TexasCHLforum.com

I've been pondering this situation and thought I'd ask for some opinions from fellow instructors.

Background: I've been involved with the Heros Night Out program my neighbor sponsors. They've built a handicap accessible music venu and put on concerts for injured vets. I have been providing CHL classes to these vets free of charge.

The student in question received a brain injury during his tour. It has left him with difficulty remembering things. He knows who I am, we talk and hang out together on occasion. If a week goes by, he will not recognize me without a little prodding, after which he is able to remember me and all is fine. He's a great shooter, highly proficient with all sorts of firearms and goes hunting with his kids all the time. Handgun proficiency isn't an issue.

His disorder does not make him prone to anger or violence, his mood control is fine. My fear is that he'd be carrying and simply forget what a 51% sign is, or a 30.06 sign is. He may not, I can't be sure. I'm sure the Army has some official record as to the reasons for his discharge being related to the brain injury. I've read over the eligibility regs and for the most part nothing excludes him aside from a bit of gray area around one or two items. His condition is really pretty mild, but it's there.

So, there's the legal aspect which can probably be figured out, but also the moral aspect. This guy is a great man and father, and if he does forget and carries into a bar one night and winds up tossed in a cell for however long, I'd feel at least partially responsible. He's gone through too much for all of us to wind up like that.

Thoughts?

What if he was not a vet? IMO, if you have doubts, then you should probably pass.

Provided he can safely handle the gun at the range, and passes the test, it is not up to you to determine if he is medically qualified to be a safe CHL holder. DPS has a medical review board to make those decisions. Leave that decision up to those paid to make them. (IMO, of course!)

See GC section 411.172(d) and especially (e)(5)(C) and (f)

...knowing what you know, I think you have a moral decision, not a legal one...just as in the pawn business, there were would-be gun buyers I wouldn't even hand one to for them to evaluate, and absolutely refused to sell to them, you know that sooner or later he is more likely to get into trouble than not...what if he forgets a pertinent law...and kills someone in an unjustified manner...family, friends, media, DPS...would all be at your door wondering if you knew what you know, why did you train and help him be armed...there are plenty of other ways to help him...putting a gun in his hand, given the facts you posted, is not helping him...stand up and take the hit now rather than later...it's for everyone's good...


...after I stuck my long, bony nose in and opined, I noticed you addressed this to instructors, of which I aren't one...I'll take my hits, too...

speedsix wrote:...knowing what you know, I think you have a moral decision, not a legal one...

or a medical one.

You are entirely allowed to let DPS know what you know about the situation. That will make sure that they know what is going on, even if the applicant isn't entirely forthcoming on the application. (Not that I believe that would happen.)

But ultimately it is a medical decision. So unless you are an experienced neurologist, it isn't right for you to make that decision. And it is ultimately DPS's responsibility, not yours, to determine who is eligible and who is not. (and THEY will be taking the flack if the wrong decision is made, not you.)

Besides, even if you turn him down, that wouldn't prevent him from taking the class from someone else.

Finally, it would probably be a good idea for the applicant to call DPS, and ask them for a preliminary opinion regarding his eligibility, before spending money on the class and the application fee.

One other note, turning doen a student because he has a disability, may cause you issues regarding the "Americans with Disabilities Act"

sjfcontrol wrote:You are entirely allowed to let DPS know what you know about the situation. That will make sure that they know what is going on, even if the applicant isn't entirely forthcoming on the application. (Not that I believe that would happen.)

But ultimately it is a medical decision. So unless you are an experienced neurologist, it isn't right for you to make that decision. And it is ultimately DPS's responsibility, not yours, to determine who is eligible and who is not. (and THEY will be taking the flack if the wrong decision is made, not you.)

Besides, even if you turn him down, that wouldn't prevent him from taking the class from someone else.

Finally, it would probably be a good idea for the applicant to call DPS, and ask them for a preliminary opinion regarding his eligibility, before spending money on the class and the application fee.

It is DPS's decision whether or not he is elibible to get a CHL, but it is jsenner's decision whether or not he wants to be the instructor.

As I read jsenner's OP, regardless of who would ultimately "take the flack", he would personally feel some responsibility if the student did something wrong. Therefore, I stick with my original answer.

sjfcontrol wrote:One other note, turning doen a student because he has a disability, may cause you issues regarding the "Americans with Disabilities Act".

This law applies to employing people with disabilities, not CHL classes.

WildBill wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:You are entirely allowed to let DPS know what you know about the situation. That will make sure that they know what is going on, even if the applicant isn't entirely forthcoming on the application. (Not that I believe that would happen.)

But ultimately it is a medical decision. So unless you are an experienced neurologist, it isn't right for you to make that decision. And it is ultimately DPS's responsibility, not yours, to determine who is eligible and who is not. (and THEY will be taking the flack if the wrong decision is made, not you.)

Besides, even if you turn him down, that wouldn't prevent him from taking the class from someone else.

Finally, it would probably be a good idea for the applicant to call DPS, and ask them for a preliminary opinion regarding his eligibility, before spending money on the class and the application fee.

It is DPS's decision whether or not he is elibible to get a CHL, but it is jsenner's decision whether or not he wants to be the instructor.

As I read jsenner's OP, regardless of who would ultimately "take the flack", he would personally feel some responsibility. Therefore, I stick with my original answer.

sjfcontrol wrote:One other note, turning doen a student because he has a disability, may cause you issues regarding the "Americans with Disabilities Act".

This law applies to employing people with disabilities, not CHL classes.

And I stand by mine.

Also, they talked about making allowances for disabled students and the ADA during instructor's class, as I recall. I don't believe it only applies to employees, or we wouldn't see so many public restrooms with disabled stalls.

sjfcontrol wrote:And I stand by mine.

We finally agree on something.

WildBill wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:One other note, turning doen a student because he has a disability, may cause you issues regarding the "Americans with Disabilities Act".

This law applies to employing people with disabilities, not CHL classes.

Not accurate. The ADA Title I applies to employment, however there are also other Titles in the Act. From ada.gov:

ADA Title III: Public Accommodations

Title III covers businesses and nonprofit service providers that are public accommodations, privately operated entities offering certain types of courses and examinations, privately operated transportation, and commercial facilities. Public accommodations are private entities who own, lease, lease to, or operate facilities such as restaurants, retail stores, hotels, movie theaters, private schools, convention centers, doctors' offices, homeless shelters, transportation depots, zoos, funeral homes, day care centers, and recreation facilities including sports stadiums and fitness clubs. Transportation services provided by private entities are also covered by title III.

Public accommodations must comply with basic nondiscrimination requirements that prohibit exclusion, segregation, and unequal treatment. They also must comply with specific requirements related to architectural standards for new and altered buildings; reasonable modifications to policies, practices, and procedures; effective communication with people with hearing, vision, or speech disabilities; and other access requirements. Additionally, public accommodations must remove barriers in existing buildings where it is easy to do so without much difficulty or expense, given the public accommodation's resources.

Courses and examinations related to professional, educational, or trade-related applications, licensing, certifications, or credentialing must be provided in a place and manner accessible to people with disabilities, or alternative accessible arrangements must be offered.

http://www.ada.gov/cguide.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Jumping Frog wrote:

WildBill wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:One other note, turning doen a student because he has a disability, may cause you issues regarding the "Americans with Disabilities Act".

This law applies to employing people with disabilities, not CHL classes.

Not accurate. The ADA Title I applies to employment, however there are also other Titles in the Act. From ada.gov:

ADA Title III: Public Accommodations

Title III covers businesses and nonprofit service providers that are public accommodations, privately operated entities offering certain types of courses and examinations, privately operated transportation, and commercial facilities. Public accommodations are private entities who own, lease, lease to, or operate facilities such as restaurants, retail stores, hotels, movie theaters, private schools, convention centers, doctors' offices, homeless shelters, transportation depots, zoos, funeral homes, day care centers, and recreation facilities including sports stadiums and fitness clubs. Transportation services provided by private entities are also covered by title III.

Public accommodations must comply with basic nondiscrimination requirements that prohibit exclusion, segregation, and unequal treatment. They also must comply with specific requirements related to architectural standards for new and altered buildings; reasonable modifications to policies, practices, and procedures; effective communication with people with hearing, vision, or speech disabilities; and other access requirements. Additionally, public accommodations must remove barriers in existing buildings where it is easy to do so without much difficulty or expense, given the public accommodation's resources.

Courses and examinations related to professional, educational, or trade-related applications, licensing, certifications, or credentialing must be provided in a place and manner accessible to people with disabilities, or alternative accessible arrangements must be offered.

http://www.ada.gov/cguide.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This applies to accomodations.

He (the instructor) would be refusing service to an individual because he is disabled.

sjfcontrol wrote:He (the instructor) would be refusing service to an individual because he is disabled.

So would an instructor who refuses to train a blind student.

hillfighter wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:He (the instructor) would be refusing service to an individual because he is disabled.

So would an instructor who refuses to train a blind student.

True, so? DPS will not license a blind applicant.

I think the difference here is that an instructor would not be able to guarantee the safety of the other students (or anybode else present) with a blind person shooting. However...

It is my understanding that being disabled is one of the "Protected" categories, along with gender, Race, etc. Discrimination based in any of those opens you up to federal civil rights lawsuits, etc.

I don't see the part in Federal law that lets you pick and choose what type of disabilities are acceptable to you. If a legally blind person can't candle a gun safely, you can fail them on that grounds, same as a student who can't handle a gun safely because of a brain injury, Parkinsons, congenital stupidity, or any other condition.

I don't see the part in Texas CHL law that lets you decide a blind person does not have "sound judgment pertaining to the safe storage and handling of weapons" but doesn't allow others to decide the same about someone with a traumatic brain injury.