The Future of CHL

[C-dub]

Thanks Jim. That's the same link Charles gave me. I'm just going to wait and see now. I still have a couple of years before I have to renew.

[PUCKER]

Keith - (here I go beating this "dead horse" again LOL) From what you've posted and we've discussed (here: http://www.texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=30459" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;) the specific 30.06 wording doesn't matter to some cops.

IMO, 30.06 signs are our Texas friends.

AFAIK, Texas is the only state that has a specific no CHL sign in usage. In other states, you pretty much have to assume that any "no guns" sign aplies to everybody - CHL and otherwise.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong about the other state's signs...or, anything else.

Some states are that way, but Missouri for one has a specific size (11 x 14) with 1" letters and must state 'concealed carry prohibited ' in the wording. I know there are other states that have similar requirements also, just not off the top of my head without checking out http://www.handgunlaw.us" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. The advantage we have is the specific wording, size and two languages which makes it undesirable for many locations that might just post otherwise.

[74novaman]

Campus carry and parking lot bill.

Though I don't agree with people who choose to post them, I absolutely understand 30.06 signs. If someone doesn't want me to defend myself on their property, it is their property and thats their right. I just won't buy anything from a posted 30.06 location, and thats my right too. Just my .02

[jimlongley]

We don't want to get rid of 30.06 signs! That Penal Code Section was passed to help CHL's faced with prosecution under TPC §30.05. Open-carry is not a CHL issue, but a stand-alone issue.

Chas.

Can we at least try to get the language strengthened, ie non-applicability of non-compliant signs?

[juggernaut]

What do you want to see done.

Same rules as off duty police.

[Napier]

If I were Texas' Gun God, I would require stricter range qualification. Everybody in my class "cheated" on the range. I'll bet everybody everywhere "cheats." How? Because we all used the largest most accurate least recoil most reliable semi-autos we could get our respective hands around. Knowing that in the worst case of carrying in the summer wearing nothing but a Speedo everyone will opt for a mousegun, I would require qualification with a mousegun. I can pass the test with one, as I regularly shoot mine at 25 yards. I believe that if you aren't proficient with what you may be drawing worst case, you got no binness carrying.

[rm9792]

I have to disagree "everyone" cheats. I used a 1911 which i regularly carry, albeit different sizes. My GF on the other hand used my USP .45 which is huge but she carrys a derringer and 2" snubbie. She didnt "cheat", she had to use a SA to get SA on her license. In actuality she shoots her snubbie way better than a semi-auto, though I cant figure out why. I didnt see any cheating in my class but it was far from the course I would have taught. Way too much time sitting around while photso and prints were done plus forms being filled out. maybe 2 hours of actual instruction.

[C-dub]

I used my 27 on my renewal 2 years ago.

[boomerang]

Philosophically I'd like to see 46 go away completely because I believe "shall not be infringed" has a very simple meaning.

Pragmatically I think they should repeal 46.035 and move all CHLs up to 46.15(a) with the current "more equal than others" CHLs in (a)(4) and (a)(6) as well as the retired civil servants in (a)(5)

[A-R]

Employer parking lots and campus carry are carry-overs from last session, so they are priority items.

I favor following Governor Perry's lead and putting CHL's in the same "not applicable" subsection in TPC §46.15 as are LEO's, judges, prosecutors, railroad COPS, water district COPS, . . . This would allow us to carry everywhere they can carry.

Charles, I am right there with you on these three top priorities (though number three would effectively bring 1 and 2 with it). Thank you so much for all the hard work you do toward these goals.

[grumble]

Although I agree in principle that the range qualification could be "a tad ( ) more challenging, I do not agree that everyone cheats. I qualified (and from what i could see on my target before they took it away, if not 100%, then VERY close - maybe a 7 or two), with my Beretta 96 Vertec (.40 for those that don't know Berettas). I have other "easier to shoot" guns, but this is my favorite. It's too large to carry with my donut belly, but hey, it's comfy on my nightstand! A lady in my class who had barely shot, was shooting some flavor of a 9mm - never got close enough to see.

If I were Texas' Gun God, I would require stricter range qualification. Everybody in my class "cheated" on the range. I'll bet everybody everywhere "cheats." How? Because we all used the largest most accurate least recoil most reliable semi-autos we could get our respective hands around. Knowing that in the worst case of carrying in the summer wearing nothing but a Speedo everyone will opt for a mousegun, I would require qualification with a mousegun. I can pass the test with one, as I regularly shoot mine at 25 yards. I believe that if you aren't proficient with what you may be drawing worst case, you got no binness carrying.

[Purplehood]

Honestly, I would like to see a web-based class content coupled with showing up at a range for certification/photos/automated prints.

I have mixed emotions about online classes and tests. As Exec. Director of TSRA and as an NRA Board Member, I'm all for anything that makes it easier and cheaper to obtain a CHL. For these reasons, I will support any bill that tends to achieve this goal, including online classes and tests.

However, as a CHL instructor, NRA instructor, general firearms instructor and seminar speaker, I am convinced that a canned online class is inferior to a live class given by a good instructor. Any experienced teacher will tell you that audience input in the form of questions, anecdotes, etc. can be a very valuable part of the overall learning experience. You don't get that with a online video. Another issue for me personally is the subject matter of the class. I can cover the required material in far less than 10 hrs, including not more than 15 minutes on the use of force/deadly force. However, my 10 classes include 3 hrs on the use of force/deadly force, because in my view, that is the most important subject students need to learn. An online video would not cover this critical subject in the depth I cover it. Granted, most other instructors don't either and I'm sure each of us has an opinion on what is the most important part of the class.

If the goal is to go through the motions and get it done as quickly as possible, like a defensive driving online course, then an online course with a test is the most expedient way to accomplish this goal. If the goal is quality education on the statutorily-mandated subject matter, then a live course is superior. As an attorney, I can and do get most if not all of my annually required continuing education hours using State Bar approved online courses, simply because it convenient with my busy schedule. However, none of those online courses come close to the quality of a live CLE seminar.

Again, I have mixed emotions, but my personal opinions don't matter when I wearing my TSRA or NRA hats.

Chas.

Having seen literally hundreds of folks handling firearms in both civilian and Military environments over the years (Yes, I realize that many of us on this forum have also), I can state that the only benefit that I see to my suggestion is that online education would provide an EQUAL level of education on the subject of firearms.
Yes, actual classes can be extremely informative, entertaining and provide useful contacts for the future. But how many of us have come across sheer-idiot students and Instructors that are there for their own personal reasons (I want to carry a gun. I want to make a few bucks teaching something where I can have the students watch videos.)?
I would like to know that my fellow CHL holders all have had at least a minimal education on the subject and weren't left in a classroom to watch videos and than do a test with no valid instructions to accompany the course.

[boomstick]

Enactment of a "Parking Lot" law and the ability to continue carrying on an expired CHL while a renewal is being processed by DPS

[chabouk]

I am convinced that a canned online class is inferior to a live class given by a good instructor.

There's no doubt about that, but going from the reports seen here on the forum, there aren't many good instructors out there, and there is a goodly number who are downright bad.

"good instructor" > "standardized video or online class" > "competent instructor" > . . . . . . . . . . . "typical instructor"

[Keith B]

Keith - (here I go beating this "dead horse" again LOL) From what you've posted and we've discussed (here: http://www.texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=30459" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;) the specific 30.06 wording doesn't matter to some cops.

Yep. And your point is?

My point is that with the requirements we have the size of the sign is a deterrent for many businesses to post, worded exactly right or not. If they attempt to get it right, then it will still be big. And, I have the option to choose if I ignore a non-compliant sign. If I so choose to do so, then I ALWAYS run the risk of some LEO who decides they want to pursue arresting me for carrying because I was found out and they are ignorant of the law or choose to ignore it. And yes, there are lots of different types of cases where they are aware of the law but bend it to their liking anyway and let the Prosecuting Attorney or Judge sort out the actual meaning and interpretation.