`Lowering the 10 hour min. would be nice

[creitsma]

I have been talking to TSRA about the 10 hour min..They said it needs to be looked at but nothing can be done until 2013...They also said to network with other instructors about it so i posted on here and it went in other directions...If i posted a negative comment to any one here i am truly sorry...

[Charles L. Cotton]

...10 hours is to long and most other States have shorter classes and some States stopped using there own instructors and started using NRA instructors...

What states use NRA Instructors to teach a state class? Do you know of any states that abandoned their own state classes in favor of NRA classes? Some states accept NRA classes, like the NRA Basic Pistol Class, but that's an 8 hour class. Alice Tripp and I have been talking about lowering the new and renewal CHL class to 4 hours exclusive of the range time.

Yes...For one Arizona has dropped there certified instructors and now accept any NRA class including the 3 to 4 hour NRA First Steps Pistol class.....Florida also accepts the 3 to 4 hour NRA First Steps Pistol class....I know AZ has open carry without license but they still need a license to carry concealed in most places in AZ and they certified there own instructors and had class guid lines in place like Texas does but they have dropped there instructors all together...My Point was that a 10 hour min. time is to long and should be looked at..Since Instructors teach this class i thought we could all speak out but it just went every where...I did not plan on posting negative comments about any one..Florida will accept any class taught by a NRA instructor and the instructor can just make up his own class certificate for the student.The 10 hour min. needs to be reviewed....

I agree that 10 hrs. is far too long for the class. That's why I have been talking to Alice and my contacts at DPS about reducing it to a 4 hr. course exclusive of the range time. I know you did a "test" to see how long it took to teach the core material and that it was right at 4 hrs. That's what I did also, and that's why I selected 4 hours. I excluded the range time because that is a huge unknown. If I have only 5 students and they are all IDPA shooters, I'll spend 10 minutes on the range. If I have 30 students and some of them are "green," I'll spend 2 hours on the range. That's a difference of 1 hr. 50 minutes that has to be made up in class time.

Unless Florida has changed, no course is required. All you have to do is show proof of having had firearms training. A DD-214 from World War I would be fine. My USPSA membership card was fine in 1993.

Chas.

[Charles L. Cotton]

.You have to know your stuff when dealing with me...."casltle doctrine" is street slang here and it was taken from Florida because they where the first to pass a law like this and they call it the "castle doctrine"

Wrong again! The term "Castle Doctrine" is a legal term that has nothing to do with Florida.

Chas.

The term may not have come from Florida...but Florida was the first state in the united states to put a "casltle doctrine" law on there books..Texas and other States just followed them...The term "castle doctrine" is in the wording of Floridas law but the term "castle doctrine" is not once listed in the penal code....Thats what i was tring to say.....

The Castle Doctrine is a term from English law that was adopted is as common law most if not all states when the U.S. was formed. Some states statutorily repealed that common law doctrine. Florida was by no means the first state to adopt the so-called Castle Doctrine.

From the days of the Republic of Texas until Sept. 1, 1977, Texas was a Castle Doctrine State. In fact, we were a "true man" state during that time. From Sept. 1, 1977 until Sept. 1, 1995, Texas had a retreat duty everywhere in the State, including in your home. However, the courts watered down that duty significantly. In 1995, the retreat duty in your home was repealed and Texas once again became a Castle Doctrine State. In 2007 with the passage of SB378, our version of the so-called "Castle Doctrine," we reverted back to a "true man" state except for the provisions against provocation and criminal activity.

SB378 was not modeled after Florida's statute. We took the basic NRA bill from our nationwide campaign, then added much more, including the all-important presumption provisions. Your prior post was not limited to the use of the term Castle Doctrine in statute. You said that no one used that term, not even the promoters of SB378 and that's incorrect. You even said they used the term "stand your ground law" and, while that phrase was used by some in addition to Castle Doctrine, that phrase doesn't appear in the Penal Code either.

You and I are in agreement on the length of the CHL course, but your "holier than thou" attitude toward others, including other CHL instructors" doesn't set well. Just because others may not agree with us doesn't justify ridiculing their opinions.

Chas.

[Charles L. Cotton]

I have been talking to TSRA about the 10 hour min..They said it needs to be looked at but nothing can be done until 2013...They also said to network with other instructors about it so i posted on here and it went in other directions...If i posted a negative comment to any one here i am truly sorry....

Fair enough and I appreciate your comment. I've said things that appeared different than I intended, so I've been in your shoes.

I've written a bill for 2013 that will do a few things in the CHL arena, including a reduction of the course (new and renewal) to 4 hrs. exclusive of range time. I think we will have sufficient proof that this will not hurt the quality of the class and it will go a long way toward removing one of the more objectionable hurdles some Texans see standing between them and a CHL.

Chas.

[creitsma]

.You have to know your stuff when dealing with me...."casltle doctrine" is street slang here and it was taken from Florida because they where the first to pass a law like this and they call it the "castle doctrine"

Wrong again! The term "Castle Doctrine" is a legal term that has nothing to do with Florida.

Chas.

The term may not have come from Florida...but Florida was the first state in the united states to put a "casltle doctrine" law on there books..Texas and other States just followed them...The term "castle doctrine" is in the wording of Floridas law but the term "castle doctrine" is not once listed in the penal code....Thats what i was tring to say.....

The Castle Doctrine is a term from English law that was adopted is as common law most if not all states when the U.S. was formed. Some states statutorily repealed that common law doctrine. Florida was by no means the first state to adopt the so-called Castle Doctrine.

From the days of the Republic of Texas until Sept. 1, 1977, Texas was a Castle Doctrine State. In fact, we were a "true man" state during that time. From Sept. 1, 1977 until Sept. 1, 1995, Texas had a retreat duty everywhere in the State, including in your home. However, the courts watered down that duty significantly. In 1995, the retreat duty in your home was repealed and Texas once again became a Castle Doctrine State. In 2007 with the passage of SB378, our version of the so-called "Castle Doctrine," we reverted back to a "true man" state except for the provisions against provocation and criminal activity.

SB378 was not modeled after Florida's statute. We took the basic NRA bill from our nationwide campaign, then added much more, including the all-important presumption provisions. Your prior post was not limited to the use of the term Castle Doctrine in statute. You said that no one used that term, not even the promoters of SB378 and that's incorrect. You even said they used the term "stand your ground law" and, while that phrase was used by some in addition to Castle Doctrine, that phrase doesn't appear in the Penal Code either.

You and I are in agreement on the length of the CHL course, but your "holier than thou" attitude toward others, including other CHL instructors" doesn't set well. Just because others may not agree with us doesn't justify ridiculing their opinions.

Chas.

Yes Sir..You are correct...I can not take back any "holier than thou" comments I posted nor do I feel that I am any better than anyone else...When things get heated some times you post something you really dont mean to say..That is what I did...All I can do is say that I am sorry to everyone I posted something negative about and I truly mean that....

[tbrown]

Maybe the CHL written test should be done at DPS offices like the DL written test. Get randomly selected questions from a big pool. We would either have to know the answers or fail.

Sounds pretty elitist to me.

What's the purpose of GC §411.188. HANDGUN PROFICIENCY REQUIREMENT?

If the purpose is to make sure we know the law, then testing is the best way to ensure that. The class could be any length from 4 hours to 10 hours, as long as the person passes the test. The class could even be optional, because the tests do more to demonstrate knowledge and proficiency than sitting in a classroom. Is testing elitist? Maybe, but it's a lot less elitist than testing and requiring someone to have both the leisure time and the discretionary income to take a class before they're allowed to take the test.

If the purpose is to make applicants jump through hoops, then it's successful, but it infringes on the individual's right to bear arms without any benefit to society as a whole. So, whether someone favors individual rights or collective rights, they must admit that jumping through hoops to exercise a right serves no legitimate purpose. If that's the purpose, we should get rid of the proficiency requirement completely, like we did with literacy tests for voting.

If the purpose is to transfer money from one pocket to another, then we should get rid of it along with other socialist plans to redistribute wealth.

So you can see that we should figure out the purpose of the proficiency requirement and then change the rule to accomplish what society is legitimately trying to accomplish and remove the illegitimate hoops that infringe our human rights.

[Oldgringo]

Things in Oldgringo's world may be a little simpler and less defined than in the world of others? For instance: knowing the law of concealed carry is not synonymous with knowing the rules of concealed carry.

The rules of concealed carry can be imparted on a reasonably intelligent and mature adult in four hours. Learning the law of concealed carry probably takes years longer. Not to pick at nits, I'm just sayin'...

[tbrown]

Things in Oldgringo's world may be a little simpler and less defined than in the world of others? For instance: knowing the law of concealed carry is not synonymous with knowing the rules of concealed carry.

The rules of concealed carry can be imparted on a reasonably intelligent and mature adult in four hours. Learning the law of concealed carry probably takes years longer. Not to pick at nits, I'm just sayin'...

If someone already knows the rules, making them take a class is a waste of their time and money. Just sayin'

If someone takes a class and still doesn't know the rules, the class was a waste of their time and money. Just sayin'
(No judgement on whether the fault lies with the student or the teacher. It could be either or both.)

Let's lower the 10 hour minimum and make the class optional. Some people want or need a prep class. Some people don't. We're all adults so the government should stop playing mommy and let us choose what's right for us. If we pass we pass. If we fail we fail. Isn't that what freedom is all about? Opportunity. The opportunity to succeed or fail like adults.

Assuming the test and fees are reasonable restrictions, unlike literacy tests and poll taxes for voting.

[boba]

OTOH, there is no intellectual requirement; i.e., SAT test, etc, for the students either.

Thank God. I don't believe there should be an SAT test for the God-given right to defend oneself.

Do you believe there should be any test?

[gringop]

Things in Oldgringo's world may be a little simpler and less defined than in the world of others? For instance: knowing the law of concealed carry is not synonymous with knowing the rules of concealed carry.

The rules of concealed carry can be imparted on a reasonably intelligent and mature adult in four hours. Learning the law of concealed carry probably takes years longer. Not to pick at nits, I'm just sayin'...

If someone already knows the rules, making them take a class is a waste of their time and money. Just sayin'

If someone takes a class and still doesn't know the rules, the class was a waste of their time and money. Just sayin'
(No judgement on whether the fault lies with the student or the teacher. It could be either or both.)

Let's lower the 10 hour minimum and make the class optional. Some people want or need a prep class. Some people don't. We're all adults so the government should stop playing mommy and let us choose what's right for us. If we pass we pass. If we fail we fail. Isn't that what freedom is all about? Opportunity. The opportunity to succeed or fail like adults.

Assuming the test and fees are reasonable restrictions, unlike literacy tests and poll taxes for voting.

I'll toss in my 2 cents at this point. Re, the bolded quote above, would folks feel the same way if the test was not just an easy 50 multiple choice and T/F questions that stay the same for years on end? Say 200 questions, some multiple choice, some T/F, some fill in the blank, some essay, all pulled from a 5000 question database. How about a few scenarios with multiple branches and questions at each branch. And let's make it adaptive so when you miss an answer on deadly force, it keeps feeding you more deadly force questions. And if you fail, you must wait 15 days to retake the test. And it takes a score of 85 or better to pass. And have the shooting qual add in some 25 yard shots. And require an 85% to pass.

I've taken tests like the above for professional certifications. But when I made mistakes in that area, it just meant that someone got disconnected from the Internet for 30 minutes. Making mistakes in firearms safety or legal use of force means that people go to jail, or get injured or get dead.

For the record, I don't think that such a difficult test is the way to go or very fair. But I can see the enemies of concealed carry pushing things in that direction, if the supporters of CHL push for no training class being required.

The fact is that no progress in the Texas Legislature happens without compromise. A parking lot bill this year but no campus carry. A reduction to a 4 hour class next time but no open carry.

IMHO, within the hallowed halls of the Texas Capitol, it doesn't matter what the 2nd amendment says, it doesn't matter what each citizen's inalienable rights are, what matters are the deals that can be made between politicians with conflicting interests. I'm just thankful that Charles and others are working for us in that sausage factory.

Gringop

[Jumping Frog]

OTOH, there is no intellectual requirement; i.e., SAT test, etc, for the students either.

Thank God. I don't believe there should be an SAT test for the God-given right to defend oneself.

Do you believe there should be any test?

Well, you used the word "should", so I'll answer in that light. No, I don't think there "should" be any test in that I think there "should" be constitutional carry. However, I am also a realist and realize we are in a system that requires licensing.

I'm just saying I've know a lot good people in my life who weren't the sharpest tool in the shed when it comes to book learning and tests, but they were level-headed with common sense. If we are too restrictive about making tough tests for the right to self defense, we are walking straight down the same path that leads towards the kinds of hoops that people jump through to purchase a gun in Washington DC. It is a slippery slope.

[C-dub]

Things in Oldgringo's world may be a little simpler and less defined than in the world of others? For instance: knowing the law of concealed carry is not synonymous with knowing the rules of concealed carry.

The rules of concealed carry can be imparted on a reasonably intelligent and mature adult in four hours. Learning the law of concealed carry probably takes years longer. Not to pick at nits, I'm just sayin'...

If someone already knows the rules, making them take a class is a waste of their time and money. Just sayin'

If someone takes a class and still doesn't know the rules, the class was a waste of their time and money. Just sayin'
(No judgement on whether the fault lies with the student or the teacher. It could be either or both.)

Let's lower the 10 hour minimum and make the class optional. Some people want or need a prep class. Some people don't. We're all adults so the government should stop playing mommy and let us choose what's right for us. If we pass we pass. If we fail we fail. Isn't that what freedom is all about? Opportunity. The opportunity to succeed or fail like adults.

Assuming the test and fees are reasonable restrictions, unlike literacy tests and poll taxes for voting.

I'll toss in my 2 cents at this point. Re, the bolded quote above, would folks feel the same way if the test was not just an easy 50 multiple choice and T/F questions that stay the same for years on end? Say 200 questions, some multiple choice, some T/F, some fill in the blank, some essay, all pulled from a 5000 question database. How about a few scenarios with multiple branches and questions at each branch. And let's make it adaptive so when you miss an answer on deadly force, it keeps feeding you more deadly force questions. And if you fail, you must wait 15 days to retake the test. And it takes a score of 85 or better to pass. And have the shooting qual add in some 25 yard shots. And require an 85% to pass.

I've taken tests like the above for professional certifications. But when I made mistakes in that area, it just meant that someone got disconnected from the Internet for 30 minutes. Making mistakes in firearms safety or legal use of force means that people go to jail, or get injured or get dead.

For the record, I don't think that such a difficult test is the way to go or very fair. But I can see the enemies of concealed carry pushing things in that direction, if the supporters of CHL push for no training class being required.

The fact is that no progress in the Texas Legislature happens without compromise. A parking lot bill this year but no campus carry. A reduction to a 4 hour class next time but no open carry.

IMHO, within the hallowed halls of the Texas Capitol, it doesn't matter what the 2nd amendment says, it doesn't matter what each citizen's inalienable rights are, what matters are the deals that can be made between politicians with conflicting interests. I'm just thankful that Charles and others are working for us in that sausage factory.

Gringop

That was my board exam for my profession 12 years ago. I could not pass that thing today!

[Keith B]

...10 hours is to long and most other States have shorter classes and some States stopped using there own instructors and started using NRA instructors...

What states use NRA Instructors to teach a state class? Do you know of any states that abandoned their own state classes in favor of NRA classes? Some states accept NRA classes, like the NRA Basic Pistol Class, but that's an 8 hour class. Alice Tripp and I have been talking about lowering the new and renewal CHL class to 4 hours exclusive of the range time.

Yes...For one Arizona has dropped there certified instructors and now accept any NRA class including the 3 to 4 hour NRA First Steps Pistol class.....Florida also accepts the 3 to 4 hour NRA First Steps Pistol class....I know AZ has open carry without license but they still need a license to carry concealed in most places in AZ and they certified there own instructors and had class guid lines in place like Texas does but they have dropped there instructors all together...My Point was that a 10 hour min. time is to long and should be looked at..Since Instructors teach this class i thought we could all speak out but it just went every where...I did not plan on posting negative comments about any one..Florida will accept any class taught by a NRA instructor and the instructor can just make up his own class certificate for the student.The 10 hour min. needs to be reviewed....

Missouri accepts an NRA certified pistol instructor or NRA law enforcement instructor certification for instructors. However, you are required to submit a class and course outline to the Sheriff of your local county to be approved by them to be certified to teach a course and issue the CHL certification.

As a side note, Missouri is an open carry state, but allows municipalities or counties (St. Louis County) to preempt state law and ban open carry. They also have unlicensed motor vehicle carry, open or concealed (concealed in areas where there is no open carry) and that is not allowed to be preempted.

[PracticalTactical]

I don't think anybody here is considering the possibility of vicarious liability in the number of class hours. Personally, I wouldn't go below about 8 hours. I just don't think I could get students to understand it all in less time.

If the required in-person class time were lowered to 4 hours, I would have an online pre-course with a test they have to pass before coming to the classroom. Total time spent for somebody with no knowledge of the laws would probably be around 12 hours in total (including classroom and range).

But 4 hours of total classroom without anything else to back it....no way. Most students would be OK with 4 hours because they're pretty with it, but I'm not putting my name on any of my student's bullets without some good training to get me off the hook.