Changing from 10 hours to 4 hours

[tommyg]

I agree with the Bald Eagle . I had a New Hampshire permit and it was too easy to get.( stayed in N.H. 11 years)
I went out and practice every couple of months with my carry gun. Now that I'm back in Texas I have two guns same make and model. I keep one in new condition and use the other gun for practice every couple of months this way I have a new gun to carry and I don't wear out my carry
Since they are both the same I can keep in practice and still have a gun in really good shape , Anyone who has a CHL should practice with their carry gun or one exactly like it...... This way you won't forget how to use it when you need it most.

KNOW YOUR GUN WELL it is a life and death thing

[Charles L. Cotton]

To those who want a safety course added to the CHL course, or added as a prerequisite, please show us the problem you are trying to cure.

Chas.

[Charles L. Cotton]

I knew CHL Instructors would not like reducing the number of hours because they won't be able to charge as much for a 4 hr. course. Although I'm a CHL Instructor, I'm a Second Amendment activist first, NRA Board Member second, and a CHL Instructor a distant third.

I have to admit that I'm a bit disappointed that all instructors don't feel the same.

Chas.

[baldeagle]

To those who want a safety course added to the CHL course, or added as a prerequisite, please show us the problem you are trying to cure.

Chas.

You won't see it in the stats, but you'll see if when you go to the range during a course. Some people don't even know how to release the safety. Some have very dangerous habits when handling a loaded gun (sweeping other students, for example). Some struggle greatly to score high enough to pass. A few have to get instruction before they can pass.

I understand the Constitutional right, but, if you're going to require licensing, it should have some substance.

Now about those stats....

[WildBill]

I agree with the Bald Eagle . I had a New Hampshire permit and it was too easy to get.( stayed in N.H. 11 years)

Contrast this to a California CWP which is "too hard to get". The law requires training, background checks, and jumping through various hoops. In addition, you have to supply a "valid reason" why you should be issued a permit. BTW - self defense is not considered a valid reason.
Given the choice, I would rather have it "too easy" than "too difficult". Count your blessings.

[tommyg]

I agree California is too hard... I want people who carry to know what they are doing
Both legally and practical ,,a gun class is a good idea there are a lot of people who don'
t know a firing pin from a safety............ Unreasonable laws like New York and California do more harm than good

[Charles L. Cotton]

Again, where is the evidence of a problem? There isn't any! A few people are throwing out opinions, but if the CHL safety record were bad, there would be supporting evidence.

Chas.

[WildBill]

I agree California is too hard... I want people who carry to know what they are doing
Both legally and practical ,,a gun class is a good idea there are a lot of people who don'
t know a firing pin from a safety............ Unreasonable laws like New York and California do more harm than good

I agree that "a gun class is a good idea", but that is different than being a legal requirement." I am all for training and continual education. I have been shooting for over 50 years and can't even remember how many shooting and safety classes that I have taken. I have also taught numerous hunter safety classes. I recommend that all shooters, both novice and experienced, take safety and marksmanship training classes.

[howdy]

I apologize if this was covered, but does the 4 hours include range time? If I have a large class with one or two students that like to hear themselves talk, the class can easily go for 10 hours. The range will give me no more than 3 lanes so I might have to do the qualification 4-5 times. I recently had a two student class with CHL's from another State. One had the FFL. No questions and 20 minutes on the range. I had to do LOTS of filler.

The price of the course has been going down for years. I paid $150 for my course in 1997. Tactical Firearms in Katy has the course for $69 and that is in a state of the art facility. When I took the Instructor class in 2002, there were a little over 1100 active instuctors. They offered one instructor class a year in August and there was a screening process for the course. (I know, I had to walk up hill in the snow too). There are multiple Instructors here in west Houston and they are competing for a scarce audieance.

I think in general, 10 hours is too long. The State of Texas puts a certain trust in the CHL Instructors and the vast majority do this because we support the program and want it to succeed. We are required to convey certain information to the student. If this can be done in 4 hours, then end the class and go home.

[ghostrider]

Both legally and practical ,,a gun class is a good idea there are a lot of people who don'
t know a firing pin from a safety

It is a good idea for those who need it, but you're talking about a gun education class, not the DPS-required CHL class. In fact, I would think a shorter CHL class would allow instructors to spend more time on the range and help those who show up not knowing anything about their handguns (why, oh why do people do that????).

I'm with Charles - I see no obvious reason why the class can't be shortened. Perhaps more Texans would apply for a CHL if it were cheaper and didn't require devoting a whole (long) day to it. I doubt the 'calibre' of attendees would change much: you'll still have the ones dedicated to learning more (us forum members) and those who show up with a new gun (or one that's been sitting in grandpa's attic for 26yrs) and no idea how to use it, plus everyone in-between.

How many problems do they have in Vermont where no class (indeed, no license) is required?

[FL450]

Will this possibly affect reprocity with other states?

[Charles L. Cotton]

I apologize if this was covered, but does the 4 hours include range time? If I have a large class with one or two students that like to hear themselves talk, the class can easily go for 10 hours. The range will give me no more than 3 lanes so I might have to do the qualification 4-5 times. I recently had a two student class with CHL's from another State. One had the FFL. No questions and 20 minutes on the range. I had to do LOTS of filler.

The price of the course has been going down for years. I paid $150 for my course in 1997. Tactical Firearms in Katy has the course for $69 and that is in a state of the art facility. When I took the Instructor class in 2002, there were a little over 1100 active instuctors. They offered one instructor class a year in August and there was a screening process for the course. (I know, I had to walk up hill in the snow too). There are multiple Instructors here in west Houston and they are competing for a scarce audieance.

I think in general, 10 hours is too long. The State of Texas puts a certain trust in the CHL Instructors and the vast majority do this because we support the program and want it to succeed. We are required to convey certain information to the student. If this can be done in 4 hours, then end the class and go home.

If HB47 passes as it will be amended to state "no more than four hours" then it will be exclusive of range time. Including range time in SB60's 10 hr. requirement was a mistake for the very reason you mentioned. If I have a class with 5 people who are experienced shooters, it's going to take a certain amount of time. If I have a class with 24 students, I'm going to spend a lot more time on the range. For that reason, the four hour maximum will apply only to the classroom portion of the course.

I agree that the vast majority of instructors teach because they enjoy it, because they believe in the program, or both. I also understand that many instructors don't want to reduce the revenue from classes, but that can't be considered by NRA or TSRA when pursuing pro-gun legislation. As a side note, it could well be that instructors' business may increase because more people will be willing to spend 4 hrs in class (plus the actual shooting). If so, then it's a win-win situation; more CHLs, more policitcal clout, more business for instructors. But again, the business/revenue aspect is secondary to increasing gun rights.

Chas.

[Oldgringo]

... I want people who carry to know what they are doing
Both legally and practical....

Umm, I wonder what kind of training is required for OC in those states where OC is legal?

[Ziran]

Well I took the 10 hour class a few years ago and I thought it was waaaay too long and redundant.

4 Hours is more then enough. All that you really need to cover are the relevant gun laws and basic gun safety.

As for the shooting part a blind man could grab a fistful of bullets and throw them at the target and get a passing score so what is the point ?

[Charles L. Cotton]

I forgot to point out something earlier. I think there may be a misconception about what constitutes "classroom material" and what constitutes "range material." Classroom involves everything in the course, except the actual shooting. Handgun use, safety, etc. are all part of the 4 hr. classroom portion of the class. The only thing that is range time is the shooting portion of the class.

This is to prevent increasing the mandatory time beyond what the legislature establishes. So instructors won't be able to teach for 4 hrs, then go to the range and conduct additional teaching/training. Look at it like this; if you aren't pulling the trigger or watching and waiting to do so, then is won't be part of the range portion of the class.

Chas.