Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[hipshot]

Sherri, your first CHL is valid until the first birthdate after four full years. The first renewal is for five years and all subsequent renewals are for ten years.

[Greg]

Just out of curiosity how often does one have to renew a CHL?

Sherri, it depends on how long you have had one.  I don't have to renew mine for another 5 years. I have had it for a long time though. I'm not sure but I think that the original CHL must be renwed after 3 years then it increases after every renewal.
Greg

[VTXLady53]

Renew the CHL, then start working on the green card!   

is not green any more is gold, how many do you need?  I know someone that knows someone that has a cousing that is married to this gal that works for a guy that voted for Obama.

I may need that person one day to get a green card to move to Mexico..............LOL

[sherri]

Thanks Jim and Greg i'm thinking about getting one.

Sherri

[Greg]

It would be a great idea! Now just remember that one of those places you can't carry is in school. If we could maybe today would have been less of a tragedy, huh?

[Gumbo]

Today was a tragedy --- now watch the anti gun activist get one board.
I actually first heard about it this morning at the gym, finished my tread mill and didn’t fell like lifting at all, been a bummer mood all day.
 

[sherri]

Obviously, I don't have a problem with responsible people who have or use guns (pistols and rifles) and especially when they go to the trouble of getting a CHL, but I do have one question and that is why does anyone (law abiding citizen) need an assault weapon (semi automatic)? I figured this forum would be as good place as any to get an honest answer (no bs answers please, thanks). You can't really say it is for hunting as is tears up the meat, I am sure they are fun to shoot because my favorite arcade game has one but in real life other then killing someone was is the purpose?

sherri

[TAZ]

It would be a great idea! Now just remember that one of those places you can't carry is in school. If we could maybe today would have been less of a tragedy, huh?

AMEN!

Teachers in Texas will be packing soon. 

[VTX-Dan]

Sherri,
That's a good question.
Personally, I don't understand why some people collect stamps, but I know there are folks out there that are very passionate about it.

I think it boils down to personal interests.  I love shooting an AR-15.  To me, that is fun.  I don't hunt, but I love to shoot.  Hitting a small steel plate at 150 or 200 yards with open peep sights on an AR is not an easy feat.  It gives me a sense of personal achievement that I can only assume is somehow replicated when a stamp collector tracks down that one rare and elusive 19th century collectible to add to their horde.

I don't think I have a good answer as to why I would prefer a semi auto rifle to hit that steel plate.  I could likely do it with a single shot deer rifle too.  I just prefer the AR.  If I decide to transition to rapid fire on a steel target at 50 yards, I can do that with the AR...not with a deer rifle. Why should I not be allowed that option if that is my preference, and I'm not hurting anyone, and I'm not breaking any laws?

[snake]

Sherri, besides being fun to shoot AND LEGAL, different people want them for different reason. The survivalist, and doomsday frame of mind people and some "religous cults" want them for offense and defense from government and mobs of people, less radical people want them for defense from mobs, I know people that have them for the impending "race war" they have been expecting since the Rodney riots in California. Some figure that if they are going to pay for one, they might as well get one capable of defense from multiple attackers. Some just want to have fun shooting them . The urge to click your m-16 over to full rock and roll for fun was a fight you had to work at to keep from doing during the old army days. Most of the "assualt" rifles you see are not capable of full automatic, they only shoot when you pull the trigger, semi automatic. Not a real big difference, but most places the automatics are not legal except with special permits. Ahhh, just a sear pin away.
Why do some people want "monster " sized trucks that won't even fit in a parking space and their headlights shine right in the rear window of regular pickups? Because they want them for whatever the reason and they can. Just human nature that some will want what most don't have.

SSSSssssnake

[hipshot]

Obviously, I don't have a problem with responsible people who have or use guns (pistols and rifles) and especially when they go to the trouble of getting a CHL, but I do have one question and that is why does anyone (law abiding citizen) need an assault weapon (semi automatic)? I figured this forum would be as good place as any to get an honest answer (no bs answers please, thanks). You can't really say it is for hunting as is tears up the meat, I am sure they are fun to shoot because my favorite arcade game has one but in real life other then killing someone was is the purpose?

sherri

Good questions; it's a shame more people don't ask them. The term "assault weapon", like "Saturday Night Special", has never been technically defined; it has been bastardized to meet agendas and has no clear definition. In the pure sense of the term, assault rifles are military weapons. They are (with very few exceptions) select-fire weapons issued to the military, and the select-fire designation means that they can fire semiautomatic (one round per trigger pull), full automatic (keeps firing as long as the trigger is depressed), or burst fire (two or three rounds per trigger pull), or a combination of those modes, controlled by manipulation of the safety. Many people's perception of these weapons comes from the media, which is notorious for ignornce of weapons and supporting the left wingnut' agendas. We have read that these "assault weapons" are deadlier than "hunting firearms". Absolutely absurd! The AR-15 / M-16 platform is chambered for a middle-of-the-road power level varmint (as in woodchucks, crows, foxes, coyotes, etc.) hunting cartridge. The purpose of the light cartridge is weight reduction. Simply put, a soldier can carry three times as much 5.56mm ammunition (with a 55 grain bullet) as he can 7.62mm ammunition at the same weight loadout. The 7.62 is representative of a traditional deer hunting cartridge in terms of power; the velocity and bullet diameter / mass in the 7.62mm cartridge provide a significantly more destructive round than the 5.56. But the media, and the hoplophobes, would have you believe (and often believe themselves) that because the 5.56 is a military cartridge, it is significantly more destructive than the "sporting" calibers. A blatant lie.

And since I mentioned "Saturday Night Specials", which have largely fallen out of the antigunners' propaganda attacks, they were originally cheaply-made, small-caliber revolvers. People who carried for a living, such as cops or security, paid them no mind. They would often be used by the criminal element, and many legislators were quick to use them as an example of why gun control would work to curtail criminal activity; the crooks use'em and the serious shooters don't. The problem with that reasoning is that banning them won't stop crooks from possessing them; it will only affect the honest citizens. And many poorer people did rely on "Saturday Night Specials" for home defense and personal defense. They couldn't afford higher quality firearms. Being poor should not negate one's right to self defense. And gun control laws target the honest citizens, not the criminals and not the nutcases who plot mass killings. And the "Saturday Night Special" label, like the "Assault Weapon" label, became a popular, undefined catchphrase for the media and the hoplophobes. Ted Kennedy once tried to push a SNS ban in which he defined a SNS as any handgun with a barrel length less than 16".

But back to the "Assault Weapon" panic. If you will examine the AW bills, they all attempt to define AWs in a broad manner that has no basis in logic. For instance, the common criteria are plastic components (a plastic stock will kill more people than wood?), a pistol grip, (oh' yeah, pistol grips are Soooooooooooo deadly!)


My call just came in; gotta go back to work. I'll finish it tonight.

[Isorg]

Obviously, I don't have a problem with responsible people who have or use guns (pistols and rifles) and especially when they go to the trouble of getting a CHL, but I do have one question and that is why does anyone (law abiding citizen) need an assault weapon (semi automatic)? I figured this forum would be as good place as any to get an honest answer (no bs answers please, thanks). You can't really say it is for hunting as is tears up the meat, I am sure they are fun to shoot because my favorite arcade game has one but in real life other then killing someone was is the purpose?

sherri

the 2nd amendment is not about hunting.  It's about the people being able to defend their self from the crack head down the street, or a government run amuck against the people.  If the government takes away the peoples ability to defend their rights.... What would stop the government from doing even more sinister acts against a now unarmed populous?   

An armed populous is just another system of the checks and balances that were built into our country by the founding fathers.  Remember England at the time didn't want the "colony" to have an armed populous at the time.

[hipshot]

And picking up where I left off:

Flash suppressors; what makes them deadly??? Ten round magazines (what the talking heads call "clips") are a big one. Anyone with thirty ten round magazines can kill just as many babies, and just as quickly, as someone with ten thirty round magazines. I could go on and on, but the point is that just because some hysterical left wingnut screams that something is too deadly to be permitted to exist doesn't make it so. Yet too many people with no real knowledge of the topic are led to believe it's true. The real test is logic, not hysteria. A black plastic stock will not harm anyone. A pistol grip will not harm anyone. A flash suppressor will not harm anyone. Sit down next to one and see for yourself; I guarantee you'll walk away without a scratch. Yet so many people have been told, and have readily accepted, that those things are evil. It's amazing.

That AR-15 ASSAULT WEAPON you question is actually less powerful than most deer rifles. It has no more firepower than any other semiautomatic hunting rifle. Examined in the light of truth and logic, it is simply an inanimate tool which is no more dangerous than the person wielding it. It has no will of its own. It has no intent, either good or evil. It cannot fire without a human hand operating it. And it would make a far less effective killing tool than most deer rifles.

Firearms have an undisputed (except to the hysterical hoplophobes) beneficial place in society, and they have thwarted countless violent crimes. They have provided shooting enthusiasts immeasurable pleasure. The fact that a group of people are unable to appreciate that in no way invalidates their contribution to society, and in no way invalidates a person's enjoyment of shooting them or right to defend him/her self with them. I'm frankly shocked every time I hear some morally bereft politician proclaim that handguns, rifles, or shotguns have no legitimate use in society. And doubly shocked that there are morons out there stupid enough to believe them.

If passing a law against possessing something or doing something would actually keep the criminals from possessing it or doing it, we would have no drug problem. No crime problem. No need for courts, or police, or lawyers. Obviously, that's not the case.

As I have said before, the issue is violence -- not guns. But the hoplophobes want you to believe that it is guns. We've had violence since before we had guns. We had crooks using guns when it was illegal for honest citizens to carry guns. All you need to do is look at history to see that gun control is NOT crime control. But the morons keep insisting that it works, and trying to scare the uneducated into fearing guns. The truth is that no law can prevent violence. No law can prevent crimes. No law can control peoples' actions. 

So, to answer your question, nobody really NEEDS a semiautomatic rifle. But America is not about what some pompous, lying politician decides you NEED, it's about what you WANT, as long as you aren't imposing on someone else's rights. Millions of Americans have owned semiautomatic ASSAULT RIFLES for the greater part of a century (yes, the M-1 Garand, M-1 Carbine, the M-1A; those are all ASSAULT RIFLES also, by the hoplophobes' criteria) without harming anyone. As a cruiser rider, you've seen the prejudice against the V-twins because some ignorant people prejudiced many against the stereotype outlaw biker, causing many ignorant non-riders to fear anyone on a loud V-twin or even any motorcycle. You know that that fear was unwarranted, and that the outlaws were a minority who were outlaws because of their personal flaws, not because of their motorcycles. But the propaganda against cruiser riders persists. And that is exactly what the hoplophobes are doing to gun owners.

Sherri, I've carried weapons all of my life. Do you honestly think that I have killed any innocent citizens with them? Do you honestly believe that giving me (another) AR-15 would make me more likely to do so? And do you honestly believe that if a convicted felon, who cannot legally possess a firearm, wanted to kill or rob or rape you, that he would be unable to do so because of the law prohibiting him from firearms ownership? And if three or four ghetto turds decide to kick down your front door tonight -- something that occurs more and more frequently here -- and take over your house, would you want a baseball bat, a butcher knife, or an AR-15 to repel boarders with? It's your choice, not mine. I can't tell you what you want. And nobody else should be able to tell me what I want, either.

[Greg]

You all have explained well! I see that we have some Constitutionalists on board! Again well done!

[Gumbo]

Newspaper Releasing Names and Addresses of CHL Holders in New York
This newspaper just told every criminal where he or she could get a gun….

CHL to me is just another tracking device -- I know I will get some chit about this, but go ahead I can take it.
If it ever does get to the point that you really need your gun, THEY will have the information THEY need to come and get your gun. Just saying 

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/12/newspaper-publishes-gun-owners-names-and-addresses/