TexasCHLforum.com

Ameer wrote:CHL renewal should be at least as easy and cheap as DL renewal.

One has nothing to do with the other

Ameer wrote:Even better would be for it to be as cheap and easy as renewing voter registration, because they're both constitutional rights.

Not yet, at least not according to the United States Supreme Court.
Chas.

OldCannon wrote:1) The class is already highly structured and standardized (so how would it be different to have a recorded presentation vs an instructor)

Actually, it's not standardized at all. The statute identifies the subjects that must be covered in class, but every instructor develops his/her own lesson plans. DPS posts lesson plans on two different subjects, but those are not mandatory.

OldCannon wrote:2) There's no reason that other mechanisms can't be put into place for questions from students (like, say, this forum, as an example, or a phone hotline run by volunteers)

That won't work. People need to be able to ask questions, plus there's no assurance people will check any website if they don't understand something.

OldCannon wrote:3) The most important role for an instructor is the "practical" portion of the test, which you're advocating eliminating/

I disagree. The shooting portion is unnecessary, but teaching Texas law (especially deadly force) is the most important part of the course, in my view.

OldCannon wrote:5) If emphasis is on certifying that the CHL holder understands Texas laws regarding firearms, concealment, and force escalation, why not simply require a notarized signature from the applicant (and submitted to state) to complete the process?

People sign false affidavits every day. The goal is teaching students so they can continue to maintain the excellent track record Texas CHL have garnered, not merely putting a meaningless affidavit in someone's file.

OldCannon wrote:I'm just throwing all this out for folks to chew on. I mean, if you're going to take the big step to alter the CHL requirements, I think it's important to consider the full spectrum of options, ranging from Washington style (no training required at all) to Texas style (generally the "hardest" and most-expensive in the US, when all costs are factored in).

At this point, online classes for an initial CHL class is not politically feasible. One day, I would like to see unlicensed concealed carry, but we simply aren't there yet.

Chas.

91wm6 wrote:Knock it off. Jumping Frog is correct. Your situation hurts our position on this issue, so quit publicizing it.

Chas.

Charles, I had already made the decision to withdraw from the conversation and allow frog the last word. The fact that you would side with him and chastise me makes it necessary for me to defend my position. My post was an honest answer to the op's question based on my experiences with Tx CHL. I'm sorry if you feel that hurts our cause... at any rate it isn't appropriate for you or Frog to tell me to be quiet. I'm especially surprised you would do so after writing this in your initial post."Successfully completed "deferred adjudications" should not be considered a "conviction" for eligibility purposes". Some people might even say you're being a bit of a hypocrite by telling me not to "publicize my situation". I'm sure this isn't going to win me any popularity points but it needed to be said none the less. Shall not be infringed indeed...

The "knock it off" part of my response was referencing your personal attack on Jumping Frog. Don't do it again.

I want to change current law and I don't want you or anyone else making it harder to accomplish. There's no hypocrisy in wanting you to stop giving ammunition to our opponents.

BTW, the "some people might say you're being a bit of a hypocrite . . ." is also a personal attack, in spite of your lame attempt to camouflage it. You won't be here long at this rate.

Chas.

91wm6 wrote:

Jumping Frog wrote:

91wm6 wrote:I'm in a somewhat unique situation. I don't qualify for a Tx CHL until 2015 as I have a deferred adjudication felony charge. I'm able to purchase and own firearms legally, and I qualify for CHL's in most other states... so I carry in Tx using a non-resident chl from a state that shares reciprocity with Tx. I acknowledge the fact that this isn't ideal, and I could face problems from any LEO unfamiliar with CHL law ( a very likely possibility unfortunately). I did take a Tx CHL course for the sake of educating myself, and I feel any risk is outweighed by the benefit of being able to protect my life and the lives of my family. I will definitely obtain my Tx CHL once I'm eligible, and I would recommend anybody who qualifies do so regardless of added cost/hassle...

Your exact scenario would provide ammunition to legislators that want to restrict Texas residents to require a Texas license. It could ultimately result in you losing the ability to carry in Texas under your out-of-state license.

Please do not publicize your situation.

This is a perfect example of the kind of misguided ignorance the media is trying to encourage. Please don't suggest I give up my right to bear arms, or my right to free speech just because it makes you uncomfortable. I'm carrying in a manner that is 100% legal, and I encourage any law abiding Tx resident to do so; even if it requires getting a permit from another state...

Knock it off. Jumping Frog is correct. Your situation hurts our position on this issue, so quit publicizing it.

Chas.

I too saw the report on Ch. 11. As has already been said, there's no loophole, that's Texas law. Some people like it, some do not.

As TAM mentioned, irresponsible advertising has created the current problem, not the relatively small number of Texas residents who get out of state licenses in lieu of a Texas CHL. If so-called untrained people were a safety threat, then we would have seen a problem with residents of other states visiting Texas and we have not. I was disappointed to see the CHL instructors on that news report claiming current Texas law endangers the public. If this erroneous position were carried to its logical conclusion, then Texas would cancel reciprocity with every other state. More Texas CHL instructors and instructor/industry associations need to seriously consider the full ramifications of the positions they promote.

All that said, this is creating a very difficult situation for Texas legislators. Those who only want to earn money by selling out of state licenses as a way around Texas eligibility requirements are putting our friends in Austin in a very tough spot. Sadly, they don't care as long as they can generate revenue, even if only for the short term.

Hopefully, we can convince legislators to change current Texas law by amending or removing provisions that encourage Texans to opt for out of state licenses. Reducing the initial class from 10 hrs to 4 hrs is a great step in the right direction. Not only will students not have to sit through unnecessarily long classes, class fees will come down to the level now enjoyed by renewal students.

Reducing the license fee is a nearly impossible task in a tight budget year. However, if we can do away with the requirement for fingerprints, then the State of Texas can save $23.50 (FBI processing fee) for every new and renewal application processed by the DPS. At today's license count, that's a savings of $16,450,000 over five years, or $3,290,000 annually. The savings will increase as the number of Texas CHL holders increase. This means the new and renewal CHL fees can be reduced to $116.50 and $46.50 respectfully, without reducing the net revenue to the State. Fingerprints no longer serve any purpose since DPS already has access to every bit of information the FBI currently checks for the $23.50 fee. In fact, DPS checks these same computers before the digital fingerprints are transmitted to the FBI. (New students will also save the cost of digital fingerprints, thus further reducing the net cost of a Texas CHL.)

Successfully completed "deferred adjudications" should not be considered a "conviction" for eligibility purposes. Delinquency in taxes or child support has nothing to do with crime prevention, thus it violates Art. I., Sec. 23 of the Texas Constitution. Plus, getting killed because one was unarmed and defenseless guarantees those taxes and child support will never be paid.

If removing the shooting requirement wouldn't cost us reciprocity with other states, I would support doing away with it also. Removing this requirement will also help to reduce the cost of taking classes because more instructors will be able to teach without having to have access to shooting ranges. This increase in competition will drive down class fees. The student will also save the cost of the range fee and the factory ammo required for the course. Some will argue that the shooting requirement adds an element of safety, but I respectfully disagree. Everyone knows the course is so simple virtually no one fails. (I've only had 4 students not pass on the first attempt and all passed on the second.) Some will call to make the course harder, but that will be met with huge opposition, with me leading the charge. I've heard some instructors talk about elements of the proficiency portion of the class (shooting) that are not found in statute or DPS rules. Every time an instructor adds their own requirement to the shooting portion, they are doing so without any authority whatsoever. Apparently, the Texas Legislature agrees with my position, otherwise they wouldn't have removed the renewal class requirement for every other renewal beginning with the 3rd renewal.

I know many instructors aren't going to like my position on this issue, but I'm a life-long Second Amendment activist first, an NRA Board Member second, and a CHL instructor third.

The focus in 2013 needs to be on fixing Texas law, not restricting the rights of Texans.

Chas.