left. Dumbass.“

          The Nazis hated the left wing ideology, and persecuted communists, socialists and anyone who deviated from their right wing philosophy of state authoritarianism.

          “Anti-Nazi politicians and union workers either fled Germany or faced long-term confinement in a concentration camp. Ernst Thälmann, leader of the German Communist party since 1925 and one-time candidate for the German presidency, for example, had been arrested after the fire that destroyed German parliament building in 1933. He spent more than 11 years in the camps. The SS killed him in Buchenwald concentration camp on August 18, 1944, during an air raid on a nearby factory.“

          Tell me, do you think the Nazis’ persecution of trade unions, homosexuals and immigrants was a left-wing value?

        • Let’s see: “National Socialist German Workers’ Party”, whose core principle is absolute faith in a massive central government that regulates and/or subsidizes every aspect of life.

          Sounds a lot like the Democrats, and not at all like either the US (individual liberty predicated on absolute individual responsibility and a limited constitutional government of specific, enumerated, and delegated powers) or Imperial German (hereditary agrarian aristocracy, Lutheran traditionalism, local / family emphasis) Right.

        • “Within two months Hitler achieved full dictatorial power through the Enabling Act. In April 1933 communists, socialists, democrats, and Jews were purged from the German civil service, and trade unions were outlawed the following month. That July Hitler banned all political parties other than his own, and prominent members of the German Communist Party and the Social Democratic Party were arrested and imprisoned in concentration camps. Lest there be any remaining questions about the political character of the Nazi revolution, Hitler ordered the murder of Gregor Strasser, an act that was carried out on June 30, 1934, during the Night of the Long Knives. Any remaining traces of socialist thought in the Nazi Party had been extinguished.“

          https://www.britannica.com/story/were-the-nazis-socialists

        • Well, other than the totalitarian control of the entire economy (and everyone’s private life), the death of Gregor Strasser made for a sort of Adam Smith / Murray Rothbard fusion, right? LOL

  4. There is no downside to training.

    Making it mandatory and putting it behind a paywall/time requirement is not only a downside but turns a right into an easily revoked privilege.

    Put those instructors over the fire and fry them.

    • Lance,

      “There is no down side to training.”

      I came to say the same thing.

      Furthermore, consider the contradiction of how wonderful and fantastic training is — and that we have to mandate it. If training is so wonderful, fantastic, and valuable, people will want to go voluntarily in droves and no mandate is necessary. On the flip side, the only time that something has to be mandatory is when that thing sucks and people do not want it. Well, which is it? Is training wonderful, fantastic, and valuable? Or does it suck?

      If training sucks and is not valuable, then why mandate it? If training is fantastic and valuable, then it doesn’t have to be mandatory because people will beat down the doors to get it.

      • Simple example, uncommon – driver training. OF COURSE anyone sensible would want to be trained before they drive. But the state requires it – and in many states, they require you get that training from a “licensed” instructor. And you have to get a state license in order to drive.

        And you NEVER come across a driver out on the road and wonder “What @$$hole gave that moron a license??”, do you?

        If the government is your solution, your problem is guaranteed to get worse.

  5. This is a double edged sword. I don’t have a problem with training to get a CCDW permit. But I don’t think a day’s training is really enough to learn anywhere near what a person should know. I also think that too many people think the permit means they are ready to carry. which means they will never try to learn more. I have been carrying for almost 40 years, I can still learn more and be better prepared.

    Having said that, I also know that a training requirement could be considered an infringement or a qualifier. The real need is the personal commitment to be both proficient in gun handling and better knowledged of the laws in the used of the firearm and for self-defense .

  6. Stop being a LOLbertarian and support the subsidization of fellow gun people. Shall issue with good training and low costs is reasonable.

    We all know that good people will do it and the Cholos won’t. That way Cholos will get arrested, which is a good thing.

    • This is a blatantly racist comment. As such, it undermines our credibility.

      We need EVERY possible 2A-able member of our society to be personally invested in the right-to-bear arms. Those of us who know should be offering to teach, whether via a paid course or informal coaching. Everyone of every economically-challenged tier of our society should have our heartfelt support to learn the rudiments of gun safety.

      When I read such comments I wonder whether they are being made by trolls from the gun-controller community.

    • Ok JR… your trolling here has been noticed.

      Find a name, stick to it, stop making multiple comments, and get a life.

      We don’t agree with you, stop spamming, get over it.

      Fucking FUDDs are worse than spam callers.

  7. The point here is, “will everyone obey the law?” I suspect that someone who plays fast and loose with gun safety will also play fast and loose with the laws. This would make them even more dangerous in places where the law abiding obey the law and do not carry. The people that would do such a thing already carry and do not respect gun safety. They are just looking for trouble and a good guy with a gun might just be in their future.

    • I see some real winners open carrying here in MT. Nylon holsters in all the wrong spots, clipped to their pockets, 30 round mags extending out of drop leg holster a to allow the showing off of bedazzled jean pockets, IWB holsters used in IWB spots as OWB… The list goes on and on.

      “Training” won’t help these people. They already took the required classes.

      Still, doesn’t bother me a bit. I know my mentality and reasons I carry. Vigilantism is not one of them, and neither is the authority to invade people’s personal decisions and constitutional rights. When it comes down to it, everyone with a gun is a threat to the government, and that’s all that matters to me. I’d that goofball with the nylon holsters and lack of one in the chamber manages to save a life one day, great. If they put themselves on the radar for being a dumbass, that’s on them. Too many dumbasses I. The world for me to worry about the small percentage of carriers who stand out like a sore thumb. You do you, and I’ll do me. Freedom.

      Lastly, I’m not against OWB, I actually wish there was more of it and maybe these small issues would be virtually non existent then. It might become “common sense”… Oof… That’s a dangerous phrase to use, I know.

  8. Dallas, Houston, Austin and San Antonio police chiefs.
    In an absolute surprise to… exactly no one. Don’t Cali our Texas.
    At least they reaffirmed the list of people that Abbott should fire asap.

    • Unfortunately, Abbot doesn’t have the right/power to fire local police chiefs. Police chiefs and sheriffs, in most areas, are politicians. OF COURSE they’re going to parrot what their (political) superiors are spouting. Trust politicians like you would trust a used car salesman.

  9. Texans need to take a move from the leftists playbook. Cancel those fuckers. Don’t let them make a living doing training whether or not the bill passes and is signed into law.

    • Gotta be careful about that. Circular firing squads result in unintended consequences. We need to be shooting out, not in. I’m hoping the left goes too far down that road to stop before they realize what they are doing to themselves and their cause.

      If what I read is correct, they talked it up but none of them put their John Hancock to paper, so it’s an all hat no cattle thing that their neighbors ought to be able to see through. Maybe the marketplace will deal with them.

    • Yeah, if POTG attack POTG gun trainers, that will really build a spirit of unity and cohesion within the ranks of gun owners.

  10. The State of Maine has the most CPLs Per Capita since they went to Constitutional Carry in 2015………………The Permit System is alive and well in a Blue State with a Gubernatorial and Legislative Trifecta of Democrats………….

    What’s going on right now in Texas (and even Florida and Ohio) with the Constitutional Carry Issue is exposing too many so-called “Pro 2nd Amendment” people as just $money loving $Cash Cow f*** ups who will sacrifice the 2nd Amendment’s Political and Cultural Importance for $Cash.

    That, and the fact that the Texas GOP still has too many scumbag Bush-Mafia-GOP-Establishment-Cartel/ “Bush-Family Type” Republicans whom are more interested in appeasing the California and Chicago Democrat Transplants who are trying to destroy the State.

  11. Have you seen the instructors? Most of them are just wannabe military and LEOs but are too far and low IQ to do either.. most don’t even have any formal.trainimg and couldn’t work in a fastfood window without.messing up your order. They only care about scamming citizens. The 2nd amendment shouldn’t be bought and paid for. The instructors can piss off and find other work.

    • Texasjack should do some research before spouting off – “As of 2013 you must be certified as an instructor through an accredited process before becoming a Texas License to Carry (LTC) instructor.” Go to “/txhga.org/texas-ltc-information/becoming-a-ltc-instructor/” if you want to be an instructor yourself. Several states requirement of a “Carry “License” have nothing to do with Combat shooting, or self-defense shooting. They cover the applicable laws and consequences of your actions. Then maybe an actual basic shooting test. >>> according to a family member ->The NY State class was how to correctly fill out your CCL request paper work, and nothing more! Cause you legally can’t touch a pistol until a judge gives you your license too! NEXT is the Liability insurance Bond cost !

      • I could live with a requirement that instructors meet some standards for registration. Prescinding from the issue of just what legal benefits are associated with getting instruction – a worthy topic – I don’t object to standards.

        Suppose, for example, that the ‘State of Confusion’ wants to issue permits to its residents so that they simply enjoy carry Reciprocity from other states. They MUST meet those other states’ standards for equivalency.

        I wanted a NON-resident permit from SC. That state was gracious enough to entertain my application. (I thank them). All I had to do was:
        1. buy land in SC (my “spread” is in the capital)
        2. travel to SC, purchase lodging and food for a few days
        3. pay a SC instructor for a (very nice course), test and qualification
        How much of these requirements really promote public safety?

        How about if any NRA instructor could have administered the training, test and qualification?

        How about if any NRA instructor credentialed by any state participating in a multi-state registration program could have administered the training, test and qualification?

        If we are to live under some sort of state-policed permitting system with training then it ought to be implemented in the least onerous manner feasible.

        If someone genuinely believes in training, testing and qualification (an argument I’m willing to entertain) then they ought to be advocating for a NATIONAL SCHEME of registration and administration of authorized instructors.

        The scheme we have seems to be designed to raise arbitrary impediments which are especially high for inter-state carry under NON-resident permits and even under Reciprocity/Recognition.

        • How about if SCOTUS was to pull its collective head out of its fourth point of contact and just make “constitutional carry” the law of the land?

          Just askin’, for a friend.

        • @LampOfDiogenes.
          SCOTUS is NOT going to mandate Con-Carry. Ever. Those who intend to hold their breath until Con-Carry is declared will turn blue before that happens. This wishful thinking is an obstacle to achieving the possible.

          First obstacle is SCOTUS striking down “justifiable need”. That ought to be possible. I think SCOTUS will take Young v HI or the NY case now being considered for cert.

          My expectation – best hope – is that SCOTUS will mandate that each state’s legislature write in black-letter law its prerequisites for issuing a permit and that such permits be Shall-Issue.

          SCOTUS may say a little more, but I doubt that they will say much more. Then will follow years of law-making and litigation over how onerous the prerequisites are. Progress will be very slow.

          A political solution will resolve the issue of onerous prerequisites. Some states will impose and maintain a suite of many onerous requirements with the manifest purpose of keeping to a minimum the number of ordinary citizens who will undertake to acquire and maintain permits.

          The worst is yet to come. States, and municipalities, who don’t like carry will create checkerboard GFZs. Emily Miller wrote that she can’t legally carry when she walks her dog in DC. Too many places she must transverse which are GFZs. SCOTUS will be exceedingly reluctant to dig into the details of proscribing GFZs. Again, a political solution must be found.

          The picture is not bright. There is no alternative but to raise respect for the 2A to the level where legislative bodies are forced to submit to the will of a super-majority of voter sentiment.

        • MarkPA – I was responding to texasjacks instructor comment. And merely pointing out instructor requirements. To my knowledge most states are following the NRA instructor standards, or a copy of it. THe list of states recognizing other states is growing – BUT are the recognizing “Licensed CCL as well as “constitutional Carry”?
          As a licensed Concealed Carry, I am covered in most states. Since that license years ago most states around me (and mine) are Constitutional Carry, but i still renew for travel. UNfortunately I still can’t drive thru Illinois (legally) without stopping prior to and locking up the weapon, ammo separate to continue on. And NY state – don’t EVEN think about bringing anything flying or driving, even locked in luggage, even passing thru. It’s a patchwork of “States Rights” under a Constitutional right. And that does need to be addressed. Especially if one is passing thru on a interstate or a connecting flight, or Amtrak.

        • @Ol’Sarge: “It’s a patchwork of “States Rights” under a Constitutional right. And that does need to be addressed.”

          It is a mess; but, it’s up to us to make the best of it. There are good reasons to NOT try to federalize carry permits. I won’t recite them here.

          If the states would organize themselves just a tiny bit, the mess would be quite tolerable.

          Suppose SCOTUS imposes Shall-Issue. Then, suppose the most resistant states agreed on a standard for reciprocity among themselves. Call this the “Gold Card”. Then, the most stringent of the current Shall-Issue states organized their standard for reciprocity, call it the Silver Card. The less restrictive Shall Issue states make up the Bronze Card.

          Those who travel everywhere get a Gold card from any of the issuing states that’s good in 50+DC. Those who travel to Silver states get a card from one of the Silver states.

          Such a scheme would keep the Feds out of it and give each state very nearly perfect control over it’s requirements.

          The perfect is the enemy of good-enough.

          The progression toward Con-Carry would continue. And, progression of Silver to Bronze, Gold to Silver would occur.

    • Oddly some of the worst advice for carrying I got was in a license to carry class. The instructor told us to find an attorney we liked in case we had to use our gun. At the time I was a US Law Shield customer and I suggested to the class they use this. The instructor proceeded to tell me it was a waste of money. I proceeded to tell the class and instructor; “If you want to end up losing everything you ever worked for in attorneys fees because you had to use your gun – listen to this guy”.

  12. So the 2nd only counts if y’all can make a buck.
    Yeah true Texass Patriots right there.
    Lots of us got permitless carry and it’s no big deal. Y’all going from Purple to blue with this kinda talk

  13. Only a few , I would have thought all the LTC instructors would have disapproved constitutional carry.
    All that bread and no butter.

  14. I believe both sides have honest, valid points on the issue of Constitutional Carry, although I think that the 2nd A strict adherence crowd has the somewhat overall stronger position.

  15. I’m absolutely advocate training. Without a doubt. Although there is a very big difference between being forced into it through coercion and personally choosing your path.

    My only concern with Constitutional carry is what happens when buying a gun. With the LTC, there is no NICS checks. If we move to constitutional carry, will I still have a mechanism for that?

    • Prnsll -Would depend on how its written – Look it up, should be on your state’s “Dot Gov” web site!
      Here in Ks – IF you have a CCL license, the local gun store doesn’t “Have to” call in a background check, they Xerox your CCL & DL – but many do call in to cover their own ass. We also have constitutional carry – the NICS check IS your license. Your state may very.

    • Lots of different issues mixed-up in your question; but all worth thinking about.

      Con-Carry is an argument worth debating on its own merits.

      Reciprocity/Recognition is a benefit accorded by all Con-Carry states except VT. Is VT a more noble jurisdiction because it denies its residents the ability to enjoy Reciprocity in states that require one to hold a permit in one’s state of residence?

      Whether ATF (and your particular state) give you a waiver of the NICS check necessarily ties-into having a permit scheme, and what the terms of the scheme are. (As well as the pleasure of the state’s legislature.)

      Having a permit comes with some privileges, and those privileges – whatever they happen to be – provide an INCENTIVE withOUT COERCION to participate in the training/testing/qualification program. We ought to think of PROMOTING training/testing/qualification even if we FIGHT a denial of rights.

      GFSZ provides us a Congressionally-imposed pretext to fight states’ practices of refusing/resisting issuing NON-resident permits. The LATTER is the clear-cut infringement; GFSZ itself isn’t so clearly an “infringement” (i.e., literally the breaking of a right).

      Skipping the NICS check is another privilege. None of us is altogether happy with every aspect of NICS. So, we ought to be looking for a way – consistent with good political imagery – to lessen the burden of NICS on qualified gun-buyers.

      We advocate for training. If getting a “permit” is sort-of-a Boy Scout merit badge then it contributes to that end.

  16. Now that Sleepy Joe has put a big WELCOME sign across some of the Southern border, but especially Texas; I can see why individuals would want to have protection available to them. I kinda think that a lot of those people would have a friend, relative, etc, who has the experience to give them proper training and education on safe gun handling without the person having to pay to attend some class to learn the same thing. And if not, they can always attend a class with an instructor of their choice.

  17. Operating a boat is a privilege and not a RIGHT. To cut hair, well let’s just say I don’t want the barber or stylist to cut off my ear and say Oops but if you don’t want a haircut, don’t get one.
    The cop in the video is comparing apples to oranges.

    As for instructors being opposed, yes it is a source of revenue for them. When I went through the CCW class in Illinois it was 16 hours and a qualification on the range. The thing is that while we learned plenty in the two day 16 hour class, the school rented out a entire range once a month to let people practice actual SD skills. The cost? Nothing, bring your own guns and ammo or they had guns for free and you paid for ammo. This was 4 years ago, the range was close to my house and the only people that were on the range were instructors from the school. No RSOs from the range, you had to sign a waiver. Out of the hundreds of people who took that class monthly, two 60 people classes every weekend and a 3 day night class during the week, only 10 people showed up for any actual type of live fire SD practice. Buy a gun, dig through your purse while someone pummels you or blow off your junk carrying w/o any holster.

    The thing is even after 16 hours of class you aren’t going to learn drawing from a holster with a loaded weapon. You aren’t going to learn situational awareness. It was obvious from range qualification that many of the people needed basic marksmanship training and most ranges in Illinois will not let you draw from a holster. That’s not such a bad thing, I stopped going to public ranges when I saw how many “newbs” were sweeping the range, they would get a FTF and look down the barrel before clearing the weapon, it got pretty dangerous.

    As for the range qualification part of the CCW there were people shaking when they had to shoot a 9mm at a B-27 silhouette. 30 shots total [email protected] yards, [email protected] yards and [email protected] 10 yards. 70% or 7 out of 10 for each. These people were going buy a handgun based on someones recommendation and put in in their waistband or purse and think they were ready for a SD situation. IMO they were either going to spray and pray, have their handguns used against them or be actually worse off then they were unarmed. Someone cant take your gun from you and shoot you if don’t have one. The range qualification part was a real eye opener.

    The state I moved to has no training required for concealed carry unless you want to apply for one so you have reciprocity. That’s a 8 hour course and is basically a shortened version of the Illinois class. The range qualifications are 20 hits on a [email protected] 7 yards.

    The moral of all of this that probably 80%+ of people who are allowed to carry are ill prepared for any type of SD shooting. Should training be mandatory? Well I say no, you are an adult and capable of your own decisions. Don’t be surprised if you do get a shot off and miss and lose everything you own because you killed someone who was minding their business a block away or you end up in the ER after blowing your own junk off while the criminal runs away laughing.

    Yes train and keep training but if you don’t want to then remember whatever happens is on you and you only.

    • LTC/CCW instructors teach an introductory class. Much like going to college after high school, it is on you to pursue higher levels of training/education. Even if it’s an NRA certified instructor, the course is still just the bare basic minimum for whatever the state requires.

      • True but for the cost of the class it was pretty cool that these guys rented out a range and took it up a notch. The knew they were teaching the basics in the CCW class but the range night was a bonus. They weren’t trying to upsell training classes. Most instructors were ex military and realized that unleashing some of the people in the class on the public was basically borderline dangerous.

        You had people on range qualification that were actually scared at shooting at a B-27 silhouette. It was obvious it was the first time they ever held a gun. If the ramifications weren’t so serious, it would almost be funny. You had women shaking, men trying to shoot sideways gangster style, an extra instructor just to watch people qualify safely.

        At the range of course there was a LGS out front. You had people looking at the guns in the case and basically liking guns based on color (pink was eye catching to some of the women) or the fact they were certain guns that were “popular”. (Glocks)

        “I’m going to buy that Glock and I’ll be good”. What holster are going to get for it? “I’m going to just put it my waistband”. I know the 16 hours got a little boring but did you pay attention? You need a holster. ” Really, do you think so?”
        Yeah I’m pretty sure on this one.

        While I’m guilty of occasionally carrying a hammerless DA revolver as a back up in my waistband w/o a holster, I know that it’s going take 12lbs of trigger pull to make it go boom. Any semi auto that I carry has a holster of some sort. This what range day was about, taking it to the next level. Unlike Texas, these guys weren’t trying to sell tactical classes, they were basically seeing if their students were somewhat equipped for a real world SD shooting situation.

        The problem was that more people should have taken the time to go to range night. 10 people out of hundreds? It was kind of sad but actually with only 10 of us and 6 instructors we got a lot of lead down range. Get dirty from shooting prone. It wasn’t MAG40 but a couple of the instructors took some of Mas Ayoobs courses.

        You have to remember this was 4 years ago in a different state. Ammo was cheap and plentiful. Guns were cheap and plentiful. We didn’t have a POTUS who hated guns in the hands of citizens. It was a different time.

        • Good endorsement of MAG40. Took the course myself. Learned a lot. Shot OK, but didn’t win first place in the qualification.

          One thing these discussions isn’t taking into account is the distribution of experience the population brings to the permit application window.

          Those with considerable gun use experience justifiably resent going through the course and qualification at unnecessary expense. In PA there is no training/test/qualification. In SC and MN I had to travel there for the training/test/qualification.

          Those with little to no experience ought to get it. Some doubtlessly pursue training after getting their permits. They get their permits first, take a class or two. Buy a gun.

          Despite the wide variation in training requirements, including no requirement, we have no data revealing that states with training requirements have lower rates of accidents or unlawful use of guns by permit holders. Before we can be justified in imposing a training prerequisite we ought to produce data (which is now available from decades of permitting experience) showing efficacy. With no such showing, a training prerequisite looks a lot like a literacy test to vote. Nor do we have data indicating which components of curricula are useful/useless.

          If, as a purely political matter, our nation chooses to have training-to-arms the Constitutional path to mandating that is readily identifiable. Congress can invoke its power to prescribe the “discipline for the militia”. Every child/adolescent/adult is subject to militia duty at pleasure of Congress. Everyone ought to have a minimal level of gun-safety training; every child should have something like Eddie Eagle.
          The states are mandated to train to the discipline prescribed by Congress. States operate public schools. The training can be incorporated into the existing curricula. Veterans are readily available everywhere who will be delighted to teach.

          If training is a scientific issue then show us the data. If its a political issue, then have Congress proceed on the course explicitly prescribed by the Constitution.

  18. “The last thing we need is people out exercising their rights without first paying us to tell them how WE feel they should go about it”.
    FIFY, douchebag instructors in TX.

  19. Well …. I guess they wanna protect their cash cow of captive students.

    Nice to know who they are …..so they can be avoided….or voided….I guess.

  20. I BELIEVE TRAINING ALWAYS A GOOD SOUND THING . SPEACH TRAINING SHOULD HAVE BEEN COVERED IN HIGH SCHOOL .
    LTC TRAINING YES , TO MANY DUMMBIES OUT THERE , LORD HELP US WITH COMSENSE

    • Training is an individual responsibility. This “training” being discussed is just an excuse against Constitutional Carry. Technically you have to have Constitutional Carry in order to be able to go to a training class if you otherwise can’t get a permit until you finished training.

  21. Apparently some of those working in the second amendment industry put their own pocket books above the Constitution that allowed them to be in the industry to start with. Greedy shits.

  22. If this surprised you… its going to blow your mind when you realize how many local gun store owners will support stuff like banning online sales of ammunition and other things like that when it comes time.

  23. The Police Association will oppose HB635 because it ends their ability to contract with federal agencies to enforce federal firearms regulations unless there is a matching Texas law. They will support HB2622 because it will still allow them to contract with the fed to enforce federal firearms regulations prior to 1/19/2021 regardless of weather there is a matching Texas law. HB635 kills a cash cow.

  24. I just became a TX LTC Instructor, would be very happy if Constitutional Carry passes, and have written my Representative and Senator asking them to support it. It’s sad any instructors would oppose it.
    The bright side is if everyone is carrying, there’s actually a lot more reason for those folks to get firearms training. I expect Constitutional Carry to increase training demand.
    Most of all we need to be a 2A sanctuary that arrests anyone who violates our 2A rights.

  25. My opinion is that taking a 4 hour class, paying money, shooting some holes in paper, and getting a card does not guarantee the licensee, us or the public are any more safety than someone who has never taken the class but carries. Plastic cards and paying to get them do not make someone competent nor safe.
    In the same manner that having a driver’s license does nothing to prevent “drunk driving” or the commission of other crimes. Just another source of revenue and CONTROL over citizens.
    I will keep renewing my LTC so that I can carry in states I travel to. And I will continue to train. But those are my choices and should not be mandatory.

    • I agree. Moreover, I’ve read arguments that permitting is counter-productive. Because you paid and got your ticket punched you are under the illusion that you really are qualified. And forcing someone to take a class doesn’t force them to pay attention.

      I would be more inclined to a fairly rigorous test (drafted by the industry, not LEOs or legislators) which would cost little-to-nothing. As for a “qualification” I’d favor something (preferably better than what we have) where there is no “passing” score. Instead, you see where your personal score is located on a normal curve of everyone’s scores. If you are below 1 standard deviation to the left of the mean, you should really seriously improve your marksmanship or choose not to carry.

      Mostly, this is a debate over principles rather than practicalities. People are really resistant to reconsidering their principles. I think that’s really unfortunate.

      We might imagine an alternative course of history; one where gun owners weren’t beleaguered by cries for ever-increasing incremental gun-control. In such an imaginary history, gun owners probably would have fostered gun-safety and gun-carrier training courses just as they supported hunter education.

      They probably would have targeted minors (under 21/18) where the pretext for giving short-shrift to their Constitutional rights has a tradition. If they want to X then they have to Y; the coercion is not so obvious here.

      But, the gun-controllers poisoned the air in the debate hall. PotG have largely dug-in their heels. That resistance isn’t wrong; it’s logical. When under attack it’s important to circle-the-wagons, not give-up ever more ground.

      • MarkPA,
        Since my previous response on this subject was long, I’ll try to be more concise:

        A. Some claim that Con-Carry equals anarchic bloodshed, just as they did about Shall-Issue.

        B. Others cite decades of real-world evidence (for both policies), overwhelmingly demonstrating that nothing of the sort has taken place.

        C. Some expected B-type guys push A instead because of the “practical” role that state-sponsored extortion plays in their business model.

        The practicalities on the opposing side turn out to be as false as their principles. What do you hope to gain by proposing “solutions” for a known non-problem?

        • You make good points; perhaps the best that could be made. I’m sorry that I’m not close enough to the TX debate to be able to offer a useful suggestion.

          Likely, it’s a mostly political problem. What would it take to get a couple of crucial votes to push the bill through? What these couple of legislators want is apt to be irrational; but, if one panders to that irrationality one might get a better law through. Without those votes, one might get nothing better for years.

          An example of this scenario is Florida’s critical Shall-Issue law change. Many voices argued that the permit ought to cover open as well as concealed carry. Best they could get was exemptions for fishing, etc. Fishing occurs in gator country.
          The debate persists until today. Would Florida or the nation have been better off if the open-carry advocates had insisted on their issue? How long might it have taken for Florida to go Shall-Issue on concealed-carry along with authorizing broad open carry?

          Perhaps it would have delayed the bill by just one year. Perhaps ten years, or twenty. If delayed for more than one year progress in other states might have been slower.

          We can never know. It takes political skill, not my area of expertise. Politics is the art of the possible, not the art of the ideal.

  26. MarkPA,
    You make good points too, and I appreciate your commitment to moving the ball. I’m no politician either, but I think timing has a lot to do with the approach. I agree that in “early adopter” states (prior to the precedents we can now study and publicize) compromise may have been necessary; and possibly in some of the later (reluctant blue) states too.

    OTOH, in general, I think it’s best to start with the assumption that politicians are busy (lazy); unlikely to do too much with a law once they’ve passed (and taken credit for) it; and that a new law will be with us for a while. In a state like Texas – which seems to be more of an “I can’t believe this hasn’t happened already” than a nail-biter – I would be more inclined to wait for a good law than settle (for Heaven knows how long).

  27. So tired of this 21 nonsense. Are you an adult and tried like an adult at 18? Then you should have all the privileges of an adult as well. Stop this artificial divide.

    As for the instructors who oppose, I hope they lose all their business. I would certainly never go to one.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here