SB 864

[TexasGal]

I am not trying to be a fly in the ointment nor am I arguing with the position of far more experienced instructors, but renewals are getting a refresher in stuff they already have learned one or more times--especially if they carry regularly and have had years of a "need to know" on a daily basis. They mostly need to know the changes in the laws. They could probably pass the test without any class at all--especially with an open book test.

But brand new CHL students who have never read one line of gun law before may not absorb it so readily. In reality, to learn the laws and how they apply to many different situations requires one to study them over time and apparently those that carry regularly do. Hence the good record of CHL's in Texas. Look at how many questions arise on this forum from even experienced licensees so the 10 hours we have doesn't result in complete retention of the information. The statutes require a minimum level of introduction to these laws but 10 hours is so long that single day classes exhaust everyone involved and learning suffers near the end. Breaking it up into two days just never seems to have caught on.

The concern seems to focus on whether or not 4 hours will mean the first time green chl's have more trouble than those who go through the longer class. It does make sense to make sure students receive excellent support materials in plain language with references to the CHL16 to take home. We can include the material we feel is vital but was not able to cover in the shorter class time. I saw another post here discussing how a CD is a cheaper way to do that than printed material.

[jmra]

I am not trying to be a fly in the ointment nor am I arguing with the position of far more experienced instructors, but renewals are getting a refresher in stuff they already have learned one or more times--especially if they carry regularly and have had years of a "need to know" on a daily basis. They mostly need to know the changes in the laws. They could probably pass the test without any class at all--especially with an open book test.

But brand new CHL students who have never read one line of gun law before may not absorb it so readily. In reality, to learn the laws and how they apply to many different situations requires one to study them over time and apparently those that carry regularly do. Hence the good record of CHL's in Texas. Look at how many questions arise on this forum from even experienced licensees so the 10 hours we have doesn't result in complete retention of the information. The statutes require a minimum level of introduction to these laws but 10 hours is so long that single day classes exhaust everyone involved and learning suffers near the end. Breaking it up into two days just never seems to have caught on.

The concern seems to focus on whether or not 4 hours will mean the first time green chl's have more trouble than those who go through the longer class. It does make sense to make sure students receive excellent support materials in plain language with references to the CHL16 to take home. We can include the material we feel is vital but was not able to cover in the shorter class time. I saw another post here discussing how a CD is a cheaper way to do that than printed material.

Two words - personal responsibility. If you are going to carry under the CHL law then it should be your responsibility to research and study those laws. If a person is more comfortable paying for additional instruction (beyond the 4 hours) fine, but it should not be required.

[TexasGal]

I am not trying to be a fly in the ointment nor am I arguing with the position of far more experienced instructors, but renewals are getting a refresher in stuff they already have learned one or more times--especially if they carry regularly and have had years of a "need to know" on a daily basis. They mostly need to know the changes in the laws. They could probably pass the test without any class at all--especially with an open book test.

But brand new CHL students who have never read one line of gun law before may not absorb it so readily. In reality, to learn the laws and how they apply to many different situations requires one to study them over time and apparently those that carry regularly do. Hence the good record of CHL's in Texas. Look at how many questions arise on this forum from even experienced licensees so the 10 hours we have doesn't result in complete retention of the information. The statutes require a minimum level of introduction to these laws but 10 hours is so long that single day classes exhaust everyone involved and learning suffers near the end. Breaking it up into two days just never seems to have caught on.

The concern seems to focus on whether or not 4 hours will mean the first time green chl's have more trouble than those who go through the longer class. It does make sense to make sure students receive excellent support materials in plain language with references to the CHL16 to take home. We can include the material we feel is vital but was not able to cover in the shorter class time. I saw another post here discussing how a CD is a cheaper way to do that than printed material.

Two words - personal responsibility. If you are going to carry under the CHL law then it should be your responsibility to research and study those laws. If a person is more comfortable paying for additional instruction (beyond the 4 hours) fine, but it should not be required.

We agree. Personal responsibility is key and why the system is working anyway. I am not saying we should keep the 10 hours. Just hoping those instructors who are lacking in giving support materials to green students will beef that up a bit. Not saying we need to make that a law either.

[MamaK]

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.

Sorry I missed this, I'm working a lot of OT. I'll try to respond using quotes and asterix so that I don't get too lost...

"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."

* During my undergrad degree I actually took two learning classes, one was a Psychology of learning and the other was early childhood education - it had absolutely nothing to do with my major, and were taken because I wanted to understand how to better understand their developmental processes. Heaps of APA research stressed the same thing that you have stated. Japanese schools are known to have short breaks between classes to help keep students minds refreshed. It also helps if they can connect new information to old information & ideas. So finding a way to connect the information to something that they already know. (The book we used for the class was "Human Learning")

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."

**Is it possible with the new group running the program that they could develop a different test for renewals? We have Pearson in Texas, seems like they would be a great source of overhauling & creating a better test.

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 SB60 (1995) had required a 40 hr course on the same subject matter, then instructors would have been teaching 40 hr. classes."

**Thats about the same amount of time as the noncom security classes. If that were the case, then you should get a college credit out of it.

CHLs have maintained an incredible track record as being law-abiding responsible citizens."

**I haven't found any data for or against that. 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. 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) Thus Im open to hearing about older instructors who are positive and not treating the CHL program like a used car lot.

YOU mentioned STARS training. Does that mean there wasn't a standardized training for all CHL instructors, that each batch learned a little differently? Is it possible for the state to update instructors training (for free) so that everyone would be starting from the same point.

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? Are we discussing renewal classes or new chl classes? I thought that extended the range time would get you dinged. (however it's nothing they have listed anywhere but was apparently part of their powerpoint presentation to instructors regarding "bad apples" - which if its something that can get you dinged, shouldnt it be in a place where you can access the information?). 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.

Anyway, have a wonderful night Chas!

[jmra]

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)

What instructor? Just asking because "My telepathy switch is borked".

[Charles L. Cotton]

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;

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.

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?

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.

YOU mentioned STARS training.

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

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.

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.

[Lucky]

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.

If five years is too long between renewal classes, how frequently should Texas require CHLs to take a class? Two years would bring it in sync with instructor renewals. That's also how often we have legislative sessions. I don't know if that's coincidence or by design.

[croc870]

Well there are certainly felons who have received CHL's in Texas. I assume the thought would be that it could happen again.

[Keith B]

Well there are certainly felons who have received CHL's in Texas. I assume the thought would be that it could happen again.

Please point to proof on this. I doubt you can show any factual evidence this has happened.

[croc870]

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;

[gemini]

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;

This article is slanted anti-gun, old, and full of information that is currently not correct.
I quit reading after page 3. If this is all you've got to bring as some kind of "proof" I'd say
you're trolling.

[Keith B]

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;

Your statement implied that convicted felons had applied for and received CHLs, not that CHL holders had committed felonies (as this article details). Big difference. So, I still challenge you to show proof where a convited felon was issued a CHL.

[K.Mooneyham]

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;

This article is slanted anti-gun, old, and full of information that is currently not correct.
I quit reading after page 3. If this is all you've got to bring as some kind of "proof" I'd say
you're trolling.

Not only that, but I could have sworn that some recent stats were posted showing how low the rate of law-breaking by CHLers really is, and its a tiny number. CHLers are about as law-abiding group of folks as there are in the State of Texas.

[Charles L. Cotton]

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.