CHL Instructors class

[wgoforth]

Still no response to the OP from the DPS? Why am I not surprised.

Me too neither....

I stated very early in this thread that DPS would not want to put written/emailed info into your hands. Hence the reason you are having to ask for it...you were never given this info the first time. I never thought that you were mistaken.

And yet if that is the way they are going to attempt to enforce it, it needs to be in writing. The other possibility I have considered is that the officers teaching it this way don't really agree, but are in a bind as that may be what the attorneys are telling them to teach.

[cbunt1]

I was in that class with you. Frankly, my take on it was that they didn't completely agree with the interpretation BUT...

From an "in the trenches" perspective, the law (as written) doesn't always "mean" the same thing on the street as it does in court--hence our quip that "you'll beat the rap, but you're taking the ride." Mostly because much of the interpretation of these things (these little uncertainties--like whether the posting is truly "contrasting" or whether it's posted on city property, and therefore unenforceable) comes from case law. When you consider that 30.06 can only apply to a CHL holder, and follow that with the 1% or so of CHL holder busts (for anything at all--most of which aren't firearms related in the first place), there's simply no case law to go off of.

The job of LEO, in this context, is to report the belief that a crime has been committed, submit the evidence and actor of same to the DA for potential prosecution...not to interpret law--that's the job of the courts.

Let's follow that with the fact that the information they were passing to us, we're going to pass down to our students, who are going to pass it to their fellow CHL holders...

If I (as an instructor) tell you that "30.06 postings on city property are unenforceable," and you push the issue at a gun show, and get picked up, you might have standing to sue me for giving you bad information (vicarious liability)....

NOW CONSIDER...that if I tell you to NEVER cross a 30.06 posting, and you'll never be arrested or prosecuted on 30.06...well, you might not go some places that you actually can legally go, but sure enough--you'll never get picked up for violation of 30.06.

Which is a safer position? Both are correct...both are accurate...which one reduces my liability?

I'm not defending the position here. I'm just trying to explain/understand why it has been stated the way it was stated in the class.

I think the alcohol question goes pretty much the same way. If you don't drink anything while carrying a gun, you will never have to deal with an LEO's field interpretation of "intoxicated." If you have a beer with your steak at dinner, and get pulled over later, there's a question to answer. Or as the Captain put it "we will have a problem." I didn't take his "problem" statement to mean "your're taking a ride," but that we've got more to talk about than if he didn't smell that beer in the first place.

Again, erring to the side of caution--especially when the information gets passed down through the "telephone game" a few times...

[03Lightningrocks]

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]

I was in that class with you. Frankly, my take on it was that they didn't completely agree with the interpretation BUT...

From an "in the trenches" perspective, the law (as written) doesn't always "mean" the same thing on the street as it does in court--hence our quip that "you'll beat the rap, but you're taking the ride." Mostly because much of the interpretation of these things (these little uncertainties--like whether the posting is truly "contrasting" or whether it's posted on city property, and therefore unenforceable) comes from case law. When you consider that 30.06 can only apply to a CHL holder, and follow that with the 1% or so of CHL holder busts (for anything at all--most of which aren't firearms related in the first place), there's simply no case law to go off of.

The job of LEO, in this context, is to report the belief that a crime has been committed, submit the evidence and actor of same to the DA for potential prosecution...not to interpret law--that's the job of the courts.

Let's follow that with the fact that the information they were passing to us, we're going to pass down to our students, who are going to pass it to their fellow CHL holders...

If I (as an instructor) tell you that "30.06 postings on city property are unenforceable," and you push the issue at a gun show, and get picked up, you might have standing to sue me for giving you bad information (vicarious liability)....

NOW CONSIDER...that if I tell you to NEVER cross a 30.06 posting, and you'll never be arrested or prosecuted on 30.06...well, you might not go some places that you actually can legally go, but sure enough--you'll never get picked up for violation of 30.06.

Which is a safer position? Both are correct...both are accurate...which one reduces my liability?

I'm not defending the position here. I'm just trying to explain/understand why it has been stated the way it was stated in the class.

I think the alcohol question goes pretty much the same way. If you don't drink anything while carrying a gun, you will never have to deal with an LEO's field interpretation of "intoxicated." If you have a beer with your steak at dinner, and get pulled over later, there's a question to answer. Or as the Captain put it "we will have a problem." I didn't take his "problem" statement to mean "your're taking a ride," but that we've got more to talk about than if he didn't smell that beer in the first place.

Again, erring to the side of caution--especially when the information gets passed down through the "telephone game" a few times...

Sounds likely.... but be aware that as instructors we have immunity from suit (unless there was fraud or deceptive trade practice), even though in class they said we can be sued for teaching something. I was surprised we weren't told about this immunity in class and had to learn it elsewhere:

GC §411.208. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY.

(a) A court may not hold the state, an agency or subdivision of the state, an officer or employee
of the state, a peace officer, or a qualified handgun instructor liable for damages caused by:

(1) an action authorized under this subchapter or a failure to perform a duty imposed by this subchapter; or

(2) the actions of an applicant or license holder that occur after the applicant has received a license or been denied a license under

this subchapter.

(b) A cause of action in damages may not be brought against the state, an agency or subdivision of the state, an officer or employee of

the state, a peace officer, or a qualified handgun instructor for any damage caused by the actions of an applicant or license holder under

this subchapter.

(c) The department is not responsible for any injury or damage inflicted on any person by an applicant or license holder arising or

alleged to have arisen from an action taken by the department under this subchapter.

(d) The immunities granted under Subsections (a), (b), and (c) do not apply to an act or a failure to act by the state, an agency or subdivision

of the state, an officer of the state, or a peace officer if the act or failure to act was capricious or arbitrary.

(e) The immunities granted under Subsection (a) to a qualified handgun instructor do not apply to a cause of action for fraud or a deceptive trade practice.

[longtooth]

On both the alcohol & 30.06 I tell the students they are both gray areas right now. Give the example of Houston hospitals, small letters, white on window, displayed at bottom way to the side. Then tell them heres the law & I read it. You decide where you will draw your line. If you want to be the test case then you are out $$s & unarmed til the final disposition of the case.

Same on the alcohol issue.

[wgoforth]

On both the alcohol & 30.06 I tell the students they are both gray areas right now. Give the example of Houston hospitals, small letters, white on window, displayed at bottom way to the side. Then tell them heres the law & I read it. You decide where you will draw your line. If you want to be the test case then you are out $$s & unarmed til the final disposition of the case.

Same on the alcohol issue.

Just like with scripture, you can't go wrong reading it exactly as is, and saying "It means what it says and says what it means!"

[longtooth]

Yep.

[Crossfire]

Those who teach that ANY no-gun sign is valid in Texas are making a mockery of PC 30.06, and give no respect to those who worked so hard to draft it and get it passed for the protection of CHL holders.

How about we all just put away our guns and walk around like happy little sheep? Then, you never have to worry about passing by a pesky little sign with no meaning, and getting yourself all in a twitter about what to do. You also will never have to worry about being sued by a bad guy if you defend yourself. Because you won't have that opportunity! Won't things be ever so much better then?

A right not exercised is a right denied....

[wgoforth]

Those who teach that ANY no-gun sign is valid in Texas are making a mockery of PC 30.06, and give no respect to those who worked so hard to draft it and get it passed for the protection of CHL holders.

How about we all just put away our guns and walk around like happy little sheep? Then, you never have to worry about passing by a pesky little sign with no meaning, and getting yourself all in a twitter about what to do. You also will never have to worry about being sued by a bad guy if you defend yourself. Because you won't have that opportunity! Won't things be ever so much better then?

A right not exercised is a right denied....

Yup...interesting that in TN all no gun signs carry equal weight of law. Yet, I never see a single sign!

[speedsix]

...my feelings in a nutshell...hundreds of thousands have fought and died to preserve our God-given rights...I will join that band if necessary, and won't give up for cheap what they gave so much so that we can enjoy...not one inch...not one time...

[tbrown]

Same on the alcohol issue.

Just like with scripture, you can't go wrong reading it exactly as is, and saying "It means what it says and says what it means!"

Amen.

Unfortunately there are so many instructors who "interpret" the law instead of teaching what it says, I will continue to recommend alternatives to people who ask. I think someone who takes a one hour class and skims the CHL-16 is much better informed than someone who has an instructor that teaches the "any sign is notice" rule, the "one drop of alcohol" rule, or other personal opinions without being crystal clear that's their personal opinion and NOT TEXAS LAW.

[cbunt1]

Sounds likely.... but be aware that as instructors we have immunity from suit (unless there was fraud or deceptive trade practice), even though in class they said we can be sued for teaching something. I was surprised we weren't told about this immunity in class and had to learn it elsewhere:

Very true. However, never forget that immunity (in the civil sense) is on the same keel as an "Affirmative Defense" in the criminal sense...IOW, there's nothing preventing someone from filing suit. Once the suit is filed, immunity or not, you have to answer, or face default judgement (i.e. losing the case by failing to defend the allegations). Even if you win, you lose. Sure you're going to "win the suit" or even be granted a dismissal, but you're still out legal fees, court costs, and time from work/loss of potential income.

And don't be fooled by the "loser pays" concept. I've won a couple of those over the years too...and still never got reimbursed. Turns out that many people filing frivolous/nonsense lawsuits are judgement-proof.

All that aside, I agree that anyone teaching the "never cross a no-guns sign" makes a mockery of the hard work that Charles, the TSRA, and others put into the section 30.06.

And I'm with Longtooth on this one...our job is to teach the law, as it is written, discuss any applicable case law, and let the students make their own decisions.

As with all things educational,I see our job as instructors as that of tour guide...to introduce our students to the fundamental knowledge and facts (Law, Dispute Resolution, Safe Handling & Usage, Proficiency, and Self-Defense) while guiding them to a path of learning and decision making....and to HOPEFULLY inspire the desire to continue learning on their own.

Of course, I'm pretty much "preaching to the choir" here, since ongoing self-education and collaboration is the core of this forum :)

[speedsix]

...I'll never tell a judge or jury "...they taught me in class" or "my friend the veteran cop told me"...my defense is gonna be "as the law clearly says here:" ...it's a lot more effective if you can put their eyes on it...

[wgoforth]

I received a response from the Sargent today and appreciate his taking time.

In regards to Signage, he writes:
" In the CHL New Instructor School, the questions that are always asked about this sign is, “What if the sign does not meet the established parameters? Do I still have to obey it?” “Can I enter the business anyway if the sign doesn’t meet the required standards such as the print is too small or it doesn’t say exactly what the law requires?” In the recent school you attended, these same types of questions were asked and the answer given was not a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’. Even though the law is clear and precise on what the 30.06 sign should look like, we all know, there are many improper, or slightly altered, or ‘gun buster’ signs posted throughout the State. Both CHL Instructors and CHL holders would like a clear and precise ‘yes or no’ confirmation as to whether it is ok to disregard those improper 30.06 signs. The role of the CHL Instructor, and the Department’s Instructors to is to present the law; however, it is not your role nor the Department’s role to provide interpretation or to give legal advice. If I were to give you a simple ‘yes or no’ answer then it could be construed as giving you legal advice. Having said that, the law does provide some defense for CHL holders should they choose to ignore or bypass an improper 30.06. As you mentioned in your email, the Department’s instructor in your class did correctly state that even an improper sign could be considered effective notice. It is not up to you, as a CHL instructor, or the Department to determine if effective notice was given. This is a decision to be made by the local law enforcement officer and/or local prosecutors and eventually the court. This generally leads to the next question which is “Can a CHL holder be arrested for passing an improper 30.06 sign?” The answer is, ”Yes, they could be.” Will the CHL holder be arrested? I don’t know. As stated earlier, there is some defense to prosecution if the sign did not meet the standard set forth by the penal code. However, to get to that point, it probably means the CHL holder has already been introduced to a pair of silver bracelets (arrested). It initially lies upon the law enforcement officer’s judgment to, first, arrest the person. It then falls upon the local prosecutor to decide to take the case. If the prosecutor does accept the case, it is sent to the courts, and it will be up to the judge/jury to make the decision. Now, for all those who have sat through the CHL New Instructor class, you have never heard the instructors say,” If the sign doesn’t meet the criteria, then you can pass it.” In class, we state the law, we state the requirements in the various statutes including the Penal Code and we reference the Administrative Rules for CHL. Most importantly, we also state the repercussions which might happen in different situations, such as passing an improper 30.06 sign. We tell instructors they should think about whether they could, with ease of conscience, tell their students, “If the sign does not meet the criteria, then you can pass it”, considering that some local jurisdictions could consider an improper 30.06 sign as effective notice. We suggest you should point them to the law, tell them the repercussions of what could happen if they did pass it, and I leave it up ‘to them’ to make that decision. If ‘they’ decided to pass that improper sign, then it is ‘their’ responsibility. As you can see, this law is complicated and because of so much room for different interpretation by local jurisdictions, we cannot provide a simple ‘yes or no’ answer. "

In regards to alcohol, my understanding they were saying there is no limit as in driving (.08):
"In short, alcohol and weapons don’t mix. If you have consumed a beer or two, and happen to meet a law enforcement officer while carrying, or get caught in a shooting scenario, could having alcohol on your breath be an issue? Of course, right? How might it pan out? How much of your mental function could’ve been affected or your ability to use sound judgment? As stated in class, it is the LEO discretion on whether or not to arrest, the prosecutors ‘discretion on whether to charge, and the judge/jury decision to convict. These are things that may be considered if the CHL holder ends up arrested. Even if the CHL holder is cleared of any criminal offense, there is still a chance for civil liability.

Once again… we go back, …. can you be arrested after the officer smells alcohol on your breath? Sure you can. Will you be? I don’t know…. ‘maybe’…. But it should be the CHL holders’ decision, and then his responsibility. In class, I state, alcohol and guns don’t mix. I, personally, have never carried a weapon after any amount of alcohol. Remember, we/you are there to present the information. We/you are also there to present them with the repercussions of their decisions. After that, it is, once again, their decision, their responsibility."

[speedsix]

...I agree that instructors, whether instructing CHL applicants or instructors, shouldn't say anything that can be misconstrued and lead the hearer down the wrong path...
...there is a simple solution...answer those questions by turning to that law in question and measuring the question by the answer provided in written law...without opinions, side-stepping, yeahbuts, or what-ifs...

...the LEOS on the street should do the same...if the person's actions matched the law...they didn't break it...hence, no "ride"
...if the question is the sign posted...if it follows completely the LAW's requirements clearly hammered out in 30.06 and I ignore it...I broke the law and can be arrested...if it does NOT...then I didn't break the law...and any arrest or "ride" is illegal and subjects the LEO who chooses to ignore the law in determining if I broke it or not, and his agency, to civil liability...

...the written law is in this case (30.06) very explicit and easily followed...there is no excuse for us as CHLs to break it...and no excuse for LEOs to arrest us when we follow it... all this tangential stuff is hooey...and "problems" that arise won't be because of the law not being clear, but because SOMEONE chose not to follow it...