TexasCHLforum.com

Oh what a difference a single letter can make...

Now... Not, Should... Could, Always... Sometimes..., subtle differences that can make a HUGE difference. Happy Father's Day gang.

Up here in NM we haven't had anybody caught outright selling class certificates, but we have had a fella who gave a 4-5 hour class when it was supposed to be a minimum of 15 hours.

He also gave students 'range' time by having them fire 5 shots without even checking to see if the shots were on paper or not, and then he would give them paperwork saying they qualified with .45 auto, .45 revolver and .410 derringer, no matter what they showed up with.

NM DPS put a couple of "students" in his class and then shut him down. He struck a plea bargain of some sort and got a slap on the wrist. Unfortunately, DPS revoked every student he taught. For those who lived in his town, they gave a free class taught by DPS instructors but people from all over the state took his bunk class and were out of luck. He was required to give a refund to every student, but nobody ever saw a dime.

I re-taught two such students so they could get their CHL back.

I'm not sure exactly how Texas handles this, but they have no way of knowing who got the full class and who just paid for it. I'll bet they revoke everybody who "took" his class.

PracticalTactical wrote:Up here in NM we haven't had anybody caught outright selling class certificates, but we have had a fella who gave a 4-5 hour class when it was supposed to be a minimum of 15 hours.

He also gave students 'range' time by having them fire 5 shots without even checking to see if the shots were on paper or not, and then he would give them paperwork saying they qualified with .45 auto, .45 revolver and .410 derringer, no matter what they showed up with.

NM DPS put a couple of "students" in his class and then shut him down. He struck a plea bargain of some sort and got a slap on the wrist. Unfortunately, DPS revoked every student he taught. For those who lived in his town, they gave a free class taught by DPS instructors but people from all over the state took his bunk class and were out of luck. He was required to give a refund to every student, but nobody ever saw a dime.

I re-taught two such students so they could get their CHL back.

I'm not sure exactly how Texas handles this, but they have no way of knowing who got the full class and who just paid for it. I'll bet they revoke everybody who "took" his class.

Your classes in NM are MINIMUM 15 hours? Wow, I thought ours was the highest requirement at 10 hours minimum (actual requirement is 10-15 hours, before somebody sees fit to correct me. )

Yup, 15 hours. I always do it over two days.

Plus we have required two-hour refresher qualifications at 2 years and a 4 hour renewal at 4 years.

And whatever caliber you qualify with, you can carry that or lower, and you have to qualify with a caliber in any category you wish to carry (revolver, semi, derringer). It's goofy, because if you qualify with .357 you can't carry .38 special because it's a "higher caliber". If you qualify with .44 mag, you can't carry a .45 ACP. I could go on all night all the ways a caliber requirement doesn't make any sense. I help all of my students overcome this by lending them a 1911 in .45 and a Ruger Blackhawk chambered in .45 ACP so they can have their license be good for .45 semi and revolver so they can carry almost anything.

PracticalTactical wrote:It's goofy, because if you qualify with .357 you can't carry .38 special because it's a "higher caliber".

That's weird...especially since the actual size of a .38 Special bullet is .357 inches. Is .38 Spl being superior to .357 Magnum actually in the New Mexico law or is it a rule/regulation? I guess the bonus to that is you load your .357 revolver with .38 Spl and have an easier time qualifying to carrying both. I'm guessing the folks that came up with this one are not gun people.

SQLGeek wrote:

PracticalTactical wrote:It's goofy, because if you qualify with .357 you can't carry .38 special because it's a "higher caliber".

That's weird...especially since the actual size of a .38 Special bullet is .357 inches. Is .38 Spl being superior to .357 Magnum actually in the New Mexico law or is it a rule/regulation? I guess the bonus to that is you load your .357 revolver with .38 Spl and have an easier time qualifying to carrying both. I'm guessing the folks that came up with this one are not gun people.

Both are the same caliber, so you would be able to carry either. No different than qualifying with a 9mm, then you can carry .38 and .357 or smaller diameter. The silly thing is, if you qualify with a .44 Mag, then you can't carry a .45.

I do have a question or two on this crime.....

1. Who was victimized by the commission of this crime?
2. Why should taxpayer money be spent to prosecute this crime to the fullest?
3. Does the fact that some CHL holders did not attend the class yet have CHL's make the world a more dangerous place?

Thanks in advance for your answers....

seeker_two wrote:I do have a question or two on this crime.....

1. Who was victimized by the commission of this crime?
2. Why should taxpayer money be spent to prosecute this crime to the fullest?
3. Does the fact that some CHL holders did not attend the class yet have CHL's make the world a more dangerous place?

Thanks in advance for your answers....

1. all of us who went through the proper training
2. a crime has been committed and it should be punished
3. Yes. It's gives us all a bad name when something like this happens and having people out there without knowing if they could shoot or understand the law is dangerous for us all.

SQLGeek wrote:

PracticalTactical wrote:It's goofy, because if you qualify with .357 you can't carry .38 special because it's a "higher caliber".

That's weird...especially since the actual size of a .38 Special bullet is .357 inches. Is .38 Spl being superior to .357 Magnum actually in the New Mexico law or is it a rule/regulation? I guess the bonus to that is you load your .357 revolver with .38 Spl and have an easier time qualifying to carrying both. I'm guessing the folks that came up with this one are not gun people.

They go by whatever is on the headstamp, not the actual diameter.

loadedliberal wrote:

seeker_two wrote:I do have a question or two on this crime.....

1. Who was victimized by the commission of this crime?
2. Why should taxpayer money be spent to prosecute this crime to the fullest?
3. Does the fact that some CHL holders did not attend the class yet have CHL's make the world a more dangerous place?

Thanks in advance for your answers....

1. all of us who went through the proper training
2. a crime has been committed and it should be punished
3. Yes. It's gives us all a bad name when something like this happens and having people out there without knowing if they could shoot or understand the law is dangerous for us all.

1. The state (as elected by the people) was wronged. The instructor voluntarily agreed with the state to do the classes and not just sell the CHL-100s. Said instructor violated that agreement. There should be ramifications, as agreed to when he/she became an instructor. If he/she doesn't like that, he/she shouldn't have become an instructor.

2. See above, the state reserves the ability to use taxpayer funds to prosecute people who don't comply with the law as created by the officials who were elected by the taxpayers who were willing to come out and vote. If the taxpayers don't want to foot this bill, they need to get out and vote for somebody who won't spend the money.

3. I used to think this wouldn't be dangerous, that is until I taught my first few classes. If somebody at my skill level were to buy a CHL-100 without actually taking the class, it's doubtful anything bad would happen. 99.9% of people don't know how to use a gun safely enough to handle it at the range, let alone in a defensive situation. There are also quite a few people out there with no idea about use of force laws.

PracticalTactical wrote:

loadedliberal wrote:

seeker_two wrote:I do have a question or two on this crime.....

1. Who was victimized by the commission of this crime?
2. Why should taxpayer money be spent to prosecute this crime to the fullest?
3. Does the fact that some CHL holders did not attend the class yet have CHL's make the world a more dangerous place?

Thanks in advance for your answers....

1. all of us who went through the proper training
2. a crime has been committed and it should be punished
3. Yes. It's gives us all a bad name when something like this happens and having people out there without knowing if they could shoot or understand the law is dangerous for us all.

1. The state (as elected by the people) was wronged. The instructor voluntarily agreed with the state to do the classes and not just sell the CHL-100s. Said instructor violated that agreement. There should be ramifications, as agreed to when he/she became an instructor. If he/she doesn't like that, he/she shouldn't have become an instructor.

2. See above, the state reserves the ability to use taxpayer funds to prosecute people who don't comply with the law as created by the officials who were elected by the taxpayers who were willing to come out and vote. If the taxpayers don't want to foot this bill, they need to get out and vote for somebody who won't spend the money.

3. I used to think this wouldn't be dangerous, that is until I taught my first few classes. If somebody at my skill level were to buy a CHL-100 without actually taking the class, it's doubtful anything bad would happen. 99.9% of people don't know how to use a gun safely enough to handle it at the range, let alone in a defensive situation. There are also quite a few people out there with no idea about use of force laws.

I have thought of myself as an average shooter compared to good shooters and we sometimes forget that some or most students are not that familiar with their gun. In fact their lack of skill borders unsafe but the scary part is they are simply not aware of what they don't know (if that makes sense...).

loadedliberal wrote: 1. all of us who went through the proper training
2. a crime has been committed and it should be punished
3. Yes. It's gives us all a bad name when something like this happens and having people out there without knowing if they could shoot or understand the law is dangerous for us all.

1. Do you feel the same way about the CHL holders from other states where they're not required to have the same training as Texas CHL's? What about people who live in Vermont or Alaska? Do you feel offended that they can carry without spending $100+ on training like you did?

2. Do you belive all crimes should be punished? How should this one be punished? Are you OK with this person being imprisoned...and that imprisonment coming out of your tax money?

3. Do you have proof that those who bought their CHL-100's don't know how to handle firearms safely or know self-defense law? Do you have proof that these people are engaging in dangerous behavior with their CHL's?

PracticalTactical wrote: 1. The state (as elected by the people) was wronged. The instructor voluntarily agreed with the state to do the classes and not just sell the CHL-100s. Said instructor violated that agreement. There should be ramifications, as agreed to when he/she became an instructor. If he/she doesn't like that, he/she shouldn't have become an instructor.

2. See above, the state reserves the ability to use taxpayer funds to prosecute people who don't comply with the law as created by the officials who were elected by the taxpayers who were willing to come out and vote. If the taxpayers don't want to foot this bill, they need to get out and vote for somebody who won't spend the money.

3. I used to think this wouldn't be dangerous, that is until I taught my first few classes. If somebody at my skill level were to buy a CHL-100 without actually taking the class, it's doubtful anything bad would happen. 99.9% of people don't know how to use a gun safely enough to handle it at the range, let alone in a defensive situation. There are also quite a few people out there with no idea about use of force laws.

1. Is the violation of a contract b/t a person and the "state" something that we should be handling in a criminal court and with the cost of utilizing the prison system?....or should contract law be left in the civil courts? And just how is the "state" a victim here?

2. Point taken and vote cast....and yet Perry, Dewhurst, and Co. still got reelected....

3. Again, do you have proof that any of the "bought" CHL's have done anything dangerous? And can you be certain that those who received these CHL's don't know safe gun-handling (which is more a case for NRA gun safety training than CHL training) or proper self-defense protocol?


My opinion: anyone who supports Constitutional Carry but is calling for this instructor's "punishment" really needs to look at the hypocracy of his/her position....

Seeker_two:

1) So I gather you're fine with instructors selling CHL-100's?
2) You'd be OK with a majority of, or all CHL instructors selling CHL-100's, instead of holding classes?
3) You believe, under those circumstances, when the state catches an instructor selling CHL-100's, it should just shrug it's shoulders, and state "No Harm, No Foul"?