TexasCHLforum.com

ScottDLS wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

bblhd672 wrote:

crazy2medic wrote:In the spirit of this thread, does anybody make a booklet of CHL-16 that has both the actual verbiage of Texas Law and a laymans reading of the law? Sometimes the legalese is tough to understand.

The problem with that is that any such booklet would be - at best - an "interpretation" which is really just an opinion, and at worst possibly could be considered as "legal advice". Unless every single reference to the law was prefaced with "this is just my opinion, and NOT to be considered as legal advice, but here is what I think this means", the author might be opening himself up to liabilities. At some point, wading through the disclaimers would become too burdensome.

It is far better to do the hard part — actually read the law for yourself. And it is not just enough to read §411. You have to read other chapters/sections/subsections for definitions of things like "use of force", "use of deadly force", "bodily harm", "great bodily harm", "reasonableness", and "reasonably believes" in order to fully understand the limits AND expansions under §411.

Most or all of that is in the CHL-16 handbook. If you want a hard copy, you can download the current PDF and take it to a FedEx Kinkos and have them print and bind it into a booklet form, and it won't cost that much.....particularly when compared to how much you spent on a gun, holster, belt, ammunition, LTC class, and LTC application.

In a parallel example, I have prepared a number of Bible studies on various topics over the years for small group Bible studies I've either led or been a member of, and there's a principle at work there which anyone who has done the same, or any pastor who has prepared a sermon can tell you: the person who did the work of preparing a study lesson ALWAYS gets more out of the preparation than the person who was guided by that lesson.

Similarly, it takes longer, and it is more challenging, but you will understand LTC law more deeply and correctly if you put in the work of studying it yourself than you will benefit from relying on someone else's interpretations......which are, by definition, at least one generation removed from the actual wording of the law.

And the one overriding principle to keep in mind with regard to the law is this: unless a law exists to specifically forbid something, that thing is by default legal. Someone saying it is illegal doesn't make it so. Only the law can do that. Someone saying a thing is legal doesn't make it so. Unless that person is your lawyer and is personally willing to absorb your penalties if he or she is wrong, you have to go to the law, and do your due diligence to make sure for yourself. Simply relying on someone else's word — even an attorney's word, unless you have hired him/her specifically as your legal counsel — is bad policy.

If I write a book/article/post about Texas law without placing the words "this is just my opinion" in front of every interpretation of the law, am I opening myself up to liability civilly, or criminally? How so? Practicing law without a license? In that case I hope the DPS FAQ writers were all members of the Bar, because it doesn't have any warnings and has contained inaccuracies in the past.

Do I have to post IANAL in my sig line in order to avoid civil/criminal liability for my posts? What if I am a lawyer, but not accepted to practice in Texas, or let my license lapse?

If I'm not taking money from people specifically for interpreting a law for them...not by selling them a book, then it's a bit of a stretch to say I'm practicing law. I know there's the occasional suit against WillMakerPro.com and Nolo Press from some state bar association, but I don't think posting on the Forum is even close.

And then back to the original post...I agree with your assessment that reading the law oneself and researching (perhaps even here on the Forum) is better than waiting for someone (even a lawyer) to author an interpretation that will last until a judge has a different view...

ScottDLS <-----Did I SAY I was a lawyer? Well then, there's your answer!

I get your point, and what is I said was certainly hyperbolic, but we do live in a litigious society, and it is populated with a surplus of idiots. Books are different from forum posts because a consumer has paid for the alleged expertise contained in the book. A forum post is just a forum post, and it is worth exactly what it cost the reader to read it......which is to say, it's worth nothing. By definition, any forum post in a discussion like this one is just opinion. If someone publishes a book for commercial consumption purporting to "explain" LTC law in "layman's terms", and that author does not put a disclaimer somewhere in the book stating that his explanation does not constitute legal advice and that the reader should consult an attorney to verify the information, then he or she is a fool — because as sure as God made little green apples, there will be some incompetent out there somewhere who will take the author's interpretation as permission to release the stupid within. At least the CHL-16 states the law directly, and is the official position of the state, without any interpreting filters. And, it's free.

I can go to any grocery or health food store where vitamins or over the counter analgesics are sold, and the odds are that an innocent bottle of vitamin C or ibuprofen will have printed somewhere on the label a recommendation to consult one's doctor before consuming the product. This is basically the disclaimer which protects the manufacturer from the stupidity of the consumer. Anyone who doubts the consumer's propensity to refuse responsibility for his or her choices in life need only listen to a few tv or radio ads for prescribed medications.......fully half of which ad time is spent listing all of the possible negative side effects of those meds. ALL of these disclaimers exist because the consumer is a fickle idiot who, more often than not refuses to do his own due diligence before buying and consuming the product, and who won't hesitate to hire a shyster to recoup the losses sustained due to the fecklessness of their own decision-making.

Any book author who publishes a layman's interpretation of CHL-16 without a legal disclaimer at least at the front of the book, should not be surprised if someone sues him; and the cost of defending the lawsuit will almost certainly prove more expensive than simply paying the plaintiff to go away.....an expense which a short paragraph of 10 or 15 words in the book's foreword could have avoided.

But book or no book, nothing for the license holder can beat doing his or her due diligence and actually reading and knowing the law.

bblhd672 wrote:

crazy2medic wrote:In the spirit of this thread, does anybody make a booklet of CHL-16 that has both the actual verbiage of Texas Law and a laymans reading of the law? Sometimes the legalese is tough to understand.

The problem with that is that any such booklet would be - at best - an "interpretation" which is really just an opinion, and at worst possibly could be considered as "legal advice". Unless every single reference to the law was prefaced with "this is just my opinion, and NOT to be considered as legal advice, but here is what I think this means", the author might be opening himself up to liabilities. At some point, wading through the disclaimers would become too burdensome.

It is far better to do the hard part — actually read the law for yourself. And it is not just enough to read §411. You have to read other chapters/sections/subsections for definitions of things like "use of force", "use of deadly force", "bodily harm", "great bodily harm", "reasonableness", and "reasonably believes" in order to fully understand the limits AND expansions under §411.

Most or all of that is in the CHL-16 handbook. If you want a hard copy, you can download the current PDF and take it to a FedEx Kinkos and have them print and bind it into a booklet form, and it won't cost that much.....particularly when compared to how much you spent on a gun, holster, belt, ammunition, LTC class, and LTC application.

In a parallel example, I have prepared a number of Bible studies on various topics over the years for small group Bible studies I've either led or been a member of, and there's a principle at work there which anyone who has done the same, or any pastor who has prepared a sermon can tell you: the person who did the work of preparing a study lesson ALWAYS gets more out of the preparation than the person who was guided by that lesson.

Similarly, it takes longer, and it is more challenging, but you will understand LTC law more deeply and correctly if you put in the work of studying it yourself than you will benefit from relying on someone else's interpretations......which are, by definition, at least one generation removed from the actual wording of the law.

And the one overriding principle to keep in mind with regard to the law is this: unless a law exists to specifically forbid something, that thing is by default legal. Someone saying it is illegal doesn't make it so. Only the law can do that. Someone saying a thing is legal doesn't make it so. Unless that person is your lawyer and is personally willing to absorb your penalties if he or she is wrong, you have to go to the law, and do your due diligence to make sure for yourself. Simply relying on someone else's word — even an attorney's word, unless you have hired him/her specifically as your legal counsel — is bad policy.

Glockster wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:
Here's a partial list of the kinds of thing I'm talking about:

• [My instructor said] "you MUST show your CHL to any officer." (Not true.....you must show CHL/LTC only if asked for ID)

I'm pretty sure though that you must show your CHL/LTC only if asked for ID AND you are carrying?

Correct, and thank you for the reminder.

gthaustex wrote:TAM, your recollection is correct. No renewal class is required anymore (classroom or proficiency).

That said, and in keeping with this thread, I wonder how many out there who don't frequent this forum will actually stay up with changes in the law now that they don't have to go to a class to renew their plastic??

That may make a class worthwhile. OTH, I frequent this forum a LOT (as I make a not so oblique reference to my post count).

bblhd672 wrote:As one of the guilty "My instructor said" parties, I apologize for making the statement. I won't do it again.

After taking my LTC class and frequenting this forum, I have discovered several things my instructor said were not entirely accurate. Perhaps it was due to my misunderstanding what he said, or he did not clearly articulate the actual law, or he failed to provide up to date information by saying something that had been superseded. I asked more questions during the class than anyone else, usually because I wanted something he said clarified so I understood what he said.

No disrespect intended toward any of the LTC instructors - they have a tough job complying with and keeping up with the changing laws.

Hey, no apology necessary! Like I said in my OP, the Lord knows my memory of things isn't nearly perfect.

And I agree with others that this website is the most valuable resource on the web aside from the CHL-16 document itself as to not just what the law says, but also how to understand what the law says.....which can be a complicated beast to discern.

Liberty wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:Jusme, Yeah, I fully concede that what shows up here on these pages may be nothing more than incorrect recitation of what was correctly taught in the class....and maybe the instructors are 100% perfect in what and how they teach the curriculum.

What shows up on these pages is somewhat "self correcting" particularly if one learns the cast of characters.

Indeed.

Liberty wrote:There are two things an instructor can do to help untangle the confusion of complex rules and laws. First is to give the student the latest CHL-16, and to inform them that it can easily be found on-line. The second thing they can do is to give them the TexasCHLforum URL. We are given a lot of information to absorb at the CHL class, and the laws and rules change at least every 2 years. This forum is the best resource that CHL/LTC holders to get a handle on the often confusing laws and how they apply.

Those are good suggestions. I can't speak to current practices (I don't renew until 10/05/17, and as I recall, a renewal class is no longer required?), but I do always download and keep a PDF copy of CHL-16, and I often refer to the published code online. My problem is an aging brain in someone who most certainly DID inhale back in the dark ages, and my memory isn't as good as it used to be.......which is what prompts me to be more diligent about staying on top of it.

Jusme, Yeah, I fully concede that what shows up here on these pages may be nothing more than incorrect recitation of what was correctly taught in the class....and maybe the instructors are 100% perfect in what and how they teach the curriculum. But I think that 100% perfection in the instructor cadre is neither a realistic expectation (like you said, we're all human), nor do I think perfection is what happens. There's always a bad apple in every barrel, and even one bad apple can taint the reputation of the rest - even though that taint may not be deserved. Perhaps as an alternative to increased scrutiny from the state (something which I philosophically oppose in most cases for almost anything) someone should start a sort of trade association for LTC instructors, that "self-polices" its membership to maintain the quality of the instruction their students receive. Heck, my wife was VP of California's state association of dental assistants back when I met her. It's an NGO, like the AMA or ADA, with no power of law behind it, but among the benefits of membership, they had programs of continuing education to help working dental assistants maintain their proficiency so that they would do well when it came time to renew their licenses, and so they could stay current on the changing technologies involved. I also realize that for most instructors, LTC classes are a labor of love so to speak, and the classes are not their primary source of income. Some even operate at a break-even level, and do it just for reasons of encouraging and upholding the RKBA. That is to be commended, and I wouldn't want to see anything happen that would drive those worthies out of the business. So I don't claim to know what the solutions are, or even if we need a solution at all. Maybe this is a "answer looking for a question" kind of thing. I don't know. All I know is that it is common to see falsehoods repeated about LTC law, no matter how innocently offered.

Legionnaire wrote:That part of the training could be expanded easily, interestingly, and with more room for opinion (e.g., I like .40 better than 9mm because ...) without getting into stuff that "just isn't so."

Please, not another caliber war! We are already worn down by the .45 vs 9mm debate!

I responded HERE to someone who repeated a wrong thing his instructor told him about CHL/LTC law.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

A Forum Member wrote:FWIW- My instructor said if you are passenger and the LEO asks you how you're doing then you are required to present LTC.

Your instructor was wrong. It is not a requirement unless asked for ID.

I am struck by the possibilities. One possibility is that the respondent simply misremembered what his instructor told his class. Another possibility is that the instructor gave the class incorrect information - perhaps motivated by his/her own prejudices in the matter of licensee conduct. Or worse, perhaps the instructor's own ignorance is being handed down, which is not excusable.

Please believe me..... I am NOT trying to call out the person who made that statement, because Lord knows that my own memory is not always perfect, and if I unknowingly repeat something incorrect out of ignorance because my "source" misled me, then I am acting in good faith, even if I'm wrong on the fact. BUT......WE all know where to find the relevant law if we are uncertain about its particulars, so there isn't a whole lot of wiggle room for ignorance about it if we are self-aware enough to be honest about our uncertainty. However, there is also the natural tendency to assume that our instructors are repeating the word to us accurately, straight from the mountain, so the urge to fact-check for ourselves is thus diminished.

It occurred to me that, over the 8-1/2 years that I've been a member here, I have seen a LOT of "my instructor said [followed by incorrect information]" situations, and it makes me wonder if the state does enough auditing of the LTC classes to ensure that the information being taught is accurate. Whether or not I think the state ought to be involved in the first place in charging money for permission to exercise a right is a whole other argument, for another thread than this one; so let's just set that aside for the moment. But given the existence of LTC licensing and instructor licensing requirements that we have to deal with in real life, it concerns me that the state is probably turning out some instructors who are either not exercising their instructor responsibilities in good faith, or were not particularly good students in their instructor classes and are passing along their ignorance with their students. An example of this is the recent thread on "special" people during range qualifications, and how some instructors bend the rules.

Here's a partial list of the kinds of thing I'm talking about:

• [My instructor said] "you MUST show your CHL to any officer." (Not true.....you must show CHL/LTC only if asked for ID.)
• [My instructor said] "you can lose your license for failure to show the officer your license when asked for ID." (Not true.....the penalty for failure to show your CHL/TDL was removed from the law a few years ago.)
• [My instructor said] "you cannot use your firearm in defense of property." (Not true....you CAN used your firearm in defense of property, but wisdom may be lacking in a decision to rack up $50,000 in legal bills for shooting a thief to keep a $500 television from being stolen.)
• [My instructor said] "you cannot carry in a courthouse." (Not true.......you CAN carry in a courthouse, but you can't carry in a courtroom, or in the offices of the court.....but you can certainly carry in the county tax office located in the same building for instance.)
• [My instructor said] "a non-compliant 30.06 sign still has force of law." (Not true......if it is non-compliant, it has no force of law......but that doesn't mean that you'll beat the ride.)

Etc., etc., etc.

Do you guys see a problem with this kind of thing, and if so, what if anything do you think is the remedy? Personally, I see a problem, and it isn't just because a badly informed license holder might unintentionally violate the law out of ignorance. As we keep reminding ourselves on these pages, we are, among other things, ambassadors for firearms carry and ownership to the rest of the non gun-owning/carrying world. Our license confers a certain status based on the assumption that WE are properly informed, by the state no less, and that therefore, when we inform others, we are speaking the truth to them. When we misinform others, we do so at OUR own peril......and maybe theirs as well. I'm generally not in favor of growing a bureaucracy, but I begin to wonder if the addition of some auditing personnel might not be justifiable, if that will ensure that instructors do not disseminate incorrect information.....regardless of the reasons.

Of course, we can always dispense with the whole thing and move to Constitutional Carry, but I would like to keep THIS thread focused on whether or not there is a problem with bad instructors, and what can or should be done about it - if anything.

Discuss......