TexasCHLforum.com

apostate wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:I’m also amazed that no instructor students made a challenge to that attitude. Why didn’t someone ask “So the intent of the legislature means nothing to you?”

If they're so unprofessional as to teach their own prejudices as law, perhaps discretion is the better part of valor.

Some of us did challenge this, but they (instructors) were adamant. They remained very professional about this and all other topics, so none of us pushed hard after that. Doing so in that class would be a no-win battle.

twomillenium wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

Keith B wrote:
It will not do any good. DPS tells instructors that any 'no guns' sign is notification, legal or not, so they will not take action on an instructor teaching this.

If this is accurate, it's very disappointing. It's even worse than an individual officer making up his own laws and interpretations. It needs to be addressed.

I do not know who told Keith B this, but I have not experienced any such notification from the DPS.

I just finished up the New LTC Instructor course today. I can tell you first hand that what Keith said is exactly what we were told - and this was reinforced by multiple instructors.

They told us in no uncertain terms that (a) gunbuster signs, (b) “No Guns” signs, and (c) a sign containing only the term “30.06” (with no other accompanying verbiage) all demonstrate the property owner’s intent, so therefore all have the force of law.