CHL Legal Service.

[fickman]

My first instructor spent time encouraging everybody to get additional firearms training, and by the way, he teaches a tactical course and mentioned you could ask him about classes.

He also recommended a kydex (thin as possible) holster that was custom-fit to your firearm, had a reasonable retention (a "click" when fully inserted, but not a release button), covered the trigger, and had a groove for the sights. He happened to sell these, too.

The thing is, he just mentioned in passing that he also sold them, and a lot of students took him up on one or the other. I bought one of his holsters. It didn't feel unethical because he wasn't pushing us to use him and his points were expressed as his opinion.

The prepaid legal defense is more controversial IMO, and a lot of people have been less than impressed by the service when they had to use it. It's generally setup as a multi-level marketing scheme. If he didn't make it clear that he was financially benefiting, then that does seem unethical. It also feels unethical if he put pressure to buy, to buy from him, and didn't give other options or opinions about the topic.

Regardless of what you do, you can pay him back by not recommending people take his class and finding somebody else for your renewal class.

[Aces2]

I have to disagree on both points here.

Although I don't recommend any of these services during my classes personally, I believe you can justify spending class time on them. If people really thing there is something wrong with instructors doing this, they should push for an administrative rule or statue to be put in place against them. If you believe that the instructor is in violation of a requirement, then post the requirement that is being violated.

I constantly see people encouraging students to "report the instructor" because he or she is teaching something they disagree with. If instructors can be sanctioned for using this material, then what prevents them from being sanctioned for teaching that a round should or should not be kept in the chamber? The beauty of written law and codes is that the requirements are not left up to individual opinion. As I see it: the instructor is demonstrating past legal cases (laws related to use of force) and providing a program to ease possible future problems. I might not do it myself, but I don't want a bureaucrat simply deciding that he or she doesn't believe that is appropriate.

My second thought is a little bit simpler. If you believe this issue is serious enough to report to the state, then you should also have the courage to confront the instructor about it. I understand that the middle of class might not be the best time to do it. I also understand why someone might wait until after receiving certification. I do believe it's immature to report someone to the authorities without having the courage to confront the individual first however.

That's why I don't know if it's worth even messing with. It's not like the instructor was forcing the legal service on us.

It was only a one day class, and I'm sure it is tough for any instructor to fill 10 hours of class time.

The overall class was very good and they were giving us a discount for Monday classes during June.

As far as confronting the instructor, I did ask him if he received a fee for signing up students. He didn't answer me so I figure he was getting something.

Why else would he be shilling for a local law firm?

[Keith B]

I have to disagree on both points here.

Although I don't recommend any of these services during my classes personally, I believe you can justify spending class time on them. If people really thing there is something wrong with instructors doing this, they should push for an administrative rule or statue to be put in place against them. If you believe that the instructor is in violation of a requirement, then post the requirement that is being violated.

I constantly see people encouraging students to "report the instructor" because he or she is teaching something they disagree with. If instructors can be sanctioned for using this material, then what prevents them from being sanctioned for teaching that a round should or should not be kept in the chamber? The beauty of written law and codes is that the requirements are not left up to individual opinion. As I see it: the instructor is demonstrating past legal cases (laws related to use of force) and providing a program to ease possible future problems. I might not do it myself, but I don't want a bureaucrat simply deciding that he or she doesn't believe that is appropriate.

My second thought is a little bit simpler. If you believe this issue is serious enough to report to the state, then you should also have the courage to confront the instructor about it. I understand that the middle of class might not be the best time to do it. I also understand why someone might wait until after receiving certification. I do believe it's immature to report someone to the authorities without having the courage to confront the individual first however.

It was specifically stated in instructors class that hawking legal services is NOT to be counted as class time. Talking about past cases or case law in reference to defense shootings is one thing, and even mentioning prepaid legal in passing might be permissible, but taking an hour out of the required course time to sell a service is definitely not acceptable from the DPS stance. How would it be any different than someone talking about their holsters they make and demonstrating why they were better than the next guys? Or selling their used guns, accessories, etc. It is NOT training and that is what they are there for.

[tacticool]

Although I don't recommend any of these services during my classes personally, I believe you can justify spending class time on them. If people really thing there is something wrong with instructors doing this, they should push for an administrative rule or statue to be put in place against them.

If the instructor really thinks he did nothing wrong he shouldn't mind explaining it to a DPS auditor.

[TexasGal]

The problem here is that some people are not just bringing this up and informing students these services exist. They are applying a lot of pressure to sign up with a particular service on the spot and clearly interrupting the class to do it. They are sometimes allowing the reps to come in and talk to the class. Because of being DPS certified, students tend to listen to what their instructors tell them. The state does not want's it's cloak of authority to be used this way. I was told by one instructor that the finder's fee he gets is $35 a person. That's not a huge amount of money, but multiply that by say 20 people in a class and you can see why it can be tempting to supplement the meager net profit many get for teaching the cheaper classes. Sometimes the instructor just does not know how much the State is against this due to a lack of direct communication and would not do it if they did. I have also had instructors express to me genuine concern for the financial hardship their students would likely face in a SD shooting. They are personally sold on the service so it is not always just about money they get. However, I doubt these instructors are using the heavy handed pressure tactics. The DPS is now conducting a round of audits and re-writing the Admin Rules. I think we can expect that this will be dealt with. Its really sort of ironic that the law services themselves have allowed their aggressive marketing strategy to stimulate the State to want to step in. You would think they would have been smarter than that. A story of a golden goose comes to mind.

[Aces2]

I figured more instructors than just mine were hawking these legal services.

The instructor in my class told us we needed to sign up that day to get the "best price".

I was the only one in the class, out of six students, who did not sign up.

When I got home I looked up the legal service ([Pre-paid legal service]).

Their prices on their website were the same as what the instructor quoted in the class.

[sjfcontrol]

Sounds like you were the only smart one there. Typically, limited time deals, aren't.

[WildBill]

Sounds like you were the only smart one there. Typically, limited time deals, aren't.

Kind of like the stuff you can only buy on TV and not in stores.

[sjfcontrol]

Sounds like you were the only smart one there. Typically, limited time deals, aren't.

Kind of like the stuff you can only buy on TV and not in stores.

Except for the stuff sold here...

http://www.asseenontv.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[WildBill]

Sounds like you were the only smart one there. Typically, limited time deals, aren't.

Kind of like the stuff you can only buy on TV and not in stores.

Except for the stuff sold here...

http://www.asseenontv.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Where else can you get a deluxe spin mop for "only" $49.95?

[Keith B]

Sounds like you were the only smart one there. Typically, limited time deals, aren't.

Kind of like the stuff you can only buy on TV and not in stores.

Except for the stuff sold here...

http://www.asseenontv.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Where else can you get a deluxe spin mop for "only" $49.95?

Operators are standing by....