TexasCHLforum.com

croc870 wrote:That's not a very nice assumption. I thought this was pretty well known, but here is one link about the issue.

http://articles.latimes.com/2000/oct/03/news/mn-30319/7" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Show proof that a convicted felon was issued a Texas Concealed Handgun License. That's what your original post said, so back it up or retract it.

Chas.

MamaK wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote: CHLs have maintained an incredible track record as being law-abiding responsible citizens."

**I haven't found any data for or against that.

It's a fact, one that I've been tracking and documenting for years. Here a link to the post here on the forum with the data attached. viewtopic.php?f=7&t=17975" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

MamaK wrote:Heard allegations that too many felons had CHLs and of course I hear the complaints of some students from local long time chl instructors. I don't want to paint all of the old school instructors with the same brush, but we hear everything about instructors, also confessions about past transgressions including DV.

There are NO felons with Texas CHL's, not one. You cannot get a Texas CHL with a felony. I'm not sure what you mean by "old school instructors" unless you mean men and women with years of experience rather than rookies who just got out of DPS instructor school.

MamaK wrote:I hear allegations of a certain instructor who will give students their chl100 over dinner if he feels they dont need the class. (the students brag about it, and the ones who dont get the special chl100 dinner treatment whine about it)

Then why haven't you notified DPS?

MamaK wrote:Thus Im open to hearing about older instructors who are positive and not treating the CHL program like a used car lot.

This is so insulting I'm not going to try to respond.

MamaK wrote:YOU mentioned STARS training.

No I didn't. I mentioned Star as in Sgt. Starlane Riddle who used to run the CHL school.

MamaK wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Instructors are not illegally shaving 4 to 6 hours off the required 10 hour class for new students. What I am saying is that the statutorily-required material can be covered in 4 hours, including range time. This is not merely my opinion, because we've been doing that since the first renewals began in 1998. - Since the class can be taught in less than 4 classroom hours as evidenced by the last 16 years experience, then teaching 10 hour classes requires instructors to unnecessarily increase the length of the course.

I thought the renewal class was already 4 hours plus range time?

No, they are 4 to 6 hours, including range time. One minute over 6 hours and an instructor is violating the statute.

MamaK wrote:I wonder though about a students ability to grasp the important information in a short amount of time because of the different learning abilities and levels of each student.

You can rest easy, they've been doing it for 16 years.

Chas.

MamaK wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote: The instructors (beside me) that testified on HR47 and SB864 stated that there is no where near 10 hrs of material and that they had to add filler. This change isn't extraordinary, it's a recognition that it doesn't take 10 hrs to teach the statutorily-required material. None of us can teach our 10 hr. classes in 4 to 6 hours, but that's not the goal. The goal is to cover the required material with as little burden on students as possible.

Chas.

I want to be sure that I'm reading this correctly, and that my coffee hasn't worn off. So, most instructors teach the CHL class in 4-6 hours, not 10? How do you teach your class in 4 hours with all the material that has to be covered? (not renewals but the brand spanking new CHL students) or were you talking about just renewals?

Instructors are not illegally shaving 4 to 6 hours off the required 10 hour class for new students. What I am saying is that the statutorily-required material can be covered in 4 hours, including range time. This is not merely my opinion, because we've been doing that since the first renewals began in 1998. If the DPS had created two different tests, i.e. one for new students and one for renewal students, then perhaps this would not have been the case.

Since the class can be taught in less than 4 classroom hours as evidenced by the last 16 years experience, then teaching 10 hour classes requires instructors to unnecessarily increase the length of the course. This is "filler." Some instructors have taken offense at the use of this term, interpreting it as an insult or some indication that the material they added is useless. That is not what I mean by "filler." Also, "filler" is not (or shouldn't be) unrelated extraneous material. I have never had a single student complain about the content of my classes, and most are very complementary. Nevertheless, I too have to increase the length of the class to meet the current 10 hour requirement. I simply expand my discussion of the statutorily-required material to meet the 10 hr. requirement. Some instructors have a show-and-tell with holsters, purses, fanny packs, and other methods of concealed-carry. This is legitimate since it falls under the very broad and vague term "handgun use" which is one of the statutorily-required subjects. I think this is very useful to many students, but it is something that could be removed from the artificially lengthened class without impacting the student's knowledge or public safety. Other instructors put more time into nonviolent dispute resolution with skits and videos.

If SB60 (1995) had required a 40 hr course on the same subject matter, then instructors would have been teaching 40 hr. classes. My current 2 1/2 hour discussion on the use of force would probably be 20 hours long with discussion of significant criminal cases just like we did when I was in law school. I'd probably include shoot-no-shoot videos and discussions as well. All of that would be useful, none of it would be unrelated extraneous material, but it would be "filler." And we would have instructors claiming we can't teach the CHL class in "a mere 10 hours."

During the 16 years we've been teaching this material in 4 hours (including range time), CHLs have maintained an incredible track record as being law-abiding responsible citizens. The proposed change is not being made in a vacuum and it is not reducing the classroom portion of the CHL class by 6 hours as a few have claimed. (The current 10 class includes range time of various durations and hourly breaks. HB47 and SB864 remove range time from the required hours.)

I want to clarify something about class breaks. When I went to CHL Instructor School, Star was running the program. We were told that a "classroom hour is 50 minutes long" and these breaks were mandatory. Interestingly, the reason given for making the breaks mandatory was the fatigue factor for students in a 10 hour class. (I wholeheartedly agree!) This was reiterated in renewal classes. I've had other instructors tell me they were told that breaks are between 10 and 15 minutes long.
After my testimony on HB47 and SB864, I was told that DPS now states that breaks are recommended, but not mandatory.

I'm still curious what you meant by "will the program allow it?" and what what committee and members you meant.

Chas.

MamaK wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

MamaK wrote:It passed the Senate but it is not a law, yet. Don't get yourselves into a kerfuffle or into any trouble by "jumping the gun".

http://openstates.org/tx/bills/83/SB864/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It still has to pass the house, and it still needs to be signed into a law. The house has just read the bill and moved it over to DHS. "Apr 22, 2013
House Referred to Homeland Security & Public Safety".

It should not find much opposition in the House and Gov. Perry will sign the bill. This is one of the pro-gun bills that is much more likely to pass.

Neither SB864 nor HB47 had any real opposition in the committee hearings.

Chas.

Hmm. but will the program allow it? I thought at least one of them sat on the committee and she made it very clear that the nonviolent dispute resolution portion barely fits in the current course, and wouldn't fit in the bills projected time limit. This situation reminds me a bit of my grad classes on Homeland Security - there are some great ideas and reasons why it could work, but there needs to be more support from DPS for the instructors to make it functional (the thing that I noticed most about DHS, is that there is a poor flow of communication, ambiguity, and that its structure breaks down the further you get away from the "base" - ie. CERT groups.) If there is a constant open flow of communication between dps and the instructors so that everyone was on the same page, than the outcome of this bill will be successful.

I don't know what you mean by "program allow it." DPS will follow the law. Also, only Senators and House Members sit on the committees; there are no DPS personnel on committees. There was no testimony about NDR barely fitting in the current course or that it wouldn't fit a reduced class.

I'm sounding like a broken record, but instructors have been teaching the course in 4 hours for 16 years. DPS has always required instructors to administer the same test to new and renewal students, so we have had to cover all of the material for renewal students. Also, the current 4 to 6 hr. renewal classes include range time and both HR47 and SB864 exclude range time.

DPS need not be anymore involved if the statutory limit is reduced to 4 - 6 hrs than they are now with 4 hour renewals. Either of these bills will be a huge improvement. The instructors (beside me) that testified on HR47 and SB864 stated that there is no where near 10 hrs of material and that they had to add filler. This change isn't extraordinary, it's a recognition that it doesn't take 10 hrs to teach the statutorily-required material. None of us can teach our 10 hr. classes in 4 to 6 hours, but that's not the goal. The goal is to cover the required material with as little burden on students as possible.

Chas.

MamaK wrote:It passed the Senate but it is not a law, yet. Don't get yourselves into a kerfuffle or into any trouble by "jumping the gun".

http://openstates.org/tx/bills/83/SB864/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It still has to pass the house, and it still needs to be signed into a law. The house has just read the bill and moved it over to DHS. "Apr 22, 2013
House Referred to Homeland Security & Public Safety".

It should not find much opposition in the House and Gov. Perry will sign the bill. This is one of the pro-gun bills that is much more likely to pass.

Neither SB864 nor HB47 had any real opposition in the committee hearings.

Chas.

tacticool wrote:

IANAL wrote:Law school is three years but Continuing Legal Education in Texas is only 15 hours in each MCLE year. They obviously cut something out. Unless I can sit through a 15 hour CLE cram session and be eligible to take the bar exam, it looks like there may be a good reason, or at least ample precedent, to have different training standards for new and renewals.

Hey. Even better! Should I be able to take the online renewal test for CHL Instructors and if I pass that's enough to become a new instructor and a new licensee with no class?

It looks like this bill provides for renewals to happen completely online like many other states, in addition to reducing the initial class contact by more than half. There doesn't seem to be any problems with CHL renewals sans class in other states. We also have online DL renewals in Texas already without a test and it's past due for CHL to follow suit.

DPS has been authorized to make online renewal courses available, or authorize instructors to do so, since Sept. 1, 2009. It's in Gov't Code §411.188(j). SB864 is amending some of the renewal course language, so the Bill just puts the language in a different place in the code.

DPS has not offered nor has it authorized an instructor to offer online renewal classes. I don't have any first hand information, but I suspect it is because it would be very difficult for a student taking an online renewal class to find a CHL instructor to do the range portion of the class. It's also unclear if such an online course could be a totally automated course like defensive driving, or if it would have to be a live course like a webinar. If it's the latter, the cost to conduct a webinar of that length would likely be cost-prohibitive. Obviously, automated courses would preclude asking any questions and this too argues against online renewals.

Chas.

Tex. Gov't Code §411.188(j) wrote:Sec. 411.188. HANDGUN PROFICIENCY REQUIREMENT.

(j) The department may offer online, or allow a qualified handgun instructor to offer online, the continuing education instruction course and written section of the proficiency examination required to renew a license.

howdy wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Ameer wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Ameer wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Surely, you don't think students remember anything from a class five years earlier.

Are you really saying the majority of people who got their CHL in 2009 don't remember that bars and courthouses are off limits, wouldn't recognize a 30.06 sign, and totally have no clue about Texas deadly force laws? If so, that's not just scary, it's also serious ammunition for the likes of Burnam and Straus.

Are you saying it takes 10 hours to teach people not to carry in bar, courthouses or 30.06 signs?

I think it's pretty clear I didn't say that but I also think most people with a CHL remember most of the major off limits places.

Your post was most clear, and they are getting old.

Chas.

I guess one should not disagree with the Site Administrator.

Disagreeing with me is fine, but have a look at his posts and you'll see what I mean and why the Moderators are tired of it.

Chas.

Ameer wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Ameer wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Surely, you don't think students remember anything from a class five years earlier.

Are you really saying the majority of people who got their CHL in 2009 don't remember that bars and courthouses are off limits, wouldn't recognize a 30.06 sign, and totally have no clue about Texas deadly force laws? If so, that's not just scary, it's also serious ammunition for the likes of Burnam and Straus.

Are you saying it takes 10 hours to teach people not to carry in bar, courthouses or 30.06 signs?

I think it's pretty clear I didn't say that but I also think most people with a CHL remember most of the major off limits places.

Your post was most clear, and they are getting old.

Chas.

Ameer wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Surely, you don't think students remember anything from a class five years earlier.

Are you really saying the majority of people who got their CHL in 2009 don't remember that bars and courthouses are off limits, wouldn't recognize a 30.06 sign, and totally have no clue about Texas deadly force laws? If so, that's not just scary, it's also serious ammunition for the likes of Burnam and Straus.

Are you saying it takes 10 hours to teach people not to carry in bar, courthouses or past 30.06 signs? My comprehensive coverage of every bit of the use of force takes 2.5 hrs.

Are you a CHL instructor?

Chas.

IANAL wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

conn6554 wrote:Given what I cover now I'm trying to figure what parts do I cut out? Take 9+ hours of class and condense to 3+?

The House bill is 6 hours if you didn't want to read it

What do you cut out for your renewal students now?

Chas.

Law school is three years but Continuing Legal Education in Texas is only 15 hours in each MCLE year. They obviously cut something out. Unless I can sit through a 15 hour CLE cram session and be eligible to take the bar exam, it looks like there may be a good reason, or at least ample precedent, to have different training standards for new and renewals.

Hey. Even better! Should I be able to take the online renewal test for CHL Instructors and if I pass that's enough to become a new instructor and a new licensee with no class?

You don't have to take the bar exam every year either. In fact, CLE courses don't have any test at all, so this is a very poor analogy.

Renewal CHL students have to take the same test as initial students, so every instructor must cover the material in 4 hours now, and this includes range time.

Surely, you don't think students remember anything from a class five years earlier.

Chas.

conn6554 wrote:Given what I cover now I'm trying to figure what parts do I cut out? Take 9+ hours of class and condense to 3+?

The House bill is 6 hours if you didn't want to read it

What do you cut out for your renewal students now?

Chas.