TexasCHLforum.com

TexasGal wrote:During my instructor class last April it was required to use the de-cockers and safeties if the gun was so equipped. I could see lots of people up the line who were not expecting to be required to use their guns this way. They were awkward at first, but most quickly mastered the routine. I was glad I was using an XDm

Also, during the class, it was stated over and over that we are responsible for knowing the Admin Rules, so the expected knowledge for instructors is not just the CHL16. They also urged us to check the Admin Rules regularly because they are going to re-write them and we will be expected to keep up with the changes. It might be a good idea to just read through them now and then.

I don't believe the admin rules were even mentioned in my 2010 class.

wgoforth wrote:Just checked the instructor material we were given at class. One sheet is called "Mandatory Equipment" which lists acceptable caliber sizes also states "No optical enhancements." I would be glad to scan this in if anyone needs it. I notice it is different than the one on the DPS website that gives and updated date of 2010.

Well, I just checked mine, same form from a 2010 class. It does not have that statement on it. Besides, that document was sent, as I recall, with the class notification information, and regards what the instructor is to bring to class. It does not necessarily apply to CHL student classes. For example, it also states "No shorts will be allowed on the pistol range for safety purposes". Do you enforce that with your students? Do you now believe we must enforce that rule because the student requirements are supposed to be the same as that for the instructors? (Except, I guess, for number/type of guns, and passing scores.) Is the shorts restriction mentioned in the Administrative Rules? IDK.

However, I think we're getting off-track. I believe you that the statement is there, and that they mentioned it in YOUR class. I understand what the regulation says and means, and I am not arguing against it (regarding enhanced optics, not shorts).

Furthermore, I thought I had heard that lasers were not allowed before this thread started, but couldn't find any mention of it in the CHL-16 -- which is pretty much supposed to be our "CHL bible". I couldn't remember where I'd seen/heard it before this thread.

My complaint is that instructors are expected to abide by rules that are not clearly and universally known and disseminated. Furthermore, students are complaining because instructors don't have the firm knowledge of those rules, and resort to statements like "I won't allow those in my class", rather than the simpler "it's not allowed". And furthermore, as the rules change over time, this information may be incorporated in the classes for new instructors, but there is no organized dissemination for current instructors. Its difficult enough to keep up with changing laws, but pretty much impossible to keep up with changing Administrative Rules (which can change at any time).

wgoforth wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:

recaffeination wrote:DPS doresnt allow them, so you think more instructors would know the rule.

How does that follow? Although wgoforth says he remembers them mentioning it in his instructor's class, I don't remember it from mine.
So if it wasn't mentioned in a class, and you didn't try to use one and have them tell you not to, how is an instructor to know?

By the code perhaps?
Texas Administrative Code Chapter 6:
Rule 6.11(a) wrote:The proficiency demonstration course will be the same for both instructors and license applications...
Rule 6.73 wrote:...No optical enhancers will be allowed

And other than reading about it here, how is an instructor supposed to know that the administrative code even exists? If DPS expected instructors to be familiar with the Admin Code, it should be listed in the CHL-16. Or perhaps there should be an instructor's addendum to the CHL-16.

Have you read the Administrative Code in it's entirety to see if there are any other jewels in there for us?

Recaffiniated's comment regarded that more instructors should know about the regulation because DPS doesn't allow them (enhanced optics). I don't see that logic, and said so.

recaffeination wrote:DPS doresnt allow them, so you think more instructors would know the rule.

How does that follow? Although wgoforth says he remembers them mentioning it in his instructor's class, I don't remember it from mine.
So if it wasn't mentioned in a class, and you didn't try to use one and have them tell you not to, how is an instructor to know?

brainman wrote:

Tritium sights do not "enhance" or in any way improve aiming capability in daylight.

Really? Having a dot to line up on the target so you can tell where your bullet will hit doesn't improve your aiming capability? Strange, I thought that was how all sights worked. Whether that dot is projected to the target or is on your gun, you are still using a device to improve your aiming capability. It really doesn't matter whether that dot is glowing or not, it's still a dot.

There are several definitions of the word optical. The problem is that whichever definition you choose, either lasers don't fit the definition (i.e. scopes with magnification), or they do fit, but then iron sights fit too. Therefore, under a system where iron sights are acceptable, this clearly means that the definition that excludes lasers must be the one meant by the rules and that lasers are acceptable too.

In addition, based on the phrase "optical enhancer" I can't see how eyeglasses are allowed.

I gather you are a lawyer. If not, you should be.

In the absence of a specific definition in the law, words are intended to be interpreted by their common meaning (or something of that nature). I think most people would consider the following as "optical enhancement" for the purpose of firearm proficiency testing.

1) a scope, magnifies the target
2) a laser, put the projected dot on the target point
3) One of those devices that project a dot onto a screen attached to the gun -- same effect as #2
4) Cyborg eyesight, like the terminator or Steve Austin giving mechanical/computer enhanced targeting skills

Most people would NOT consider the following as "optical enhancement"...

1) iron sights (nothing projected or magnified)
2) iron sights with white dots (nothing projected or magnified)
3) Tritium sights not at night -- same as #2 (at night is arguably an enhancement)
3) Eyeglasses/contacts -- compensation for human eyesight defects. Used in everyday life.

Now you might not agree, but I believe the above is a reasonable conclusion for laymen (and jurors).

Happily Ever After wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:

Happily Ever After wrote:Thanks for your advice. My original complaints were about him teaching the law but couldn't find a rule he violated because he spent the required amount of time. I will mail the letter tomorrow and if my complaints don't matter to DPS they can round file it.

Why would you complain about him teaching the law? That's part of what he's supposed to do.

He's supposed to teach current Texas law, not what it used to be years ago, and definitely not what he wishes it was. Anyway, the letter is in the mail and I trust DPS to decide what to do about it.

That is a valid complaint, IMO. I trust you mentioned that, too.

Happily Ever After wrote:Thanks for your advice. My original complaints were about him teaching the law but couldn't find a rule he violated because he spent the required amount of time. I will mail the letter tomorrow and if my complaints don't matter to DPS they can round file it.

Why would you complain about him teaching the law? That's part of what he's supposed to do.

Happily Ever After wrote:Thank you for this information. I wasn't impressed by my instructor but didn't want to write DPS because I wasn't sure he broke any rules. But he let a married couple use lasers on the test so now I can write DPS and sight a rule he broke and use that as a springboard for my other complaints.

I don't know what your other complaints are, but this "regulation" is not in the CHL-16, but in an obscure administrative reg. As far as I remember, I don't believe it's even mentioned in the instructor's class. If you have other complaints, feel free to bring them up --- but this seems to me to be a minor infraction of a rule that most instructors probably don't even know about. Seriously, if you can't pass the test without a laser sight, I doubt you could pass it with one, either. There are enough instructors out there mis-teaching the law to be concerned about without worrying about one that isn't aware of the administrative rules. IMO, of course...

Tritium sights do not "enhance" or in any way improve aiming capability in daylight.