Question about carrying at church...

[jmra]

Just found this past week a fellow who has been an instructor for 3 years, and insisted churches were statutory no-carry. He says he tells all of his classes that when they see the sign that says "Baptist" or "Church of Christ" that THAT is your no carry sign (I guess non-denominational and groups with no signs at all are ok, ). He claims this is what he was taught in instructor school in 2009.
Although he would not listen or look at any evidence we presented to the contrary, he did write to the DPS Legal, who advised him correctly. Unfortunately who knows how many he has taught incorrectly in the past.
I truly wish the state would send some mass mailing to their instructors saying "Due to so much misunderstanding on this matter..."

Seems to me this could be corrected easily if the state would simply stop putting instructor certificates in crackerjack boxes.

Actually I don't think it is that easy or w/o hours involved to get an instructor license. To me the problem is on two levels. (1) State. On the one hand, wanting to be careful to a fault to keep anyone from violating anything that could be construed of as violating a law, that people are robbed of being able to carry where they can. And also wanting to avoid liability by saying "check with your local DA as to how they look at it" when the Penal Code would seem to be clear. (2) People not paying attention in class, not taking notes, etc. I have exact quotes from the instructors I wrote throughout my class. I still refer back when I want to know what they said. Maybe you have your certification and have something concrete to point to?

I'm not an instructor nor do I have first hand knowledge of how the classes are administered. But, unfortunately I have become a resource for several in our area that are pretty much ignorant about many important aspects of Texas CC. I also have seen some of the posts on this forum of people who claim to be instructors who give totally invalid info. My list of do not recommend instructors is growing rapidly. One of the things that I learned on this forum recently (according to an instructor who is a member of the forum) is that the test is administered as a group test. So apparently if you can half aim a gun and copy down the answers that a "group" provides any halfwit can become an instructor.
When someone asks me about an instructor the first thing I do is recommend the one I went to but i also tell them to check out an instructor thoroughly before taking his class. Get as many references as possible and stay away from the production line mentality of large classes.
There are many good instructors out there but there are also many who are either too stubborn or ignorant to teach the law as it is written.

I don't know who in the world told you that. The test is absolutely not a "group test" if I am understanding your meaning and I hope others will respond as well. And you have to be able to shoot 90% of BOTH revolver and semi-auto. While I agree that there are many ignorant instructors (as well as ignorant history teachers, math professors, etc) I wish you would tell the forum admin who is spreading this lie. Maybe the term "group test" was misunderstood? The entire GROUP is given a written test, in the sense you are sitting in a class with others, though each person must complete their own 100 question test on their own. There is no talking or helping during the test. Each person answers on their own, and is graded on their own.

Re: Dallas Concealed Carry
by HotLeadSolutions » Fri Apr 13, 2012 7:14 am
Kabong30 wrote:
Hey Daniel, I hope you understand that my issue with the "soapbox" was that I felt like there should have been more content related to what was gonna be on the test. I had done a lot of prep leading up to the class so it wasn't an issue for me, but it might have been for others. I also had an issue with the instruction going on with student out on the range. There were also students on the range during the "review" so they missed out on that as well. Now, the communal testing environment pretty much guaranteed that a mentally disabled chimp could still pass, but I feel like a little tweaking on your part might change "my opinion" which not only am I entitled to have but to share.


As I can appreciate your position on instruction while people were on the range, THAT instruction was not on any of the 4 areas the state requires. I do appreciate your (and others) feedback on the course.

Oh, and the communal testing method is the same method that the state uses when you go to Austin to take their course.
Daniel
CHL Instructor
Dallas Concealed Carry
http://www.DallasConcealedCarry.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.TexasMadeHolsters.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


"Violence is seldom the answer. But when it is the answer, it is the only answer!" Clint Smith - Thunder Ranch

[wgoforth]

That really doesn't tell much. What did he mean by "communal test" Did my explanation of the test equate what you understood from this? Can't tell from your note who was saying what, but there was no instruction at the range. As I said, each person took their own test. each person also shot 90% from both semi and revolver. Was this your understanding? This course is actually rather intensive. It was 4 days, Mon-Thurs of 8-5 and then shooting at the range on Fri. While again I agree there are many teaching some aspects incorrectly, it is usually things such as "can't carry at church" due to their misunderstanding of how the penal code was written.

I am hoping other instructors can clear this up as well, as I believe the claim charged here would/could cause many to become unsure of themselves and their training as students and view their instructors in an unfavorable light.

[Crossfire]

The Texas CHL program has been in effect since the 1995 legislature.

That means that DPS has been training instructors for 17 years.

During that time, there have been many changes in the law, and there have been many changes in DPS training personnel.

Depending on when an instructor went through the original training, they could have had an entirely different experience than another instructor. Depending on how well they listened, and how well they learned, they might remember some things differently.

And you have to remember from long ago, when you were in high school, or maybe college - some of your teachers just really weren't as good as some others. Not everyone is going to be great. Some will be good, some will only be fair. And some, no matter what they are taught, will use the opportunity for their own personal soap box. That's just the way it is. If you didn't care for your class experience, then don't recommend your instructor to anyone. Shop around before you go for your renewal. Talk to other people.

Big classes, small classes, at a gun range, or at a hotel conference room - none of those variables guarantee that your experience will be satisfactory to you. It is all about how you, personally, connected with that instructor.

If you really, truly, felt like you didn't get what you paid for, then complain to the instructor. If you still aren't satisfied, then complain to DPS. We are all in the business to make money - just like any other business. Enough complaints, or business falls off due to lack of referalls, and people will eventually get the hint and change. Or go out of business. There are over 4000 cetified instructors in the state. Do a little legwork before you choose.

[TexasGal]

Crossfire's assessment of why you might get some differing experiences with instructors is spot on.
As for current training of instructors: I just completed the Instructor's course April 2-6th. I can back up the fact there was a 100 question test given in one room to everyone at the same time BUT, it is NOT one where you get to look over each other's tests or discuss what the answers are or refer to your notes. The Instructors stay in the room and watch you. After you finish, you must leave the room. After everyone is finished, you return to the room and questions that were missed are discussed so everyone gets an opportunity to know the correct information they obviously had not understood before. The regular class is 4 full days long and they try to impress on everyone the importance of their responsibility to teach accurately and effectively. The shooting portion is given on the fifth day. You must pass the shooting portion with a 90% or better on both the semi-automatic and the revolver. The laws are complex. Sometimes new and old instructors are not clear down to the detail on every situation a person might encounter, but they should always be open to correcting themselves. The DPS strongly encouraged us to communicate with them to get questions answered.

If you have a serious issue with an instructor, the DPS wants to know about it. They are increasing the audits of records. They are also checking on how classes are being conducted both with open attendance of a class and with sending persons to take the class who do not identify themselves as DPS representatives. The DPS wants to weed out bad instructors and help those who are just making honest mistakes. They especially want to know about anyone who is teaching classes shorter than the minimum 10 hours, selling you range and law services during class, issuing paperwork without a shooting qualification, etc. There is a re-write of the Admin Code coming soon. In it, there will be some tightening of rules. They are getting complaints from students who felt like they were held captive for infomercials to sell them stuff instead of being taught the laws during the required minimum 10 hours. Whether you are an Instructor or a CHL, you have to make a commitment to stay on top of changes in the laws and be willing to double check your understanding of them. We are all only human.

[jmra]

That really doesn't tell much. What did he mean by "communal test" Did my explanation of the test equate what you understood from this? Can't tell from your note who was saying what, but there was no instruction at the range. As I said, each person took their own test. each person also shot 90% from both semi and revolver. Was this your understanding? This course is actually rather intensive. It was 4 days, Mon-Thurs of 8-5 and then shooting at the range on Fri. While again I agree there are many teaching some aspects incorrectly, it is usually things such as "can't carry at church" due to their misunderstanding of how the penal code was written.

I am hoping other instructors can clear this up as well, as I believe the claim charged here would/could cause many to become unsure of themselves and their training as students and view their instructors in an unfavorable light.

What I provided was a direct quote from a student and his instructor (refer to the thread title in my response). It is obvious to me that the student was claiming that due to the interaction during testing it was impossible to fail the test. The instructor then claims that the instructors course is conducted in the same manner.
I am encouraged by your response and the response of the other two instructors. It appears that a number of positive changes have been implemented to ensure a higher level of quality control. I was extremely fortunate to have connected with an excellent instructor for my first class. Perhaps that experience has set my expectations at a level that is very difficult for many instructors to achieve. I will say that I have always been impressed with the knowledge and commitment to training/excellence that I have observed from both you and Crossfire. In no way was it my intent to indict all instructors. As a passionate supporter of CHL it is my sincere hope that you guys are the majority and not the minority.

[smilner01]

further down there is a section that reads

"(i) Subsections (b)(4), (b)(5), (b)(6), and (c) do not apply
if the actor was not given effective notice under Section 30.06."

That's the actual law but what happens when you have a cop that didn't read the law. It's like having one beer when carrying. It's not illegal if you're not intoxicated but you're gambling the cop knows the law. That's why I tell everyone not to carry in church. It's better to err on the side of caution.

I thought there was zero tolerance when concealed carrying. The instructor I took said your BAC has to be .0000000nothing.

[C-dub]

further down there is a section that reads

"(i) Subsections (b)(4), (b)(5), (b)(6), and (c) do not apply
if the actor was not given effective notice under Section 30.06."

That's the actual law but what happens when you have a cop that didn't read the law. It's like having one beer when carrying. It's not illegal if you're not intoxicated but you're gambling the cop knows the law. That's why I tell everyone not to carry in church. It's better to err on the side of caution.

I thought there was zero tolerance when concealed carrying. The instructor I took said your BAC has to be .0000000nothing.

IMHO, your instructor was giving you some incorrect and possibly slightly biased, but semi-reasonable advice. Whether you are intoxicated or not when carrying is entirely up to the officer's interpretation. If he or she thinks you are impaired then you're going to have a really bad night and probably loose your license.

[Alf]

further down there is a section that reads

"(i) Subsections (b)(4), (b)(5), (b)(6), and (c) do not apply
if the actor was not given effective notice under Section 30.06."

That's the actual law but what happens when you have a cop that didn't read the law. It's like having one beer when carrying. It's not illegal if you're not intoxicated but you're gambling the cop knows the law. That's why I tell everyone not to carry in church. It's better to err on the side of caution.

I thought there was zero tolerance when concealed carrying. The instructor I took said your BAC has to be .0000000nothing.

A lot of people don't know the whole law. Some of them are instructors. Some of them are cops. That's why it's better to err on the side of caution and not carry in church. Especially if you go to one of those churches where people drink wine.

[speedsix]

...someone who doesn't understand that the law permits carry at church unless 30.06 has been applied can be educated...
...someone who thinks you can be "impaired" by the amount of wine used at a communion service is delusional...or hopelessly biased...and they can be educated, too...but probably best by the application of a civil suit...


...there may be a reason not to carry at church...but, if I ever decide not to, it WON'T be because I'm worried about an ignorant or prejudiced LEO...there's as much wisdom in telling someone to NEVER carry in a barbershop...NONE...

[wgoforth]

further down there is a section that reads

"(i) Subsections (b)(4), (b)(5), (b)(6), and (c) do not apply
if the actor was not given effective notice under Section 30.06."

That's the actual law but what happens when you have a cop that didn't read the law. It's like having one beer when carrying. It's not illegal if you're not intoxicated but you're gambling the cop knows the law. That's why I tell everyone not to carry in church. It's better to err on the side of caution.

I thought there was zero tolerance when concealed carrying. The instructor I took said your BAC has to be .0000000nothing.

A lot of people don't know the whole law. Some of them are instructors. Some of them are cops. That's why it's better to err on the side of caution and not carry in church. Especially if you go to one of those churches where people drink wine.

Then why not err on the side of caution and not carry anywhere? Then no one can accuse you of illegal carry at all, right? I see erring on the side of caution as carrying everyone I can. Just how much wine do you think is used in communion in the Lord's Supper anyway?? First, most groups use grape juice. Second, those little cups (unless they are one cuppers) don't hold more than a couple of tablespoons. If one cup, then just a sip.

Alf.... do you have a CHL?

[gringo pistolero]

further down there is a section that reads

"(i) Subsections (b)(4), (b)(5), (b)(6), and (c) do not apply
if the actor was not given effective notice under Section 30.06."

That's the actual law but what happens when you have a cop that didn't read the law. It's like having one beer when carrying. It's not illegal if you're not intoxicated but you're gambling the cop knows the law. That's why I tell everyone not to carry in church. It's better to err on the side of caution.

I thought there was zero tolerance when concealed carrying. The instructor I took said your BAC has to be .0000000nothing.

IMHO, your instructor was giving you some incorrect and possibly slightly biased, but semi-reasonable advice. Whether you are intoxicated or not when carrying is entirely up to the officer's interpretation. If he or she thinks you are impaired then you're going to have a really bad night and probably loose your license.

That's true and good instructors know and teach their students that the Texas Penal Code definition of intoxication includes "alcohol, a controlled substance, a drug, a dangerous drug, a combination of two or more of those substances, or any other substance" that impairs the person.

Think about that. "or any other substance"

[speedsix]

...SURELY they don't mean Blue Bell...

[wgoforth]

...SURELY they don't mean Blue Bell...

Well....as long as your not having Blue Bell at a church social. You wouldn't want to be in double jeopardy.....

[WildBill]

...SURELY they don't mean Blue Bell...

Well....as long as your not having Blue Bell at a church social. You wouldn't want to be in double jeopardy.....

I think it does.

Definition of IMPAIR
: to damage or make worse by or as if by diminishing in some material respect <his health was impaired by Blue Bell>

[scud runner]

If you feel sluggish after eating a pint of Blue Bell, they could argue you don't have normal use of your mental or physical faculties. It's entirely up to the officer's interpretation, like C-dub said.