Texas Concealed Handgun Association

[Mike1951]

Since the by-laws are the only place that 'Instructors' appears and the most recent amendment to the by-laws is April 2004, it would appear then that they are moving AWAY from an instructors' organization.

Full membership in the Association is open to anyone who is not prohibited from purchasing a handgun in the U.S.

[wrt45]

IIRC, they started as an instructors association.

Don't think so.

Even now, with the exception of the URL address, the only place Instructor appears in their name is in the bylaws.

Everywhere else, their name is given as Texas Concealed Handgun Association.

About a year ago, this group had merger discussions with TSRA.

I was unable to locate any endorsement of a specific policy as mentioned.

The organization began as an instructors group, then expanded into a more general group that included the broader base of membership.

Last year's discussion of merger with TSRA centered on the argument of duplication, but it was decided in the annual meeting that CHL was unique enough to warrant remaining separate.

The organization has no relationship with the CHL protection plan, other than the fact that CHLPP advertises heavily through TXCHA newsletter and such, and that one of the officers of CHLPP is an officer in TXCHA.

[byronw999]

Anyone know of any person that has actually been represented by this group? Really for $129 a year it's pretty cheap compared to spending thousands for a lawyer should you need one..

Byron

I'm not talking about those dues.......

It appears to me that they are pushing the "CHL Protection Plan".
I say this because everything else on their page is found at many other places.

And those prices are here (129.00 a year):

http://www.chlpp.com/chlppns.htm

FWIW, I'm considering signing up for it. Seems pretty cheap for what amounts to having a lawyer on retainer should the need arise. I'd hate to put my wife or kids in the position of having to scare up a lawyer in the middle of the "mess" that would inevitably ensue in the aftermath of a defensive shooting.

[byronw999]

I dont see where they do anything for us other than collect $20. I'll just keep sending my extra donations to the TSRA.. They have a great track record on working for us, not just taking in cash..


quote="seamusTX"]I ran into them at the NRA convention in 2004. I honestly couldn't figure out what they were planning to do that the TSRA couldn't do.

- Jim[/quote]

[txinvestigator]

The Association President was at the Instructor renewal class yesterday. They began as an Instructor association, then opened membership to CHL holders, and they re now open to all.

They have applied for not-for-profit status so they may lobby for better gun laws.

[seamusTX]

Anyone know of any person that has actually been represented by this group? Really for $129 a year it's pretty cheap compared to spending thousands for a lawyer should you need one.

I think it has been about 10 years since a CHL holder was prosecuted for a defensive shooting in Texas.

You need to find out exactly what they are providing. If it covers your defense from arrest through the U.S. Supreme Court, it's a very good deal.

If it is simply pre-paid legal service, maybe not.

You also have to find out who would be defending you.

- Jim

[TEX]

It started up shortly after the CHL laws were passed as the Texas Concealed Handgun Instructors Association (TCHIA). If memory serves me right, Karl Rhenn, an Austin instructor was the President the first or first couple of years. Then Dan West was the President for a number of years. Right from the very beginning it allowed non instructors with CHLs to join. Their goal was to ensure quality standardized instruction to put a good light on the whole program. You have to remember that it was a new "unproven" law and program when it started that no one knew for sure if it would stay in place. I don't think the DPS was altogether very happy about being assigned to run the program, especially since it was to be self funding. TCHIA helped put a polish on the thing IMHO and resulted in a better program. An association informing the DPS that something needed to be changed or improved had a lot more clout than individuals making the same complaint. I also think TCHIA was instrumental in getting some grey area questions about the law answered. When it started up a lot of guys (and gals) spent a lot of their own time and money getting it on its feet. I have not been a member for about 5 years, but when I was they put on very good annual meetings with seminars, speakers, vendors, etc. I don't know anything about them pushing for shorter requalification periods, but do remember that the general consensus was that the test was a tad too easy. Think about it. If someone barely scrapes by on their third attempt, and then becomes involved in a shooting where an innocent third party gets hit - the media will have a field day. I personally think it should be a bit tougher or that a basic NRA pistol course (or equivalent) should be required before taking the CHL course. Remember, it is not a shooting class. You should already be a competent shooter before you get there. TCHIA has always had the ear of the DPS and TSRA. Many of the improvements in the program, especially the instructors program came out of TCHIA. The membership dues are reasonable and I guess they realized somewhere along the line that it might suit all concerned better if it wasn't thought of as just an instructors' association. If the membership is $20, that is a pretty good deal. I think it used to be more like $50. IMHO it was a good organization with CHL holders best interests in mind last time I attended.

TEX

[lrb111]

Trooper Holmes had good words about TXHA when introducing Tony Arozco. Mentioning that they may soon have political clout, and that Licensees and Instructors could use all the help we could get.

[killerquad]

Anyone know of any person that has actually been represented by this group? Really for $129 a year it's pretty cheap compared to spending thousands for a lawyer should you need one.

I think it has been about 10 years since a CHL holder was prosecuted for a defensive shooting in Texas.

You need to find out exactly what they are providing. If it covers your defense from arrest through the U.S. Supreme Court, it's a very good deal.

If it is simply pre-paid legal service, maybe not.

You also have to find out who would be defending you.

- Jim

I was told by someone at the range that you are only covered up to the grand jury if it goes beyond that you are on your own. I dont know that to be a fact though.

[OldGeezer]

Jeez, look up their web site. They don't provide any legal defense or issues nor should they. It is the same as the NRA provides, a collective voice.

[ctxpta]

As a former board member of TCHA some of this is right and some of it is wrong. TCHA is for concealed and handgun protection ie. lobbying and information to the masses the same as NRA is to rifles at a national level and TSRA is at a state level. NRA worries more about the state of protection at the national level and will let slide some state issues for their overall picture. TSRA pushes the state to adhere and understand what its members want here in the state of Texas and has a larger voice than the NRA does within our state borders. TCHA is trying to get to the same level for handguns. Some within TSRA do not think you should be allowed to carry handguns concealed. They only care about long weapons...and no I do not say most or all...some. So TCHA was formed to further the rights to protect yourself by carrying concealed. They want to get large enough to make a lobbying voice such as TSRA does. They are an entity governed by their by-laws. If you have concerns about giving them money but think its a good idea/organization then join and become an ACTIVE member. The legal stuff is exactly that...pre-paid legal up to but not including trial from what I understand. It is NOT a part of TCHA. It is a separate entity making money. If you need it its great if you don't it is a waste just like health insurance! As a whole they are a great group. If I had more time I would have stayed more active. Just like this forum and others...you have the outspoken...and the extremists...and the middle of the road. But what they are trying to do is what is important...further our rights and abilities to be able to protect ourselves with a handgun wherever we are.
Matt

[DaveT]

I have been a member for a couple of years, but have decided not to renew.

All information on their web site is easily availeble elsewhere for free.

I have not been impressed with their publication. Mostly ads for the insurance that was mentioned earlier in the thread, and for their own t-shirts, caps, and a few book relating to CHL. Biggest 'story' they had in the latest issue was a fellow's return trip to England and the comparison's between how it used to be when he lived there, and how it is now. There was one article briefly discussing the Castle Doctrine Law, but it was very brief and left more questions unanswered that it answered. They have lots of articles about what they do when they get together, but nothing that relates to everyday CHL.

Just my opinion, but I found the dues to be a total waste of money.

[ctxpta]

This so called "instructors assoc. " is pushing to make it state law where we (so called comman citizens) have to qualify every two years. NOW HEAR THIS...this will be for our own good!!!! Also make the targets more difficult. Of course the ranges and instructors will make more money ...who would of thunk it? I do not mind if they want to shoot a lot, or take part in some of the shootin contests....but it is my belief that the vast majority of CHL holders like the way the CHL program is now.. Just what we need...more govt. control. I wonder if these same people would have us go qualify each year before deer or dove season? Most of us are not policemen or wanta-be Rambo's. My two cents.

I would like to know where you find that they want to require qualification every 2 years for regular CHL holders? Or even to try to convince the legislature to make the qualification more difficult? I can not find the information anywhere!

Also, (let me say I have heard nothing about making the targets more difficult coming from the organization) with that said think about this and the current qualification standards: the current target at max score is basically 1 foot by 1 1/2 foot oval. You can hit this area 35 times and then miss ****15**** shots completely off the target and still pass. Does this not scare anyone? I guess it will only scare you when it is YOUR child that is almost hit by that shooter that can't hit their intended target. What about when a round hits your windshield as you are driving down the road?

I am not trying to push for or against the organization as I am not an active member and have no right to say what they are doing or not doing is good or bad.

[boomerang]

Does this not scare anyone? I guess it will only scare you when it is YOUR child that is almost hit by that shooter that can't hit their intended target. What about when a round hits your windshield as you are driving down the road?

It doesn't scare me one bit.

Statistically speaking, I'm in more danger from a licensed driver's car than from a CHL's handgun.

I'm also in much greater danger from people who drive a car or carry a handgun without a license.

[Liberty]

Does this not scare anyone? I guess it will only scare you when it is YOUR child that is almost hit by that shooter that can't hit their intended target. What about when a round hits your windshield as you are driving down the road?

It doesn't scare me one bit.

Statistically speaking, I'm in more danger from a licensed driver's car than from a CHL's handgun.

I'm also in much greater danger from people who drive a car or carry a handgun without a license.

My favorit Statistic:
Fact: In Florida, a state that has allowed concealed carry since late 1987, you are twice as likely to be attacked by an alligator as by a person with a concealed carry permit. According to the Florida Department of State, “Concealed Weapons/Firearms License Statistical Report� in 1998 and the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commissionin December 1998

If we really think about it, It is more dangerous to disarm the law abiding than it is to permit them to carry.