Changing from 10 hours to 4 hours

[Charles L. Cotton]

Charles,
One part of the law I have an issue with has nothing to do with the number of hours. I am a licensed private investigator, I am also a CHL Holder, however as I understand the law I can't carry while working as a PI. I don't understand why.

I agree with you completely. CHL is solely about personal safety and that goal should not be diminished based upon one's job title.

Chas.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Stephen's comments point out the reality of being an instructor, regardless of the subject. When one is given a mandatory time schedule, you make the material fit. I won't give names, but years ago when I was certified to teach the CHL course, the person who ran the program and every single instructor commented that it doesn't take 10 to teach the subjects mandated by the Code. Therefore, each of us had to decide on which subject to put the additional time, that is, we decide what topics to emphasize more than others. I have chosen to spend much more time on the use of force/deadly force than would be necessary to pass the exam. I do it because I feel that is the single most important subject we should be teaching our students. Other instructors emphasize other subjects. Class discussions sometimes wind up putting more emphasis on areas the instructor didn't anticipate. I love the flexibility DPS gives us to create our own lesson plans.

I've said it before but it warrants repeating. Four hour renewal courses (including range time) have worked fine and we have an excellent track record. We have to cover the same material and renewal students take the same test as do first-time students, so we have clear and convincing evidence that the CHL course can be safely and efficiently completed in four hours. If HB47 passes as written (with the "at least" language being changed to "no more than"), then we instructors will actually have a little more time for classroom work since the shooting portion of the class will be "off the clock." We would be facing a different situation if the Code required both the initial and renewal classes to be 10 hrs. long. Then we would be in uncharted territory with no hard evidence how a 4 hr. could would work, but thankfully that is not the situation we face. We have several years of data that prove 4 hr. courses work. Neither NRA, TSRA nor I would jump out and offer a bill that would harm the great track record we've earned since 1996! As seen over the years, that information has been used to bolster additional pro-gun legislation and it will continue to serve that purpose.

On a personal note, I would like to see the Code amended to require only the teaching of 1) deadly force; and 2) what I call "administrative" material to include when/where we cannot carry, renewal procedures, etc., safe storage. I actually like the nonviolent dispute resolution portion of the class, but I seriously question its value to students. Since numerous studies claim we retain something less than 10% of what we learn in class, I think we need to focus on the use of force and drive it home as best we can. Again, this is just my personal opinion.

Chas.

[AEA]

Charles I have noticed one thing about the proposed 4hr INITIAL and the CURRENT 4hr RENEWAL......

Say the 4hr INITIAL (4hr class + Range time) HB47 passes (as amended in committee as you stated).

Also say the CURRENT 4hr RENEWAL (4hr class INCLUDING Range) remains HB48 DOES NOT PASS.

Then we will have two different 4hr classes......
INITIAL = 4hrs + Range
RENEWAL = 4hrs Total (INCLUDING RANGE).

Gotta figure some way to eliminate this possibility?
The easiest is to LEAVE HB47 as is: 4hrs Total (INCLUDING RANGE) as written?

This would eliminate the above possibility of 2 different class/range TOTAL TIMES and be more in line with the of the CURRENT RENEWAL Total time of 4hrs (INCLUDING RANGE).

This would then be correct on the historic data "so we have clear and convincing evidence that the CHL course can be safely and efficiently completed in four hours."

[Charles L. Cotton]

Charles I have noticed one thing about the proposed 4hr INITIAL and the CURRENT 4hr RENEWAL......

Say the 4hr INITIAL (4hr class + Range time) HB47 passes (as amended in committee as you stated).

Also say the CURRENT 4hr RENEWAL (4hr class INCLUDING Range) remains HB48 DOES NOT PASS.

Then we will have two different 4hr classes......
INITIAL = 4hrs + Range
RENEWAL = 4hrs Total (INCLUDING RANGE).

Gotta figure some way to eliminate this possibility?
The easiest is to LEAVE HB47 as is: 4hrs Total (INCLUDING RANGE) as written?

This would eliminate the above possibility of 2 different class/range TOTAL TIMES and be more in line with the of the CURRENT RENEWAL Total time of 4hrs (INCLUDING RANGE).

This would then be correct on the historic data "so we have clear and convincing evidence that the CHL course can be safely and efficiently completed in four hours."

HB47 repeals subsection (c) that contains the current renewal class, so there would be only one class for new and renewal students.

Chas.

[ELB]

Frankly, the state should have no business setting up licenses or classes or fees. The end goal should be "The right to bear arms...shall not be infringed."

The comments on this thread supporting this and that version of how the CHL training should go are a perfect illustration of why neither the posters, DPS personnel, legislators, or any other bureaucrat should have the power to set such requirements. All of them are based on supposition and "I feel..." and "Some LEO told me he feels better because of CHL training.." and whatever the writer subconsciously knows he is good at. In other words, arbitrary wishes hobbling a fundamental human right to self-defense. (Example - the de-escalation training as presented in the courses i have been in was a huge waste of time, and I have little doubt was included to pacify the "CHL'ers will settle every argument with a gun/blood will run in the streets" types in the legislature).

I support the CHL program because it is a set of steps in the right direction, away from absolute suppression towards actually honoring the right to self-defense, but it is only a path, not an endpoint. Going from 10 hrs to 4 hrs is another step in the right direction...towards ZERO government required hoop-jumping. (Next, cut the state fees and watch your out-of-state-license-in-lieu-of-Texas-license "problem" vanish.)

I am serious about my training to the point that I do combatives weekly, Force-on-force scenarios regularly, pay significant money to numerous instructors, shred the fine points of the law on this forum and elsewhere, and study every self-defense article I see in the paper to protect myself tactically, legally, morally. But I have to admit that surely the vast majority of people who use a gun to defend themselves do so with little-to-no training in either law or manipulating a handgun. John Lott, Gary Kleck, and many others compiled studies showing anywhere from hundreds of thousand to millions of defensive gun uses per year...and those were in years when most of the country did not have shall-issue carry license with all their attendant "training."

I think anyone who contemplates self-defense by any means should seek out training in the ethics, law, and tools of violence, but having the state mandate this turns it into a legalistic game -- a serious one, to be sure, but a game -- where we spend more time trying to work the rules than we do worrying about actual defensive training.

[gdanaher]

My wife never desired to 'think' about guns until after her experience at a nearby Walmart parking lot, in broad daylight. It all came together and she wanted to carry. I immediately explained the Cliff Notes version of the CHL, and then found a local basic training class for her to attend. Following that course, she felt she was ready for the CHL, and did quite well, proudly displaying her range target when she got home. This extra training was absolutely necessary for her to be successful and safe. It did not have to be mandated by the state though. Sometimes, common sense can be made to apply. Not everyone needs the basic training, and the state should not mandate that everyone get it, but perhaps the instructors might want to be more demanding so the folks showing up for the CHL are not total newbies with no idea how to load the magazine. Yes it dips into their wallet, but these instructors could create basic courses outside of CHL to get those new to guns up to speed. It seems to me that someone taking the CHL class should already have some basic knowledge and tools in the bucket.

[Chemist45]

Bald Eagle wrote:

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.

And I have seen police officers (Both patrolmen and detectives) do things just as stupid. I've seen cops sweep people at the range, unable to clear a simple jam, and - in one case- continue to fire a revolver even though the barrel was blocked with a squib. These are the people who are supposedly trained!

The fact is that there will always be people who do stupid things. If we allow these people to be the threshold for determining a constitutional right, then we will not have any rights.

Personally, I found the ten hour class to be incredibly long and the four hour renewal to be too long as well. I would like to see zero training required to exercise a constitutional right.

[baldeagle]

Bald Eagle wrote:

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.

And I have seen police officers (Both patrolmen and detectives) do things just as stupid. I've seen cops sweep people at the range, unable to clear a simple jam, and - in one case- continue to fire a revolver even though the barrel was blocked with a squib. These are the people who are supposedly trained!

And those cops should not be carrying weapons. Their supervisors should be disciplined for not reprimanding them for their gross failures, and they should be placed on desk duty or fired unless they can comply with simple safety rules. The fact that police are allowed to have grossly bad firearms safety habits with no repercussions points to poor management and low standards. It is not an excuse to allow anyone to carry a weapon.

The fact is that there will always be people who do stupid things. If we allow these people to be the threshold for determining a constitutional right, then we will not have any rights.

Those people aren't the threshold for determining a Constitutional right. The right exists completely independent of the restrictions that the legislature chooses to place on it and the people are willing to tolerate without complaint. My point is, IF the state is going to intrude on our rights and insist on licensing our right, THEN they should have requirements placed upon that license that ensure safe handling of weapons.

Personally, I found the ten hour class to be incredibly long and the four hour renewal to be too long as well. I would like to see zero training required to exercise a constitutional right.

I totally agree, but let's be honest, we lost our rights a long, long time ago. To get them back will take a massive education program and probably several generations to correct.

[eglide8]

I'm glad to see Charles is agreement with the proposed reduction of 10 hours to 4 hours. My classes are usually small and the actual classroom portion can be completed in four hours in a very thorough fashion. I have not seen a 10 hour class yet that didn't contain hours of 'war stories' and various other filler material. Sounds like the most pushback from this porposal will be from instructors worried about loss of revenue. Granted, training is needed to become more proficient, but the CHL class is not the venue to become accomplished with your gun.

eglide8

[matefrio]

Am I reading this correctly... help me out. Looks like for renewal we need to qualify on the range under this law as well? Darn.

To renew a license, a license holder must:
(1) complete a [continuing education course in]
handgun proficiency course under Section 411.188(a) [411.188(c)] struck
within the six-month period preceding:


Now read 411.188(a)


(a) The director by rule shall establish minimum standards
for handgun proficiency and shall develop a course to teach handgun
proficiency and examinations to measure handgun proficiency. The
course to teach handgun proficiency is required for each person who
seeks to obtain or renew a license and must contain training
sessions divided into two parts. One part of the course must be
classroom instruction and the other part must be range instruction
and an actual demonstration by the applicant of the applicant's
ability to safely and proficiently use the applicable category of
handgun. An applicant must be able to demonstrate, at a minimum,
the degree of proficiency that is required to effectively operate a
handgun of .32 caliber or above. The department shall distribute
the standards, course requirements, and examinations on request to
any qualified handgun instructor.

[apostate]

Am I reading this correctly... help me out. Looks like for renewal we need to qualify on the range under this law as well? Darn.

Darn? The range test is easy and IMHO more fun than listening to a rehash of 46.03, 46.035, et cetera.

[eglide8]

Good grief.
Eglide8

[bizarrenormality]

Keep in mind that the proposed bill would only set the minimum to 4 hours. You'd still be able to go beyond that. There doesn't appear to be a maximum in the text of the bill.

You've got to be kidding! If you set up a class that is only 3 hours 59 minutes and 30 seconds, do you really think they would say, "Let's take Tom's class for 8 hours... must be a better class if we are going to be there for the whole day!"

If you're losing business to other instructors, it's not the government's job to hamstring your competition.

[ELB]

New Question:

Will reducing the training time lead to any reciprocity issues with other states?

I would be surprised if someone hasn't checked this out already, but I don't see it mentioned anywhere.

elb

[apostate]

I offer no guarantee, but reciprocity doesn't seem to be an issue for Florida.