TexasCHLforum.com

I have just returned from the CHL Instructor Certification class in the Austin area. The comments I am going to make is not meant to detract from the good spirit, friendliness and professionalism of the instructors. Some of the things I am listing in regards to my concern were both from class lecture, and questions asked in class, or questions asked during break. I know at least one of the instructors is on this forum and genuinely enjoyed not only his classes, but would enjoy simply being around him. I would welcome his comments and insight here. Thus my comments are not intended as personal, but in regards to DPS policies.

Some of the things discussed which concerned me was:
(1) We are to honor ALL no gun signage. If a business does not use a proper 30.06, that's on them, but we know the intent of every sign from a gun-buster to Vernon code.
(2) One instructor said non legitimate signage should be reported to DPS so they can correct it. Later, another instructor told us NOT to call, they don't have time.
(3) Incorrectly placed 51% at a 7-11 is to be obeyed even though it shouldn't have a 51% sign.
(4) ANYONE at a store can tell us not to carry, whether they are in authority or not, and it is good for life.
(5) We cannot have ladies only classes. We can GEAR it towards them, but cannot refuse men without violating Federal law.
(6) .08% alcohol is maximum for driving, but no maximum set for carrying. If ANY amount is discernible and you have a CHL, "we are going to have problems."
(7) Printing is against the law.
(8) Need permission to carry in churches.
(9) They stressed repeatedly that you can be sued for things you teach in class, so be careful to document what you teach. And that if someone does something wrong, they can say "this is what my instructor told me" and sue you. They made NO mention whatsoever of the immunity concerning instructors, or for that matter, never mentioned that CHL holders were granted some immunities under Castle Doctrine. When I pointed out CPRC 83.001 civil immunity to the guys around me, they were shocked. I asked one of the instructors about it during break and he said "Hmm, must be a new rule. I've never seen that."
(10) One instructor was still teaching we must be "traveling" to carry in our vehicle and that there is still confusion as to what constitutes traveling.

I discussed many of these points with other students during break and most (including the lawyers who were applicants too) agreed with the DPS policies.

I was told that if we disagreed, we should contact the TSRA as they are our voice to the state. My concern is that (1) These instructors will now teach these to untold numbers. (2) These policies seemed to be accepted and once accepted, will become codified law.

Does that also mean that someone can sue one or all of those morons for the incorrect information they have given out? I'm sure I would have been kicked out of that class.

C-dub wrote:Does that also mean that someone can sue one or all of those morons for the incorrect information they have given out? I'm sure I would have been kicked out of that class.

I did try to direct some of the comments towards what my understanding of the law was, but hard to do in a large class with so many hands going up. ie, when said "printing was illegal" I pointed out that I could see gun bumps all over the class. He said "I hope there would be in a class like this." I asked "Then if you see me with a gun bump in a 7-11, are you going to say anything?" He said "No, I'm not. I think everyone should carry. But the next officer might." Some was a flat no-go, like the signage. When I said that there are still many old buildings with the Vernon Code on carry posted, I then asked "how can you violate a now non-existent law?" The response was "Because you knew the intent." Sorry, I don't know the intent. I am not a mind reader. I ASSUME that they rented an old building and didn't bother taking down an old sign that is now contrary to law, like renting an old building that still says "white's only" somewhere. IOW, out of date, against the law and unenforceable.

Russell wrote:Bad teaching is bad teaching. This surely needs to be brought up with this instructor's supervisor....

It was THESE rather than this, instructors, I am afraid. And they formed the group who in charge of the CHL program for the state. The supervisor was actually the one who taught the most that I disagreed with. It's a great concern. Charles Cotton has been notified and TSRA will be. This is the group which the DPS said we should work through if we want changes. FWIW, I almost got the feeling that not all the DPS instructors agreed, but were teaching following policy.

The list in your initial post IS downright disgusting. But their "attitude" on some issues has been on a downward slide for about ten years now. I recall from my initial school in 1995, DPS people there taking great pride in being in charge of the CHL program and stressing the importance of INTEGRITY. Sadly, that appears to have gone in the toilet, in more places than one.

Power and responsibility have become way out of balance. My initial thought would be to suggest doing whatever it takes to get a video camera running on each and every one of those "presenters" at the next instructor school. So that what they are and are not teaching can be clearly documented.

Greybeard wrote:The list in your initial post IS downright disgusting. But their "attitude" on some issues has been on a downward slide for about ten years now. I recall from my initial school in 1995, DPS people there taking great pride in being in charge of the CHL program and stressing the importance of INTEGRITY. Sadly, that appears to have gone in the toilet, in more places than one.

Power and responsibility have become way out of balance. My initial thought would be to suggest doing whatever it takes to get a video camera running on each and every one of those "presenters" at the next instructor school. So that what they are and are not teaching can be clearly documented.

I'll check and see what is specifically in the manual we used too.

Thanks for the report. If that's who the state of Texas puts in charge of CHL, that's another reason to encourage friends and coworkers to get their license from a reciprocal state. One that's less expensiv, has fewer hoops to jump through, and maybe has smarter people running the program.

bayouhazard wrote:Thanks for the report. If that's who the state of Texas puts in charge of CHL, that's another reason to encourage friends and coworkers to get their license from a reciprocal state. One that's cheaper, has less hoops to jump through, and maybe has smarter people running the program.

That loophole is being closed. You can have a license from a reciprocal state, but you are going to have to have one from Texas. Also, you do not have the same rights with a recip in Texas as from one from Texas. ie, you cannot have your gun locked in your vehicle on school grounds with reciprocal.

If the opponents of concealed carry can get that passed, that's proof positive that Texas CHL is a losing proposition.

It's easy enough to get a DL from a pro gun state to match the CHL. And if Texas antigunners have that much power with the Texas legislature, I would be embarassed to carry a Texas ID of any kind.

Greybeard wrote:My initial thought would be to suggest doing whatever it takes to get a video camera running on each and every one of those "presenters" at the next instructor school. So that what they are and are not teaching can be clearly documented.

Well, I've been considering going through the training, so if I do I will video everything I see.

Jumping Frog wrote:

Greybeard wrote:My initial thought would be to suggest doing whatever it takes to get a video camera running on each and every one of those "presenters" at the next instructor school. So that what they are and are not teaching can be clearly documented.

Well, I've been considering going through the training, so if I do I will video everything I see.

I would like to see those videos. Assuming the DPS employees don't think they're in Maryland and threaten your family for videotaping them while performing their duties.

wgoforth wrote:Some of the things discussed which concerned me was:
(1) We are to honor ALL no gun signage. If a business does not use a proper 30.06, that's on them, but we know the intent of every sign from a gun-buster to Vernon code.

A woman at a bar knows the intent of a guy who buys her a drink. That doesn't mean she's legally required to do what he wants.

If this is the flawed training the new instructors are getting, it's no wonder I'm seeing new CHL holders who don't know even the most rudimentary basics of Texas law. At this rate, before long the 1-hour online class will be teaching more accurate Texas law than DPS.

I really do not want to leave the wrong impression on these matters. I do believe these men to be men of integrity and they are pro-second amendment. I do believe, however, they have had some attorney to go over their material to cover themselves. I discussed these matters with other students, and found that most I visited with all agreed with the DPS on the signage... all no gun signs serves you effective notice. My concern is that if we do not get these matters clarified, then they will become codified.

My question to you is - - - did one of the DPS troopers teaching the class tell you about the signage or was it the woman who is the head attorney tell you that any sign is enforceable. If it was the attorney I would take anything she says with a couple of grains of salt.

My own take on the issue - - - if they have any no weapons/guns signs I take it they don't want my gun packing money and prefer not do business with anyone who posts their premises.

I do not teach my students to obey anything but a valid 30.06 sign and a 51% sign - - - that's what the PC says - - - until there is case law or an AG opinion on this matter I will continue to teach this.