The focal point for Texas firearms information and discussions
https://mail.texaschlforum.com/
Double their price becuase they are having to cram all that teaching into 4 hours.TexasCajun wrote:I wonder what those instructors who currently charge 1/2 price for renewals will do....
Sorry - it was late and I did't type my words as I had them in my head. DPS is not teaching what I consider 'CHL regulations' as part of the food group "laws that pertain to weapons and the use of deadly force" to it's instructors. What I call 'CHL regulations' like days to notify DPS with address change, how to modify license, etc., are taught as their own 'food group' in the instructor class. No one comes out and says "This is a different food group", but if you look at the way the course is laid out, these regulations are taught separately, like safe storage and non-violent dispute resolution. If you look at the DPS section on Force, it lines out the laws that pertain to who/where you can carry, Parking Lot laws, MPA, 51%/30.06 signs, Leo Encounters, and Deadly Force. Everything that comes from this section, as DPS has laid it out, comes from the penal code (the exception being Parking Lot Law from the Labor Code and 51% issues from multiple source Codes). That is why I stated that 36% of the questions on the test don't meet one of the 4 food groups. A better statement would have been 36% of the questions don't meet the 4 food groups as presented in the instructor's course.Charles L. Cotton wrote:I have no idea what you mean. Who teaching what? What section is big?The_Busy_Mom wrote:While this may be the intent, it isn't necessarily being taught this way. But it still goes to show just how much bigger that section is than everyone thinks.
TBM
Chas.
TBMAny plans to eliminate the time-reporting requirements now that the class times have been reduced?Charles L. Cotton wrote:Until the DPS started requiring Instructors to record on CHL-100s the time spend on various subjects, I don't think anyone paid much attention the four categories. Indeed, there was no reason to do so because we just covered the material. Other than for reporting purposes, there's still no reason to get overly concerned.
Chas.
I doubt DPS has given it any thought. That's a rule requirement, not one in statute so they have the authority to do so at any time.sjfcontrol wrote:Any plans to eliminate the time-reporting requirements now that the class times have been reduced?Charles L. Cotton wrote:Until the DPS started requiring Instructors to record on CHL-100s the time spend on various subjects, I don't think anyone paid much attention the four categories. Indeed, there was no reason to do so because we just covered the material. Other than for reporting purposes, there's still no reason to get overly concerned.
Chas.
You chose an appropriate username. Your post is nothing but a rant and if you don't see these bills as major gains, then you will never be satisfied with any advancement short of repeal of any and all gun laws. You belittle the effort to improve gun laws and expand gun rights, while you sit back and do absolutely nothing other than whine that someone else isn't doing enough.Bitterclinger wrote:Remember, back in 1776 the original program was free, required 0 hours of training, and had NO registration or licensing of any kind. I'd like to see all of the states return to that program. From that perspective, the progressives and opportunists should be glad to have gotten what they were able to get from prohibition thus far. These bills represent a minor victory, but the pendulum will swing back the other way when progressives outside of Texas can no longer tolerate living in the states they ruin, and decide to move here.
If you think it's called the "Bill of Rights" because "Bill of Things Properly Trained Taxpayers Could Do If They Met All The Requirements and Could Afford to Pay Additional Taxes in the Form of License Fees" was too long then maybe you have an honest argument. A stupid argument, but an honest argument. No. I suspect everybody knows EXACTLY what "shall not be infringed" means, but they either, A) don't like it because an armed citizenry is harder to control, and/or B) there is nothing in it which would help line the pockets of lawyers, lawmakers or CHL instructors.
Lot of that goin' around. That's why I can never get along with a certain segment of the OC crowd. If you act like you recognize the political reality that rights lost incrementally will have to be regained incrementally, then you must be some kind of commie traitor. I want a full recognition of the true meaning of the 2nd Amendment—which I call Constitutional Carry—as much as anyone else does; but I don't want to fail in the attempt to get it because I alienated everyone else on my side by calling them dishonest or stupid for having acknowledged the boots on the ground realities of politics.Charles L. Cotton wrote:You belittle the effort to improve gun laws and expand gun rights, while you sit back and do absolutely nothing other than whine that someone else isn't doing enough.
^^ Absolutely this. THANK YOU Mr. Cotton.The Annoyed Man wrote:Thank you Charles for continuing on in the fight without being discouraged by people who are too ungrateful to recognize all that you do on our behalf.
RoyGBiv wrote:^^ Absolutely this. THANK YOU Mr. Cotton.The Annoyed Man wrote:Thank you Charles for continuing on in the fight without being discouraged by people who are too ungrateful to recognize all that you do on our behalf.
