Start teaching shorter classes now?

[dogflight]

I've had several students elect to wait until September in order to take the shorter class. I would doubtless do the same thing in their shoes. I spent some time over the long weekend working on my lesson plan to meet the new requirements with an eye toward September, when the new law goes into effect.

However, on reading the statue, it occurs to me that if a student waits to submit their state application until after September 1st, there should be no reason that they could not take the shorter class anytime (even starting now) because, when they do apply, they will have met the requirements.

The statute reads:

SECTION 4. The change in law made by this Act applies only to an application to obtain or renew a license to carry a concealed handgun submitted on or after the effective date of this Act. An application submitted before the effective date of this Act is governed by the law in effect when the application was submitted, and the former law is continued in effect for that purpose.

I see no date certain in the statute with regards to the instruction itself, only the application. So, while a shorter class would not meet the requirements for an application submitted before 9/1, it would for one submitted 9/1 or later.

So, my question to Charles and/or you other legislative/legal minds is this: Is there any reason we can't begin teaching shorter classes immediately for students that have not yet submitted their state application and are willing to wait until September 1st or later to do so?

The answer may be: "Of course, Pinhead. That's what everyone is doing". If so, I withdraw the question.

[RHenriksen]

Now that's an interesting question! Interested to hear what the response will be.

[Zoo]

What would the CHL-100 look like? Can you say they passed the class without taking the full class under current law?

[Charles L. Cotton]

What would the CHL-100 look like? Can you say they passed the class without taking the full class under current law?

No. We instructors must meet the standards that are in effect when we sign the CHL-100.

Chas.

[mommagamber]

I would think the date on the CHL-100 would have to correspond with the law.

Not a risk I am willing to take. It is not worth loosing my license over.

[The_Busy_Mom]

And what would happen if DPS changed the course requirements - your students would not meet those. No sir, we are bound by the law when we sign the CHL-100. Not worth losing my license over.

TBM

[dogflight]

For the record, it was an honest question based on my reading of the new statue - not an attempt to skirt the letter or intent of the law. I certainly don't want to put my (or anyone else's) certificate at risk.

Since the CHL-100 clearly indicates the number of hours of instruction received, and is valid for two years after it is issued, my thought was that it isn't a stretch to simply complete it accurately and turn it in with an application submitted after the shorter time requirements go into effect. I hadn't thought about the "meets all" verbiage on the CHL-100 and its implied "in effect at the time" meaning.

All that said, it seems there ought to be a way to keep from unnecessarily wasting the peoples time, and to do it both legally and ethically.

[howdy]

I'm sure we all remember when it took MONTHS to get your CHL after completing the course. I have a feeling that after 9/1, we might see the same thing. (it is not a strong feeling) ALL classes are going to be full of students that waited for the short class and they will all submit their applications at the same time. I would suggest to my prospective students to take the longer class now and avoid the rush in September. It all goes back to marketing the product.

[Charles L. Cotton]

For the record, it was an honest question based on my reading of the new statue - not an attempt to skirt the letter or intent of the law. I certainly don't want to put my (or anyone else's) certificate at risk.

Since the CHL-100 clearly indicates the number of hours of instruction received, and is valid for two years after it is issued, my thought was that it isn't a stretch to simply complete it accurately and turn it in with an application submitted after the shorter time requirements go into effect. I hadn't thought about the "meets all" verbiage on the CHL-100 and its implied "in effect at the time" meaning.

All that said, it seems there ought to be a way to keep from unnecessarily wasting the peoples time, and to do it both legally and ethically.

I don't think anyone believed you were trying to skirt the law. When viewed solely from the student's standpoint, it could be argued that they could take a shorter class and delay applying until after Sept. 1st. However, from the instructor's standpoint, there's a problem. We have to sign the CHL-100 and CHL-8, both of which certify that the student has meet the training requirements established in the code. We can't do that for a "short" class until Sept. 1st.

Chas.

[dogflight]

There must be a way to save new CHL holders from wasting (statewide, thousands and thousands of) precious hours sitting through unneeded and unnecessary class time between now and September 1st.
You all were nice enough to point out the fly in my earlier ointment by noting the constraints of the CHL-100. Very much appreciated Probably saved me from doing something stupid. Again. So, how about let's brainstorm a possible solution to this bureaucratic problem. Nothing sneaky or edgy - everything would proudly be out in the open, made clear to students and DPS auditors alike.

So, at present, I offer two types of classes: 3-Day Classes which end on Saturday, and 1-Day Classes held on Saturday.

Suppose that henceforth, all of my (now shorter) classes are multiple-day classes: Day One is 4 hours plus range time, while Day Two is Graduation Day on September 1st, when my students will gather as a whole, be briefed about any changes or updates to the laws or procedures since Day One, tip a soda pop to their success, and receive their accurately-completed yet freshly-minted and signed (on September 1, 2013) CHL-100's.

A win/win for all, and completely legal and ethical.
Unless any unexpected legislation emerges from the Special Session (campus carry!? ), there shouldn't be any changes to the law during the time between Class Day and Graduation Day, but I can think of a couple of minor DPS-related risks:

• DPS could make major changes to the program
  DPS could create a new test, thus making the test the students took on "Day One" irrelevant
  DPS could mandate some new material not currently covered

Now - what other risks do you see, and/or what else have I missed that would stymie this plan?

[JALLEN]

Having just completed the course last Friday, I can't say that everything over 4 hours was wasted time.

AFAIK, I was the only out of state resident in the course, and the only lawyer. Some of the other students were complete novices, both with guns and with the concepts of use of force, the laws, and how they are applied. I won't claim that every minute of the ten hours was absolutely essential to their understanding of what they must know, but very little of it was wasted.

It is hard for me to judge this, having held a permit here and in several other states for several years, being a lawyer (although not a criminal lawyer) and somewhat experienced shooter. I was interested in learning the Texas rules, how they are interpreted and applied, where I must not go, rather different than what I am used to.

Merely covering the material is a disservice to students who are going to go out with the handguns and act and react in the world, with serious potential for misstep. Maybe this is what happened to that young woman in Houston earlier this year now on trial for murder.

[dogflight]

JALLEN, I agree with you completely. When I say "wasted", I mean only in the comparative sense. I've never had a student complain about the material covered, or the length of my class except in the generic "it was a long day" sense. (I wish I could say the same for the class I took). The more I work on my lesson plan, the more I doubt 4 hours is enough, but you can bet your badge holder that there are going to be a lot of 4 hour classes offered. Personally, I had mixed feelings about shorter class periods. However, the legislature has spoken and the law is that classes shall be from 4-to-6 hours starting 9/1. If it's good enough (a separate debate) for September 1st, it should be good enough for August 31st. Or June 1st. That's all I'm saying, and why I'm hoping this group will pull together and brain-storm a workable solution, if there is one.

[The_Busy_Mom]

Please don't take this as a personal attack, but why are you willing to risk any of the three 'could.......' above? It seems to me you are trying to solve a problem that really doesn't exist. 10 hours have been fine for the last 15+years, and now we are becoming more efficient, so there is a start date for that efficiency. I also see the problem that arises when one of those 'could......' scenarios happens. DPS changes the program, and now you have customers who are irate because what you sold them, that they sat through (albeit only 4 hours instead of 10), doesn't meet eligibility. Do you give them a refund? What happens when they call DPS to complain, because you know that is one of the first things they will do? Your reputation as an instructor suffers, as does the reputation of the entire CHL program if this makes the news/media. In a risk assessment, you have to look at potential benefits vs. potential losses. The potential losses FAR OUTWEIGH the potential benefits. There are too many unknown factors to even begin to brainstorm probable ideas to solve this conundrum. While your shorter '3 day class' scenario works logistically, you still haven't eliminated the possibility that course curriculum could change.

It's not good enough for August 31, or June 1, because the laws impact more than just our ability to say "I'm offering a 4 hour class". Legislature needs time to finish up their business, DPS needs time to react/respond to the business that the Legislature has finished up. And the legislature has made it clear that the effective date is Sept. 1. It is not our job to assume that what is good on 9/1 is good before.

I know that this a lot of 'why nots', but I cannot, for the life of me, come up with any viable 'whys'. It's the law, we are instructors who teach it, and we are instructors who work within it. It's that simple.

TBM

[mikeloc]

correction currant class is 10-15 hours not 8-10 hours.

Mike

[dogflight]

Hi TBM! I've been a fan of yours since you joined us here. I don't often have a lot to say, so didn't join for a long time, content to "lurk and learn". Perhaps I should have maintained that model, I seem to have put my foot in it here. Anyway, I appreciate your contribution to my little brain storm, even if we, so far, don't see the issue in the same light.

Now, aside from my failure to convey (for the life of you) why I even ask what I'm asking, which I'll get to in a second, I first want to state again and unequivocally that I am not proposing anything devious, underhanded, or nefarious in any way. I thought I stated clearly that any options should be open and above-board to all involved. That would include the instructor, the student, and the DPS. No matter what any such plan might ultimately look like, if there is a plan at all, it would be meaningless if DPS didn't buy off on it. And by that, I mean any plan which they can endorse, or one for which they cannot provide a legal reason why they can't go along with it.

I say all this because the dire consequences you describe of the three listed risks are quite valid, even probable, if implemented by a devious, underhanded, nefarious dirtbag who: 1) didn't (at least attempt to) involve his peers in the development of the alternative plan his customers asked for, 2) lied directly or by omission to those customers about the plan and its potential pitfalls, 3) has no concern about his credibility, his fellow instructors, or the integrity of the program, and 4) implemented any such plan without getting at least tacit approval from the program manager, the DPS.

You don't know me, so all I can do is assure you that I don't believe myself a dirtbag nor underhanded, devious, or nefarious! I would never do anything to shed a bad light on the CHL program, other instructors, or myself. I am dedicated to the program and to giving my students the best training and the best customer service within my power. A brief stint in LE, a decade as a bookseller, an entire career in IT, and now running a small business have instilled in me a strong sense of the importance of meeting the needs of my customer.

Which gets me to the elusive "why":

In just the past four weeks, I have had sixteen students decide to wait until after September 1st to take their class. Probably an insignificant number to the big city folks, but here in Athens, that number represents a non-trivial sampling. To a person, they asked if they really had to wait that long. Alas, I had to tell them that they did if they wanted the shorter class, and also warn them not to even start the application process with the state, or they would have to take a 10-hour course no matter. Thus, some are still on track with the original plan and resigned to the 10-hour course, and others are left waiting.

Do these 16 students represent an adequate justification for attempting to find a doable work-around? For some, maybe not. To me they do.

I'm not one to answer a customer with "because that's just the way it is".

Is it possible that there is no valid work-around? Of course that's a possibility. Are there really so many unknowns that the very attempt to simply brainstorm a solution is pointless? I don't believe so or I would not have wasted the groups time in asking. I owe it to those that have asked me about it, and to those who will doubtless ask all of us about it in the coming weeks, to at least look into it.

Tomorrow I will attempt to open a dialog with someone at DPS about this, and while I don't relish the thought of tilting at that particular windmill, I'll share any feedback I receive. In the meantime, if anyone has any flashes of insight, please share.

Thanks.