Thursday, July 3, 2014

Tac Class and Open Carry Question

I finally made it to the Wed night Tac Class with Larry over at Shiloh. It was a good class however there were several people that were really green in the class which slowed it down some.
We may have shot 120 rounds out of the usual 200.

We had on that only brought 1 mag and had to borrow 2. This person was having problems catching the shirt in the holster when re-holstering.

We had an older couple who did not have a problem except for the husband getting a bad bit of slide bite on his Rt hand from his 1911. He didn't do badly manipulating it but needed alot more holster work. His wife was not used to making safe and kept sweeping her forehead when checking clear, at least the slide was back.

While waiting for the class to start the husband started a conversation with the group on open carry. He is involved in some form of lobbying in Austin regarding this. Everyone's response was about the same. We all support it but do not see ourselves running off and doing it. He then asked about how we felt about having to go through yearly proficiency training to do so. I did not get to respond to this as the instructor showed up. So here is my response.

1) I agree with the desire to regain the right. I also believe that there should be no restrictions on carry however that is not going to happen. I believe whatever comes out of Austin will be licensed. My hope would be that a CHL license turned into a HL license which allowed Concealed and Open with no change to the regulations.

2) I do not want long arms restricted but do not agree with the practice. In can't remember who but either one of the GOTR or Squirrel Report guys stated it best when they commented on this with the Statement to the sort of even Knights did not carry their sword to the table. They may have been armed but their primary weapon of was was stored and not brought to the table. This is considered courteous as we are not expecting a battle at the table. To me this goes the same for Long arms they are the modern day sword.

3) As for additional proficiency training. I see no benefit. The current testing is a bare minimum. The CHL class is more about laws than teaching shooting. The qualification shooting is a minimum standard. Unless the proficiency is based on weapon retention then it would be a useless additions. The Gov't is not going to get involved in hand to hand weapon retention training for the citizens. There is a level of risk that they don't want to get mixed up with. So what would the benefit be to the additional requirement other than some check box on a form and another check to cash?

What say Ye?

1 comment:

  1. To me this goes the same for Long arms they are the modern day sword.

    And I would like to ask if this is a modern perspective based on gun control laws that we've had to deal with?

    Through out history, when people went out in public most of them carried their primary weapons with them. They did take them off at the dinner table -- if they were in places they felt safe, right?

    But the idea there is a huge difference in offensive versus defensive split regarding handguns and long guns is something I believe that gun owners have created for themselves. Where did it originate? In the military, tactical instructors teaching people how to operate?

    Ask the average non-gun person what they see the difference between long guns and handguns to be. Don't ask the antis because you'll get there is no difference -- which is one of my complaints; when gun people use the same arguments re long guns as the antis use against all guns.

    As for as additional training; given the recent reduction in training hours, the reduction in renewal requirements; I really don't see any additional requirements regarding Open Carry being imposed.

    I think you are right about how Open Carry of Handguns will be written. I would prefer Constitutional Carry of handguns/long guns but think they'll still require some licensing. Which we can work to get rid of later.

    Bob S.