New Student Test Available on DPS Site

[Charles L. Cotton]

Part of the "testing" problem is the way the statue is written. In order to get SB60 passed, we had to accept several unnecessary provisions. We have repealed or amended many of those, but there has been no change in the required curriculum. Further, the statute also requires a test. Here is the operative language from Gov't Code §411.188:

(b)Only a qualified handgun instructor may administer a handgun proficiency course. The handgun proficiency course must include at least 10 hours and not more than 15 hours of instruction on:

• (1) the laws that relate to weapons and to the use of deadly force;
  
  (2) handgun use, proficiency, and safety;
  
  (3) nonviolent dispute resolution; and
  
  (4) proper storage practices for handguns with an emphasis on storage practices that eliminate the possibility of accidental injury to a child.

(c) The department by rule shall develop a continuing education course in handgun proficiency for a license holder who wishes to renew a license. Only a qualified handgun instructor may administer the continuing education course. The course must include:

• (1) at least four hours of instruction on one or more of the subjects listed in Subsection (b); and
  
  (2) other information the director determines is appropriate.

(d) Only a qualified handgun instructor may administer the proficiency examination to obtain or to renew a license. The proficiency examination must include:

• (1) a written section on the subjects listed in Subsection (b); and
  
  (2) a physical demonstration of proficiency in the use of one or more handguns of specific categories and in handgun safety procedures.

We had to accept the requirement for instruction on non-violent dispute resolution and safe storage of a firearm to get the bill passed. While those subjects are okay, they should not be required to exercise a constitutional right. In my view, the only subjects that should be required teaching are the use of force and off-limits locations. Adding to the problem is the fact that DPS had to add a lot more to the course curriculum in order to try (and fail) to create a class that met the 10 hr./4hr. statutory requirement.

Every CHL instructor knows that it wouldn't take more than 5 to 10 minutes to cover the use of force/deadly force elements that are on the CHL test and the amount of time each instructor dedicates to this subject varies dramatically. I feel this is the single most important subject a student needs to learn and I spend a full 3 hours on it in my initial classes. Obviously, I can't do this in a 4 hr. renewal class, so I have to cut it very short in order to get the other required subjects covered. I then strongly suggest that students attend one of my free Texas Self-Defense & Deadly Force Laws Seminars to get "the rest of the story" as Paul Harvey used to put it.

As for renewals, the statute requires only that a 4 hr. course cover one or more of the original subjects. However, since DPS uses the same test for the original license (10 hr. course) and for renewals (4 hrs), that means the instructor has to cover all of the material. I'm not saying renewal courses should be 10 hrs. long; I'm saying there should be either not test for renewals, or one that covers only the use of force/deadly force plus any changes in the law effecting CHL's.

As for the minimum 10 hrs for initial classes, that length is absurdly long. Even if you cover all of the statutorily required subjects, it can be done in far less than 10 hrs., especially if you have a small class and spend little time on the range. In truth, there should be no minimum time specified. When the subject matter has been covered, the class should be over. If DPS gets student complaints that the subject matter is not being covered, then they can send undercover troopers to take the class and see if the instructor is doing her/her job and covering everything required. (If someone offers a 3 hr. class, it's obvious they can't adequately cover the material and DPS will be on them like white on rice.)

The fallacy of having an arbitrary time requirement is very obvious when we consider the range portion of the class, as I mentioned above. If I have a small class of 5 people who are very experienced shooters and all have several mags they can pre-load, then I'll shoot everyone in a single relay and won't spend more than 15 minutes on the range. However, if I have 30 students, I will shoot 3 separate relays. If those 30 students have little shooting experience and only one or two magazines, then I will spend far more time on the range portion of the class. In each scenario, the statute requires me to spend a minimum of 10 hrs for initial classes. This minimum time requirement is arbitrary and does not further the goal of ensuring a quality course. I understand that many instructors fill the full 10 hrs without difficulty, and I could design a two-day course if I wanted to. My point is only that any competent instructor could teach the required subject matter in far less than 10 hrs.

Looking back at this post it's obvious I've strayed far beyond the issue of the current CHL test. I'll shut up now.

Chas.

[gpeloq]

As always good information and appreciated.

[Charles L. Cotton]

I feel that if the test is a joke it detracts from the rest of what I am attempting to do in a very professional manner. If we were not required to administer a test I would have no problem. If we are going to do it lets do it in a manner that mean something.

I understand your point and in a setting other than requiring a class to exercise a constitutional right, I would wholeheartedly agree with you. But our ability to be effective teachers and get our students to absorb and retain the material is not impacted by the quality or difficulty of a test that comes at the end of the class. If we are good at maintaining our audience's interest and attention, then we can teach. If we are boring, or if we don't know the material ourselves, they will go to sleep or tune us out and they won't learn. If this were to happen and a student fails the test, whose fault is that?

When we consider the fact that DPS does not establish a course curriculum, and indeed should not attempt to do so, and that each instructor is free to spend as much or as little time on each subject as he or she chooses, how could DPS be expected to design a test that is both fair and representative of each instructor's course? I don't know of any other instructor that spends as much time on the use of force/deadly force as I spend in my 10 hr. classes. This means that I spend less time on one or more subjects than they do. We all decide how much time to put into the various subjects depending upon our personal evaluation of what is most important. I don't have a problem with that flexibility, but it has a direct impact on the how comprehensive and how difficult a test can be designed while still being fair to the student. Before anyone starts calling for uniformity in the course curriculum, be very very careful. DPS is considering developing a specific course curriculum and if this policy is adopted, I don't think the better instructors or their students are going to like it. While it may weed out some poorer performing instructors, and while it could create uniformity, it will result in a uniformly lower quality of class while hamstringing better instructors.

I have to reiterate that successfully passing a test is not an accurate predictor of how long a student will retain the material, if they do not actively engage in the activity covered by the exam. All it tells us is that the student knew the material well enough to pass at the time they took the class. A good instructor knows that the moment he/she finishes the class.

Chas.

[DoubleActionCHL]

Charles, I appreciate your input, and I do agree with you on most issues. I'm looking for something really, really simple. Let's eliminate options like "In response to a discourteous waiter" as a justification for using deadly force. Again, I don't necessarily want to make the test any tougher, but we could take the cutesy, absurd questions off and add a few more questions relevant to the use of deadly force. That's all.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Charles, I appreciate your input, and I do agree with you on most issues. I'm looking for something really, really simple. Let's eliminate options like "In response to a discourteous waiter" as a justification for using deadly force. Again, I don't necessarily want to make the test any tougher, but we could take the cutesy, absurd questions off and add a few more questions relevant to the use of deadly force. That's all.

I see what you mean and I agree. "Consider yourself armed and ready for action" or however that option is worded is silly, as are some others. I have no problem with changing those to something less flippant, without making it harder.

Chas.

[DoubleActionCHL]

I agree with those who say we shouldn't have to go through the licensing process to carry. I tell my students this. I also tell them that I would expect them to be responsible and take a class like this even if it wasn't mandated by the state. If you're going to carry a firearm, you should WANT to take the class, learn about the laws, responsibilities, etc. Sadly, if the class wasn't required, I'd be willing to bet less than 10% of citizens who opt to carry would bother to take the class.