Charles, I think they might be right.Charles L. Cotton wrote:When that change passed in 2007, DPS initially stated they were going to notify CHLs in the renewal letter that a renewal class was optional. The decision was made later not to do that. I suspect it is because the training division hates that provision! It allows CHLs to go 10 years without a class, which translates to 5 legislative sessions in which substantial changes in the law can be passed. The training division is very protective and supportive of CHLs constantly referring to them as "our people" or "our CHLs." (Note, I said the "training division.") I truly believe they feel this change poses a risk to CHLs.
Chas.
Judging for the questions asked repeatedly on this forum, and, I suspect other places, it is hard enough for some folks (unfortunately, including some instructors) to keep up with laws in effect when they first got their CHL, I can see how many folks could get behind and get themselves in trouble. And when they do, you can bet that the drive by news media will flog it for all it is worth.
Perhaps in some future session, DPS might be encouraged to at least mail out of CHL who are eligible to skip the class a summary of significant changes since the last one they recieved training for. I would hate to add more duties to them given their current staffing/funding levels, but it they did it, at least there could be no legitimate excuses from someone claiming not to know the changes.
Thank Goodness for TexasCHLforum.