TexasCHLforum.com

1. The test barely mentions the justifications for use of deadly force, which are the heart of self-defense law.
2. They didn't touch on more than a couple of off-limits locations, nor clarify the situation with churches, hospitals, and government meetings, which are some of the least well understood areas of law.
3. There are too many questions about administrative stuff like how many days your CHL can be suspended for not changing your address in a timely manner. It should be sufficient to say, "You'll get in trouble if you do that."
4. The questions about MPA are irrelevant to someone with a CHL.
5. The question about "no legal limit" for intoxication borders on being a trick question. This topic is a constant source of debate on this forum and elsewhere.
6. Whoever made up the incorrect answer choices had a sense of humor.

Guess who had their renewal today.

These issues have been discussed before, but not for a while.

- Jim

Seriously, with the multiple choice questions, I could have passed the test before taking the class.

I suppose any literate adult with the common sense that God gave a donkey could pass the test.

What I may not have said clearly is that if the test is supposed to confirm the applicant's knowledge of all things CHL, it focuses too much on minor and irrelevant topics.

- Jim

+12
to everything SeamusTX wrote, especially this:

seamusTX wrote: There are too many questions about administrative stuff like how many days your CHL can be suspended for not changing your address in a timely manner. It should be sufficient to say, "You'll get in trouble if you do that."

And this:

seamusTX wrote: ... if the test is supposed to confirm the applicant's knowledge of all things CHL, it focuses too much on minor and irrelevant topics.

- Jim

AND... I have never been impressed with the "de-escalation" portion either.

ELB wrote:I have never been impressed with the "de-escalation" portion either.

I'm inclined to think if a person hasn't learned to talk his way out of a situation by age 21, he's going to get a much different lesson in the near future.

But related to that area, it should be crystal clear that deadly force is not justified in response to verbal provocation or a conflict that the actor escalated. That includes giving "driving lessons" or etiquette advice.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:

ELB wrote:I have never been impressed with the "de-escalation" portion either.

I'm inclined to think if a person hasn't learned to talk his way out of a situation by age 21, he's going to get a much different lesson in the near future.

But related to that area, it should be crystal clear that deadly force is not justified in response to verbal provocation or a conflict that the actor escalated. That includes giving "driving lessons" or etiquette advice.

- Jim

I agree with 99% of your posts but am not sure about this one. I suspect that I'm not alone in being somewhat more calm and less confrontational since I got my CHL. Trust me, I'm way past 21.

To me, de-escalation is, in large part, a mind set. The flip side is that if I'm looking for a fight, I'm likely to find one. In the RV lingo, there is FIDO (forget it, drive on) for those situations where some idiot puts you in peril because of a total lack of consideration for the fact that something at weighs 11 tons is not going to stop as fast as something that weighs less than two tons. For road rage, people doing stupid things with a cell phone and a variety of other circumstances, I find myself to be less likely to say or do something that is going to increase the tension in a situation. Ergo, the absence of escalation is deescalation.

I've always considered myself to be pretty good in situational awareness. I see a number of correlations between being aware of potential problems and doing things to steer clear of them. Perhaps I stretching the boundaries of the term deescalation beyond where others might set them but I do believe that it is much more to deescalation than just calming responding to someone who is hot under the collar and bordering on verbal abuse. And no, I didn't pick up any of this from the CHL module though I did believe that our instructor handled it very well. Out of that session, I didn't fully grasp that if I was involved in making a situation more volatile and it ended up going South, I was going to share in the blame. I have a much better appreciation for that now.

ELB wrote:+12
to everything SeamusTX wrote, especially this:

seamusTX wrote: There are too many questions about administrative stuff like how many days your CHL can be suspended for not changing your address in a timely manner. It should be sufficient to say, "You'll get in trouble if you do that."

And this:

seamusTX wrote: ... if the test is supposed to confirm the applicant's knowledge of all things CHL, it focuses too much on minor and irrelevant topics.

- Jim

AND... I have never been impressed with the "de-escalation" portion either.

Often questions such as these examples are put on the test to later demonstrate the candidate had knowledge of an admin requirement. I have taken many "State Contractors Exams" and most of them have had a question similar to:

The address to remit Sales Tax to the State of *************** is 123 Easy St. State Capitol, State (T/F)

Administrative change of address forms are due to the State Regulatory Agency no later than 30 days from the change of business address (T/F).

seamusTX wrote:There are too many questions about administrative stuff like how many days your CHL can be suspended for not changing your address in a timely manner. It should be sufficient to say, "You'll get in trouble if you do that."

Absolutely. I have always believed that such a test should cover the things that you will not be able to look up when you need them. For a CHL, that be things like use of force, prohibited places, 30.06. You do not need to know from memory that your license will be revoked for thirs same-reason suspension.

chasfm11 wrote:I agree with 99% of your posts but am not sure about this one. I suspect that I'm not alone in being somewhat more calm and less confrontational since I got my CHL. Trust me, I'm way past 21. To me, de-escalation is, in large part, a mind set....

I don't know which aspect you disagree with.

I was a skinny dweeb who many street fighters could have turned into a pretzel, so I learned early to talk my way out of situations.

Most incidents where CHL holders got crosswise with the law, that I know the facts of, were road rage or other confrontations where either party probably could have broken off. I just have a feeling that some people with CHLs have not digested this factoid. That's why incidents like this one occur: viewtopic.php?f=23&t=20497&start=60#p563756" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

- Jim

KaiserB wrote:Often questions such as these examples are put on the test to later demonstrate the candidate had knowledge of an admin requirement.

That may be—probably is—the mindset of the people who write these tests. However, ignorance of the law is no excuse. A CHL holder who violates a regulation or law cannot successfully plead later that he didn't know about it. I have never heard of the fact of having passed the test being an issue in a legal case.

Also, most minor screw-ups can be fixed by a generous application of money and legal talent. The really bad stuff that CHL holders get in trouble with are DWI, domestic violence, and deadly conduct charges.

- Jim

And why does a student have need to know how many colors of B-27 targets are acceptable? Surely they could find a better one!

Yeah, I forgot to mention that one.

Who cares about the target, anyway? I understand the need for a standardized test that is administered to nearly 100,000 people a year, but bad guys don't wear bullseyes on their chests. I frequently shoot blank pieces of paper.

- Jim

Greybeard wrote:And why does a student have need to know how many colors of B-27 targets are acceptable? Surely they could find a better one!

I sure don't remember that question on my last renewal. I am going to have to do some research on this one because to be honest I would probably miss that question depending on the answers to pick from.

It's a true/false question. Four colors are allowed. (Don't ask me what they are.)

This is the kind of thing that's quite difficult to study for. You have to dig into the DPS regulations for instructors to find it. I never would have expected a question like that.

- Jim

This is an obvious case of something a CHL holder will never have to know. It seems to be a product of using the same test for CHL and for CHL instructors. Instructors need to know this, but license holders don't. Perhaps separate tests would be better.