TexasCHLforum.com

That explanation makes sense to me when speaking of the signage technicalities but in my CHL class the instructor flat out used the word ignore when speaking of any sign other than a 30.06 sign or properely posted 51% sign. He did say that he didn't recommend challenging a sign over letter size or window positioning.

The comments about being arrested for printing were disturbing... as well as the comments about gun buster type signs. My bet is that very few cases will ever be tested because concealed means concealed.

wgoforth wrote:Today is beginning of day 3 and no response. In looking at my notes combined with discussions I had with other students during break, I am virtually positive that the answer the DPS had for non-compliant signage was: You know the intent. We know better, yes. Again my concern is this is being taught to new instructors, who will teach it to new students. These students will teach it to new CHL classes. In time it become accepted, then codified.

I have the same concern as you. If they are teaching the information in that manner, it eventually becomes acceptable policy. Sure, we would all beat the rap, but getting hauled down to jail for "printing" or carrying where it is perfectly legal is non-sense. The possibility is there if DPS officers are being told to arrest us in these situations. They are probably never going to make written statements to this affect... they know it is legally incorrect.

Thanks for the update... good luck with it. I wish I could afford to take the coarse so I could video tape them disseminating bad information. Thanks for taking the time to bring all this out in the open as well.

wgoforth wrote:....Perhaps misunderstanding,

There is also the very real possibility you heard them say exactly what you thought you heard them say. Who knows what "little miss lawyer britches" has been telling the DPS officers to teach. She has been known to espouse the exact opinions you cited on this thread. It is not that big of a stretch to think she may have convinced the others to teach it this way.

baldeagle wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote:What you posted punkin is interesting. Now I am wondering about it all. One thing I will say about the possiblity you mentioned is that the instructers get a great big "FAIL" if they are not making sure the students are leaving with the proper understanding of the material. If Mr. wgofoart can misunderstand, so can others and the result is the same. A cancer of bad information spreading until it kills us all. (You folks like my dramatic analogy? ). But seriously, it is not a good thing that CHL instructers may be coming out of class teaching and spreading mis-information!

I challenge you to find one teacher anywhere of any subject that can teach well enough that every student retains the material precisely as it was taught. It simply ain't gonna happen. To call that "a great big 'FAIL'" by the instructors is to ignore reality.

True....

wgoforth wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote:

wgoforth wrote:If it gets turned over to their legal dept rather than he answering, I still won't know what HE said in class! Hmm

I can't imagine him giving a different answer in an email than he would have been teaching in class. Heck... send me his email... I will simply tell him howdy and that I have a couple quick questions for him. I won't go into the how, why, when or were of it all.

I said if he gives it to the LEGAL dept to answer (as you said he might) then I might still not know what HE himself taught in class.

I see what your saying. I was simply trying to make the point that if he thinks his answers are on stage, he may be afraid to respond. Maybe he will. Like i said... I was just trying to come up with why he may not have answered you quickly. You are correct about one thing. Answering your questions correctly at this point does not necessarily mean it is the same thing he said in class. Just the same, being called out on it may keep it from happening in a future class.

speedsix wrote:...why don't YOU send them what you want answers to??? more productive than sitting back picking apart what's being done...go for it!!! the man's trying to get us some answers...let him work and give it time...or do it your way yourself...nothing wrong with that...but please stop nipping at his heels while he's working on it...

I may take a hammer to you! I don't expect you to "get it". Just sit back and keep fannin that apron.

wgoforth wrote:If it gets turned over to their legal dept rather than he answering, I still won't know what HE said in class! Hmm

I can't imagine him giving a different answer in an email than he would have been teaching in class. Heck... send me his email... I will simply tell him howdy and that I have a couple quick questions for him. I won't go into the how, why, when or were of it all.

C-dub wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote: I don't think we are allowed to say "XXXXXXXXX" on this forum....LOL. I think we are suppose to type... "makes me mad". We shall see. If they delete my post and change your words to "makes me mad" we will have confirmation. I am with ya though... it makes me mad also.
LT

I did that once not long after becoming a member and was chastised for it and my post was edited. I have been amazed at what is allowed now compared to then.

LOL... yep... I have been guilty of "potty posting" a few times myself. That is why I try to warn the new guys.

wgoforth wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote:

wgoforth wrote:Full day #1 no response..... (Sent last night).

I wouldn't expect an answer this quick. My bet would be on them handing it to the legal department. They are cops, not attorney's.

True..however he gave all his e-mail saying he tries to answer next day. These would seem nasic questions that shouldn't require research.

You reckon??? I am thinking the first question you ask is going to throw them for a loop because you ask about three different scenarios all in the same question.

Try it like this and they might answer quicker.

1) Does a gun buster sign apply to a CHL holder?

2) Does a "no guns allowed sign" apply to a CHL holder?

3) Does a "Vernon Code" type sign apply to a CHL holder?

4) Does a 51% sign in a convenience store apply to a CHL holder?

5) Can a properly licensed CHL instructer conduct a "ladies only" CHL class?

6) Is a CHL holder(when carrying concealed) subject to a stricter BAC level than a non-chl holder?


Notice how my questions are straight to the point? Your email reads as if your looking for "gold in them thar hills"...LOL. What I mean by this is the manner in which you phrased your questions almost comes off as leading. Quite frankly, we want to know what they will say when ask the important questions in a direct manner. I could understand them reading your letter as a challenge to what they said in the class rather than an honest attempt at getting to the answer. This could insight a defensive reaction if they think you are trying to make them look silly. I would have left off the part about posting it on a forum as well. This could cause them to think you are trying to make them look bad publicly.

I dunno... I like straight and to the point type questions and answers. Hopefully they respond. They may not give direct answers. The more convoluted the question, the easier it is to dance around it.

wgoforth wrote:Full day #1 no response..... (Sent last night).

I wouldn't expect an answer this quick. My bet would be on them handing it to the legal department. They are cops, not attorney's.

A-R wrote:Just my $0.02 real quick. I took the course in July 2010 and was VERY impressed by the DPS troopers/instructors. I was very UNimpressed by the one woman who many have complained about (she taught the "legal" aspects), and her personal view of which signs gave "effective" notice.

I am curious to hear the "last word" on this and whether the OP may have misunderstood or if DPS is now teaching the one legal lady's opinion as fact regarding signage and other issues.

She may be the proverbial "Fox in the henhouse". It sure looks like the woman has an anti concealed carry agenda she is working.

LOL... I would have to agree. Infuriates is more of a "power word".

Shinesintx wrote:

wgoforth wrote:Gentlemen...let me suggest something. I am not one to disregard when someone brings something to my attention. Could I be mistaken? Not impossible. Had I ~thought~ I had been, obviously I would not have posted these things. Since the question has been raised, and I do not wish to falsely accuse the program, let me write to the Officer who was in charge of the program for clarification. Until then, perhaps lets ride this thing out until I double check. Again, had I thought I misunderstood I would have done so first, but now that the question has been asked if it were possible...and it is a fair question, then let me find out!

Ya wanna know what infuriates me, you do not receive a manual in black and white that spells it out for all of us. Why in the heck is the DPS passing down info to instructors to teach in oral and not written form?

1) Shouldnt the DPS have a list of FAQ's?
2) For something as serious as CC, shouldn't they (DPS/State of Texas) have a website?
3) Do they fail to disseminate this info for a reason?

I could go on, but I think yall get my point.

I don't think we are allowed to say "XXXXXXXXX" on this forum....LOL. I think we are suppose to type... "makes me mad". We shall see. If they delete my post and change your words to "makes me mad" we will have confirmation. I am with ya though... it makes me mad also.


Close 03 but that is enough to infuriate. Much worse than just making someone mad.
LT