TexasCHLforum.com

WildBill wrote: Tue Dec 11, 2018 12:42 pm

imkopaka wrote: Tue Dec 11, 2018 12:27 pm I think it's important to note that the existing law does not require any certain type of holster, and we here on the boards have pondered ad nauseum as to whether this holster or that fits the wording of "belt or shoulder holster." Forcing LTC instructors to cover holster types when no specific definitions are given in law for the same seems like a problem to me.

This has to do with open carry to educate people about restraint holsters.

Yes, but without specificity, either in regards to ammo, or holsters, I'm also confused, by the need for putting this forward as a bill. With the almost unlimited, types of ammo, and holsters, this could be interpreted, as an entirely separate class. Which would extend the time required, for instruction. Since it doesn't state, that any ammo/holster questions, be added to the test, I too think this is a solution, looking for a problem.JMHO

Jusme wrote: Tue Dec 11, 2018 1:30 pm

WildBill wrote: Tue Dec 11, 2018 12:42 pm

imkopaka wrote: Tue Dec 11, 2018 12:27 pm I think it's important to note that the existing law does not require any certain type of holster, and we here on the boards have pondered ad nauseum as to whether this holster or that fits the wording of "belt or shoulder holster." Forcing LTC instructors to cover holster types when no specific definitions are given in law for the same seems like a problem to me.

This has to do with open carry to educate people about restraint holsters.

Yes, but without specificity, either in regards to ammo, or holsters, I'm also confused, by the need for putting this forward as a bill. With the almost unlimited, types of ammo, and holsters, this could be interpreted, as an entirely separate class. Which would extend the time required, for instruction. Since it doesn't state, that any ammo/holster questions, be added to the test, I too think this is a solution, looking for a problem.JMHO

LTC class is not for novice shooters and is not a how to carry strategy and tactics course. Less is more.

Jusme wrote: Tue Dec 11, 2018 1:30 pm

WildBill wrote: Tue Dec 11, 2018 12:42 pm

imkopaka wrote: Tue Dec 11, 2018 12:27 pm I think it's important to note that the existing law does not require any certain type of holster, and we here on the boards have pondered ad nauseum as to whether this holster or that fits the wording of "belt or shoulder holster." Forcing LTC instructors to cover holster types when no specific definitions are given in law for the same seems like a problem to me.

This has to do with open carry to educate people about restraint holsters.

Yes, but without specificity, either in regards to ammo, or holsters, I'm also confused, by the need for putting this forward as a bill. With the almost unlimited, types of ammo, and holsters, this could be interpreted, as an entirely separate class. Which would extend the time required, for instruction. Since it doesn't state, that any ammo/holster questions, be added to the test, I too think this is a solution, looking for a problem.JMHO

I don't know Rep VanDeaver's reasons for authoring this bill, but it can not be interpreted as requiring an entirely separate class.
I believe that DPS decides what questions are on the test, not the legislature.

montgomery wrote: Tue Dec 11, 2018 1:47 pm

Jusme wrote: Tue Dec 11, 2018 1:30 pm

WildBill wrote: Tue Dec 11, 2018 12:42 pm

imkopaka wrote: Tue Dec 11, 2018 12:27 pm I think it's important to note that the existing law does not require any certain type of holster, and we here on the boards have pondered ad nauseum as to whether this holster or that fits the wording of "belt or shoulder holster." Forcing LTC instructors to cover holster types when no specific definitions are given in law for the same seems like a problem to me.

This has to do with open carry to educate people about restraint holsters.

Yes, but without specificity, either in regards to ammo, or holsters, I'm also confused, by the need for putting this forward as a bill. With the almost unlimited, types of ammo, and holsters, this could be interpreted, as an entirely separate class. Which would extend the time required, for instruction. Since it doesn't state, that any ammo/holster questions, be added to the test, I too think this is a solution, looking for a problem.JMHO

LTC class is not for novice shooters and is not a how to carry strategy and tactics course. Less is more.

It's not supposed to be but they show up anyway.

I haven't talked with Rep. VanDeaver, but I think I know what is wants to address. I talk about ammo selection in my LTC classes. I point out that ammo that is appropriate for practice, plinking and matches (ex. 115 Gr. 9mm FMJ) may be a terrible self-defense round. That 9mm round is famous for its penetration and is not something you want to shoot in your home or on the street. I talk about other ammo issues, but they fall in that same general concept.

Chas.

Scott B. wrote: Tue Dec 11, 2018 3:19 pm

montgomery wrote: Tue Dec 11, 2018 1:47 pm LTC class is not for novice shooters and is not a how to carry strategy and tactics course. Less is more.

It's not supposed to be but they show up anyway.

And they come more often than you might expect.

Personally I think I’d be doing them (and the general public) an injustice if I didn’t at least explain the most basic differences in ammo types (i.e self-defense vs. range ammo) to these newbies who just want to learn.

No, I don’t give an in-depth course on ballistics, etc. But you’d be amazed at the number of people who don’t understand the basics of ammo selection.

IMHO, any presented bill without clear intentions (even if good) would end up being a Trojan horse bill for every anti-gun legislator to attempt to tack on every gun control proposal they could possibly think of...

PitBoss wrote: Wed Dec 12, 2018 1:23 pm IMHO, any presented bill without clear intentions (even if good) would end up being a Trojan horse bill for every anti-gun legislator to attempt to tack on every gun control proposal they could possibly think of...

Not with the strong Germane Rule in the Texas Legislature.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote: Wed Dec 12, 2018 2:10 pm Not with the strong Germane Rule in the Texas Legislature.

Chas.

Still wouldn't put it past them to try... if anything to delay other, more important bills from being brought to the floor by procedural shenanigans and arguments (debate), amendment submissions/withdrawal etc.

On a more optimistic approach, maybe something like this will draw the anti's attention away from the 'good stuff'...

I would rather see legislation that would bring firearm safety education (actual education, not the anti-gun agenda) back into public schools...

It looks like one of the smoke and mirror bills from the Straus era, when the Texas legislature liked to have a bunch of "feel good" bills they could use as cover for not passing the "do good" bills, without making it completely obvious they're stonewalling.

Like the others who've chimed in, I already cover ammo types, selection and purpose in my classes so adding this as a required topic would be little or no change.

rob777 wrote: Thu Dec 13, 2018 7:57 am Like the others who've chimed in, I already cover ammo types, selection and purpose in my classes so adding this as a required topic would be little or no change.

The legislature must have a lot of time on their hands to consider bills like this. I guess that means they will debate and vote on every important bill next year, and none of them will blatantly lie by saying they ran out of time before having public floor votes on unlicensed carry, repealing 46.035, et cetera.

In the state of New Jersey handgun people are not allowed to use anything except solid bullets. Hollow points are considered as cop killers. This is totally rediculas, but it is their way of thinking.

Personally, in a self defense handgun I would rather use hollow points or something equivalent.

How many times has what kind of bullet to be used come up for discussion on this forum in the past. More than once.

IME most novice handgun shooters buy the cheapest ammunition they can find, and that is usually round nose lead for revolvers and FMJ for semiautos.

The mindset with most of them is, "It worked well for training and qualification, why wouldn't it work well for carry?"

I applaud all instructors on this forum who educate their students on the advantages of JHPs over FMJs and RNLs for carry. I understand the thought process behind HB 497, but I don't think it needs to be added to a LTC class already jam packed with mandatory information.

Just my .02,
LeonCarr