TexasCHLforum.com

Tic Tac wrote:Some instructors have classes split across two days and that's legal so what would be illegal about having the classroom lecture, taking a few hours break for an optional free class, then resuming the class for the shooting?

I think most students would choose a different instructor, as is their right, but can't find anything in the law that says the class hours have to be continuous.

Trele6 wrote:

Keith B wrote:

jmra wrote:Which bill was this?
"Texas lawmakers have sent to Governor Rick Perry a bill that allows concealed handgun license holders to carry a revolver or semi-automatic pistol, regardless of what they trained with on the shooting range.
Current law certifies license holders to carry only the type of gun they use to get their license. The bill by Senator Craig Estes, a Wichita Falls Republican, allows them to carry either model."

Slight correction. Currently if you qualify with a semi-automatic you can carry either a semi-auto or revolver. If you qualify with a revolver you can only carry a revolver. As stated, the new bill would allow someone who qualifies with a revolver to carry a semi-auto and vice versa.

Never understood why they made that distinction in the first place to be honest...

Bitterclinger wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Bitterclinger wrote:Remember, back in 1776 the original program was free, required 0 hours of training, and had NO registration or licensing of any kind. I'd like to see all of the states return to that program. From that perspective, the progressives and opportunists should be glad to have gotten what they were able to get from prohibition thus far. These bills represent a minor victory, but the pendulum will swing back the other way when progressives outside of Texas can no longer tolerate living in the states they ruin, and decide to move here.

If you think it's called the "Bill of Rights" because "Bill of Things Properly Trained Taxpayers Could Do If They Met All The Requirements and Could Afford to Pay Additional Taxes in the Form of License Fees" was too long then maybe you have an honest argument. A stupid argument, but an honest argument. No. I suspect everybody knows EXACTLY what "shall not be infringed" means, but they either, A) don't like it because an armed citizenry is harder to control, and/or B) there is nothing in it which would help line the pockets of lawyers, lawmakers or CHL instructors.

You chose an appropriate username. Your post is nothing but a rant and if you don't see these bills as major gains, then you will never be satisfied with any advancement short of repeal of any and all gun laws. You belittle the effort to improve gun laws and expand gun rights, while you sit back and do absolutely nothing other than whine that someone else isn't doing enough.

Chas.

I want to publicly apologize to Charles and anyone else I offended with my thoughtless post. I am frequently frustrated by those who seem to feel that the right to effective self-defense is a privilege bestowed on us by our government rather than the "unalienable" right I believe it to be. I apologize that this frustration led me to vent my frustrations here. I also regret saying that the bills represent a minor victory while in fact they are quite formidable and I am personally grateful to him and all those who work to defend the rights of Texans who, like me, have a family to defend and would prefer to do so effectively and legally.

My user name was a reaction to a anti-christian slur made by the current President, but I realize it has outlived the memory of the slur that inspired it, so I would be happy to change it if necessary. How about "Onesimus?" That's a pretty good user name.

I have done my best to support the efforts of gun rights advocates, but you are right; It's not enough. I will increase my contributions and correspondences and I will continue to remember you in my prayers, praying that you may meet with even more success in your endeavors on our behalf.

Bitterclinger wrote:Remember, back in 1776 the original program was free, required 0 hours of training, and had NO registration or licensing of any kind. I'd like to see all of the states return to that program. From that perspective, the progressives and opportunists should be glad to have gotten what they were able to get from prohibition thus far. These bills represent a minor victory, but the pendulum will swing back the other way when progressives outside of Texas can no longer tolerate living in the states they ruin, and decide to move here.

If you think it's called the "Bill of Rights" because "Bill of Things Properly Trained Taxpayers Could Do If They Met All The Requirements and Could Afford to Pay Additional Taxes in the Form of License Fees" was too long then maybe you have an honest argument. A stupid argument, but an honest argument. No. I suspect everybody knows EXACTLY what "shall not be infringed" means, but they either, A) don't like it because an armed citizenry is harder to control, and/or B) there is nothing in it which would help line the pockets of lawyers, lawmakers or CHL instructors.

sjfcontrol wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Until the DPS started requiring Instructors to record on CHL-100s the time spend on various subjects, I don't think anyone paid much attention the four categories. Indeed, there was no reason to do so because we just covered the material. Other than for reporting purposes, there's still no reason to get overly concerned.

Chas.

Any plans to eliminate the time-reporting requirements now that the class times have been reduced?

The_Busy_Mom wrote:While this may be the intent, it isn't necessarily being taught this way. But it still goes to show just how much bigger that section is than everyone thinks.

TBM

• This isn't just deadly force; it's every single law related to carrying a handgun, including but not limited to off-limits locations, procedures/requirements for address changes, displaying a CHL when asked for ID, and so on.

• The actual shooting portion of the course is the "proficiency" element. "Handgun use" is very broad and can encompass many firearms related topics. So too is "safety."

• This section is not nearly as broad. DPS did a very good job of providing material to develop an entertaining and useful lesson plan.

Tex. Gov't Code §411.188(b) wrote:(b) Only a qualified handgun instructor may administer a handgun proficiency course. The handgun proficiency course must include at least 10 hours and not more than 15 hours of instruction on:

• (1) the laws that relate to weapons and to the use of deadly force;
  
  (2) handgun use, proficiency, and safety;
  
  (3) nonviolent dispute resolution; and
  
  (4) proper storage practices for handguns with an emphasis on storage practices that eliminate the possibility of accidental injury to a child.

dave_in_austin wrote:

nightmare69 wrote:
My question for yall CHL instructors is, are yall going to reduce your fee? Since you are no longer going to have to teach for 10hrs the fee should be reduced significantly. Half the time, half the price. When I took the course it was $100, Im sure come September the price will be dropping.

Expecting half of the price for half of the time is not reasonable. You are paying for much more than your instructor's in-class time when you pay your class tuition. Just because the instructor spend only half as much time with you does not mean that his expenses are half as much.

RogueUSMC wrote:Charles,

What are your thoughts on HB508 passing?...with the amendment?

Lee

JJVP wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

stash wrote:Anyone know if HB383/SB481 (that's the one regarding whether a TX resident can carry on a out of state license) has passed? Yes, thank you Charles for everything you do for the cause.

Both of those bills are dead.

Chas.

What about the "watered down" campus carry bill HB972?

gdanaher wrote:HB48 drops the requirement for a renewal class. Wow, that is certainly going to impact the business model of most chl instructors. Fees charged naturally include room rental and range space and time, so reducing the actual class time isn't going to substantially reduce those overhead expenses, but not having to test the renewals is surely going to impact some wallets.

stash wrote:Anyone know if HB383/SB481 (that's the one regarding whether a TX resident can carry on a out of state license) has passed? Yes, thank you Charles for everything you do for the cause.