Rumors about future CHL classes?

[Charles L. Cotton]

Sorry

My post followed yours but was not directed to your post. Disagreement isn't the problem; the the method of delivery that is growing thin.

Chas.

[mr.72]

Sorry

My post followed yours but was not directed to your post. Disagreement isn't the problem; the the method of delivery that is growing thin.

Chas.

I know to whom your post was directed.

Sorry about that. It just seems so hypocritical to me, makes me quite upset.

Anyway, Back On Topic: I support whatever movement the State makes that results in less infringement or restriction of our right to carry. So if making a CHL class available online is an option, which may reduce the cost or time necessary to get a CHL, then I am all for it, as in it being an inch further in a thousand-mile journey. I am not of the belief that making something illegal makes it impossible, nor the converse.

I understand the point of CHL instructors who see that they may be run out of business. However the opportunity for that business depends upon the state imposing a restriction to the free exercise of your rights, so I think a few people losing some business opportunity is a fair trade for millions of Texans gaining increased freedom.

[Kevinf2349]

There are pros and cons for the online method. This is after all a way of taking defensive driving class too.

One pro is that they (the DPS) can check that you do all of the tution and don't just skip to the test. I actually know someone who passed their classroom part of the CHL in just 30 minutes! Yes, I know that isn't legal and shouldn't have happened, but that is what he told me and I have no reason to disbelieve him as the CHL instructor is a buddy of his.

I can't see the internet being a total replacement for a classroom but I do believe it would be a plausible option if correctly administered. Taking a CHL class is a long day of classroom and range that is not easy for everyone to 'slice off'.

The range part is obviously not going to happen online but people take degrees online so why not the classroom part of a CHL?

I do agree that the test part shouldn't be a 'gimme', but quite honesty the test I took after the classroom for my CHL I found to be pretty easy (100% pass).

I do have a little concern on whether the TxDPS IT department has the technical ability to do this correctly given that they can't even keep the progress of a CHL application current and correct!

Just some random ramblings...YMMV

[03Lightningrocks]

What part of the second amendment says we have to take a class in order to be able to defend ourselves?

I was going to post the same question. There is nothing in the second amendment about being proficient in the use of firearms. I wonder what makes folks think CHL instructors are meant to "weed out" the undesirables.

[03Lightningrocks]

PS... I am thinking Utah doesn't require a class of any kind to renew. Am I correct????

[DoubleActionCHL]

Does anyone actually take the defensive driving class seriously? And who here has ever taken it because they actually wanted to learn something? Most people take defensive driving because they have to, not because they want to. It's a royal pain in the behind and folks do everything they can to put as little effort into it as possible.

If we're going to require a license to carry, I believe the curriculum should actually mean something and the test should challenge the students. Distilling the class down to an online course takes away from the importance of the material. A good portion of the state curriculum is pedantic administrative code that's only relevant because of the concept of CHL. The Non-violent Dispute Resolution is a waste of time and serves only to appease the lefties who believe CHL holders will pull their gun and shoot every time they get angry. The Safe Handling and Storage of Firearms is a useful module, but the state's curriculum is a bit thin. Everyone who owns a gun (even those who don't) should WANT to endure the Use of Force and Deadly Force module. The subject of deadly force is, um, deadly serious. Maybe I'm a cynic, but I believe the impact of this section would be lost in an online setting.

I find it interesting that the main interest in online CHL is convenience, and the justification for accepting an inferior method of instruction is that we shouldn't have to do it anyway. Maybe I'm just too close to this subject to be objective, but I genuinely believe that many CHL holders attend the class expecting a long day of dry material that would require toothpicks to keep their eyes open; a necessary evil if they want to carry a gun. Fortunately, most of my students inform me that they were pleasantly surprised and feel like they really learned something; much more than they expected. I believe the difference between the students going through the motions and actually learning depends on a creating interest with a personal connection; something I don't see happening online.

We had a discussion on another forum where a poster believed the curriculum should cover more on the subject of weapon handling, drawing your weapon, and shooting tactics. The argument against this involved the fact that tactical shooting isn't learned in a single lesson, there isn't enough time, etc. The poster suggested that we add a couple of hours to the class. How many people would pay more for a 12 hour CHL class when they can do it for less money in 10 hours? The sad fact is most people only put as much effort into this as is absolutely required, nothing more.

[03Lightningrocks]

PS... I am thinking Utah doesn't require a class of any kind to renew. Am I correct????

Doubleaction, do you know if this is correct. I also am wondering if Utah has a higher instance of CHL ers making stupid illegal mistakes than Texas. The class for Utah is only 4 hours and requires no shooting test. Same question for Pennsylvania where a Sheriffs signature is all that is needed. I honestly thought the main reason for the class was to pacify the anti-gunners when we were originally trying to get CHL enacted. It seems to me if States that don't require the heavy class time and what not don't have a higher incidence of CHLers violating the law or blasting the wrong people, Texas wouldn't either.

Now on the other hand, I would sure hate to have a situation where the political climate turned against us because the general public got worried we were all going to shoot up the place for lack of proper classes.

[Kevinf2349]

DoubleAction : I understand what you are saying. In the case of my CHL class the time did seem to fly by but then I had a very informative and interesting teacher. I guess I am slightly biased as I work in the IT business and there are some very good classes/courses/qualification that available out there and they are not as Mickey Mouse as some people think.

I have never had to take the defensive driving ( I have probably put a hex on that now! ) so I can't comment too much on that except to say that I worry about a class that can be taken in a restaurant, comedy club or Hooters!

There were parts of the class that seemed to me to be a little obvious, but judging by some of the questions and comments by some of my fellow students, other didn't find it as 'obvious'.

[DoubleActionCHL]

Now on the other hand, I would sure hate to have a situation where the political climate turned against us because the general public got worried we were all going to shoot up the place for lack of proper classes.

Texas' CHL requirements are more involved than most other states. That's not my point. I don't believe the class should be more involved. In fact, I believe we shouldn't require a CHL in the first place. I'm simply saying that if Texas is going to license instructors and require classes, don't make a mockery of the entire program by asking absurd questions on the test. What we end up with is a 10 hour class that sounds good on paper but, in reality leaves it up to the instructor as to whether or not the students actually learn anything. The test certainly doesn't challenge the student on the material. Why bother?

For those of you who feel like an online system will prevent fraud, a test that actually covers the material would do the same thing. Is fraud among CHL instructors so widespread that this is a legitimate reason for going the online route? I doubt it. Anyway, it's unlikely they'll go this route anytime soon, if they do at all.

[03Lightningrocks]

I get what your saying now. I agree that if we are going to require a class, it should at the least teach something.

[M4Dogg]

I think if we boil everything down, it comes down to DPS and making money. Right? I mean, DPS is not going to do something (i.e. make a change) unless it is going to yield them a) less work or b) more money. Am I right??

So I'm guessing DPS is just overloaded right now with CHL processing and rather they've been hiring more people too - spending more money - so they likely are trying to find ways to reduce the amount of overhead. I don't think changes to the instruction delivery will change much if anything (except increase their costs in the form of web design/support). It is the paper processing which they need to improve and make more efficient. Maybe they should use scantron instead of making the forms the way they are now where basically a person has to see if it is a checkmark, read what is written, refer to other materials, etc.. I dunno, I don't even really see a fool-proof way to automate that. A lot of it could be subjective too. Their policies on getting a CHL are very complex especially if someone had a previous conviction of some sort. I think this is the crux of the issue and I will again point out, moving the courses online does not really solve this problem, it is just less work for the instructor which is not really the issue right now.

[mr.72]

Does anyone actually take the defensive driving class seriously? And who here has ever taken it because they actually wanted to learn something? Most people take defensive driving because they have to, not because they want to. It's a royal pain in the behind and folks do everything they can to put as little effort into it as possible.

That is absolutely true, because this is a class that is mandated by the state in order to gain some benefit. At least in terms of Defensive Driving class, you almost always have a choice in the matter (pay the ticket or take Defensive Driving). But still DD is often considered an alternate punishment compared with paying for a ticket.

Likewise, I think the CHL class is regarded exactly the same way. It is a state-mandated waste of time, and IMHO it is truly put in place as an impediment to lawful carry and little else. I don't think DPS or the lawmakers who put this into place actually believe that there is anything worthwhile that is going to be taught. They just figure that by putting a 10-hour class that costs $100-150 in addition to the $140 application fee, most people will not be able to find or take the time to do this. For example, my wife would be carrying right now and for the last year if it were not for the cost (monetary as well as time) of the class. I had to take a day off of my weekend job (which is hard enough to begin with) to take my class and I sold a piece of music equipment to finance the class+fee. So while I sympathize with the instructor's desire to make the class a valuable thing (hey, I am a guitar teacher after all), I do think that this misses the point. The point of the class is to make acquiring a CHL and lawfully carrying a concealed handgun as painful as possible.

If we're going to require a license to carry, I believe the curriculum should actually mean something and the test should challenge the students.

Again I think this misses the point entirely. Rather than making an effort to make the class more difficult, challenging, or valuable, we need to work to get rid of the requirement altogether. It is unconstitutional (subject to your interpretation of the applicability of the Constitution... if it applied to any other "right" than the right to keep and bear arms we would not tolerate such infringement) and it reinforces the idea that guns are intrinsically dangerous and require special, state-sponsored screening and instruction on the part of anyone handling them. In other words, it gives ammo to the antis. It is a mistake, IMHO, for us to continue to give them more and more ammo by saying "let's not make the class easier" or for us to willfully engage in friendly fire with talk about perceived merits of the class and license screening the unworthy from the free exercise of their rights.

Sorry for all of the shooting metaphors :)

[M4Dogg]

Good points Mr.72.

[DoubleActionCHL]

Again I think this misses the point entirely. Rather than making an effort to make the class more difficult, challenging, or valuable, we need to work to get rid of the requirement altogether. It is unconstitutional (subject to your interpretation of the applicability of the Constitution...

You're missing MY point entirely. You're so caught up in the constitutionality and the fact that the class or license shouldn't even be required that you're actually in favor of further dumbing down the class so it truly is a complete waste of time. This are two separate and distinct issues. We can argue the constitutionality, and I'll probably agree with you. That's not the point. The point is we have what we have. The license IS required. The class IS required. As long as we're required to do it, let's do it well.

[mr.72]

You're missing MY point entirely. You're so caught up in the constitutionality and the fact that the class or license shouldn't even be required that you're actually in favor of further dumbing down the class so it truly is a complete waste of time.

I understand your point, and I just disagree with your reasoning.

I think we need to avoid actions that appear to validate the concept that it requires special training or classes for us to exercise our right to carry. So I support your intention of making a class available that is useful and informative and I think we should be able to voluntarily take such a class. But so long as we are forced to participate in an invalid idea (bearing arms requires special training and screening), then we need to be sure that it is shown to be invalid.

So at the time when a legal challenge is offered to remove the licensing restriction or reduce it in TX by law makers, it would be much better if supporters of our rights could point to the fact that the classes and screening have always been a useless waste of time and have not had the result of improving safety or whatever. So I want to remove the teeth from this monster as much as possible.