TexasCHLforum.com

nightmare69 wrote:

talltex wrote: Maybe it's changed in recent years, but part of the core curriculum (required for graduation) in Texas high schools used to be "U.S. Government" which focused on the U.S. Constitution and the federal structure (legislative, judicial and executive branches), but also included a section on the State Government which covered how and when the State Legislature is in session. Maybe you were out sick a lot that year...

I took a government/economics class but it was 90% federal related and I was busy chasing women in HS.

Hmmmm, the only "women" in my high school were teachers. The female students were all girls -- but that was long ago...

Mel wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:

nightmare69 wrote:Be nice to us younger guys, we choose your nursing home.

My sons told me that when I get to the wheel chair stage they are going to roll me out into traffic.

Anygunanywhere

I told mine what I can't spend, I'm going to burn.

My goal is to have my last check bounce!

I think I've already written MY last check. Don't use them anymore.

Keith B wrote:

jmra wrote:Which bill was this?
"Texas lawmakers have sent to Governor Rick Perry a bill that allows concealed handgun license holders to carry a revolver or semi-automatic pistol, regardless of what they trained with on the shooting range.
Current law certifies license holders to carry only the type of gun they use to get their license. The bill by Senator Craig Estes, a Wichita Falls Republican, allows them to carry either model."

Slight correction. Currently if you qualify with a semi-automatic you can carry either a semi-auto or revolver. If you qualify with a revolver you can only carry a revolver. As stated, the new bill would allow someone who qualifies with a revolver to carry a semi-auto and vice versa.

I heard an interview with Senator Estes and evidently the first quote is what he believes to be the law. He stated that under the current law he couldn't carry his revolver because he has a semiautomatic only license (words to that effect anyway).

jmorris wrote:I heard an interview with Senator Estes and evidently the first quote is what he believes to be the law. He stated that under the current law he couldn't carry his revolver because he has a semiautomatic only license (words to that effect anyway).

Wait. So there's a politician who doesn't actually know what the law says? Wow. Who'd a thunk it.

I agree with all of the proposed bills with the exception of HB47. I know some instructors can go through this class in less than 6 hours, however, I have found that it takes at least 4 hours to go through the CHL 16 laws. Then you still need to go through Use of Force, Non-Violent Dispute Resolution, and Safety and Storage. I think that by reducing the time for an original applicant short changes the student on the Texas law knowledge regarding concealed carry. JMHO.

You can take as long as you want. I doubt if DPS will criticize anyone if the class if longer than 6 hours. Ask your customers how long they want to sit and listen to you. :)

What do you do for renewal students. (I knew an instructor that gave everyone - including renewals - a 15 hour class. :( ). glad I did not have to listen to him. :)

If you can renew someone in 4 hours (cover all the material), you should be able to do an initial class in 6.

Actually, it's not up to us what we want/need/think. The legislature has decided how long it should take. We need to deal with it.

Just glad it's not like Hunter Safety - it's 10 hours too - but HAS to be held over 2 days. :( (Probably makes for a better class. The mind can only absorb what the rear can endure. :) )

switch wrote: Just glad it's not like Hunter Safety - it's 10 hours too - but HAS to be held over 2 days. :( (Probably makes for a better class. The mind can only absorb what the rear can endure. :) )

When I took hunter safety it was 12hr course. I took it at age 22 and thought it was a huge waste of time but I had to have it in order to hunt by myself.

It was all common sense stuff like, lay the gun down on the ground when crossing a fence, don't put the gun in your mouth ect.

I've spoken to three instructors who are going to offer additional time in their CHL classes. I see no legal problem with this as long as the instructor does not refuse to provide a CHL-100 to a student after a maximum of 6 classroom hours, and upon successful completion of the shooting portion of the class. One smiled and said he's just put the range portion of the class at the end of the day, thus forcing students to stay for the entire class. There would be a legal problem with that.

Chas.

Some instructors have classes split across two days and that's legal so what would be illegal about having the classroom lecture, taking a few hours break for an optional free class, then resuming the class for the shooting?

I think most students would choose a different instructor, as is their right, but can't find anything in the law that says the class hours have to be continuous.

Tic Tac wrote:Some instructors have classes split across two days and that's legal so what would be illegal about having the classroom lecture, taking a few hours break for an optional free class, then resuming the class for the shooting?

I think most students would choose a different instructor, as is their right, but can't find anything in the law that says the class hours have to be continuous.

It wouldn't be unlawful to conduct a class as you describe. DPS could establish a rule preventing split classes, or the format you describe, but I can't imagine they would do so.

The problem with the one instructor's plan was that the class was a one day class and the range portion would be after about 8 hours in the classroom. That would violate the statute, unless the instructor told the students they were free to leave after 6 hours, then come back for the range portion. However, to make this work the instructor would have to give the written test after 6 hours. Otherwise, the classroom portion of the course would be greater than 6 hours, i.e. 6 hours plus the time spent on the test.

I agree with you that few people are going to be interested in taking a long than necessary class.

Chas.

HB48 will have an adverse effect on CHL instructors if no class is required for renewal?! I am assuming the proficiency form goes away for renewals??

couzin wrote:HB48 will have an adverse effect on CHL instructors if no class is required for renewal?! I am assuming the proficiency form goes away for renewals??

I see alot of income for instructors going away. A guy I work with was going to get his instructors certificate and with this new law he choose not to.

Some instructors will drop because of the NRA cert requirement. (and no renewals) :)

I suspect there will be an increased demand for new licenses because the class time is less onerous. :)

Might be a wash or even a positive. :)

couzin wrote:HB48 will have an adverse effect on CHL instructors if no class is required for renewal?! I am assuming the proficiency form goes away for renewals??

With only 4-6hrs per class vs 8-10hrs, instructors will be able to schedule more classes per week. It might not be feasible to try 2 classes in the same day, but 2 or 3 classes on consecutive days may be now doable.

These doom and gloom posts are hilarious.

Anygunanywhere