TexasCHLforum.com

Rabbi wrote:

cxm wrote:BALDERDASH!! Utter Balderdash!

I have it figured out now... this is a joke... everyone is supposed to be laughing...

Right?

Chuck

Rabbi wrote:

gigag04 wrote:

Rabbi wrote:(W.D.Ky. 1903)

Uh, you do realize that it is cases like this that establish the fact of what is Federal Jurasdiction? Lock it because you made a statement and I brought up a a scenerio with case law that could effect us all that probably has not be brought up?

Listen, if you think it is far fetched, fine, If you are not going to worry about it that is great as well, but it is these kinds of topics that might lead to people learning something, and at this point I am trying to make that someone me.

Ok, since you think I am wrong, would you please tell me who has jurisdiction on Federal Land that has been ceded by the state?

Would you tell me how that is established, and would you find a case since the 6th district court handed down this ruling that would countermand the contentions I have made. here is a hint, you will find many cases that back up what I have said. If the Government can prove it is federal land and it was ceded by the state, it is a federal case. I used the one from 1903 because it involved something that could be overlooked and was not obvious such as a dam.

I could be wrong, be telling me I am doesnt make it so. Offer the reason.

Do you ralize how ridiculous you sound? You think you have found 1 very unlikely senario where the CHL instructor immunity not not apply to your thesis and now you are going to harp on it?

Please........

Unless a person you trained is a LEO and sued under color of authority how could it be a Federal case????

Rabbi wrote: Here is one that has sliped my mind and perhaps other Range Owners can chime in. It doesnt happen much but it happens. From time to time I get a call or a subpoena from a Lawyer that wants me to testify about a gun buyer or a shooter(This happens when there is a shooting). Among the things they want to know are how often they shoot and how good they were.

We don not keep records of such things, so it is a "I do not recall" situation. However they are persuing these courses of action. How much moreso if they had an actual record of their proficiency or lack of.

While others may disagree, That to me makes it not only very real, but seemingly common and not something to be dismissed.

Interesting. I have been at DFW for 3 years. The owner there for over 4, and some employees over 7. No one I asked recalls ever having been asked this question.

And back to the CHL issue of Pass Fail and it effecting the range or instructor. Even if Pass/Fail could be an issue for the student who was involved in a shooting, Instructors have legislative immunity for any civil action

Texas Government Code


Text
§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.

txinvestigator wrote:Unless you can show me where a successful prosecution was made because someone was a good shot, I just don't care.

There are many other things to worry about in training.

As I already said, if you are justified in using deadly force you are justified. You ability is irrelevent.

As far as Law Enforcement records, it makes it easy to simply record pass/fail.

It is a moot point, but feel free to worry about it if you like.

The continuation of your business is not something to worry about because you already have a full plate?

I didn't write that. You seem to just want to argue the point, so let me be clear; I do not believe that scoring targets and allowing customers to have their target will affect my business, except to make the customers happy.

The justification of deadly force is just that, however you still have to prove it and all things that lead up to that point can be brought into a court of law as you try and prove your justification. It is not a check list, it is a process whereby you and if you so (wisely) choose, your legal council must prove your side of the events.


You dismiss it as a moot point but it can be seen that to most it is not moot but infact a real issue that deserves serious thought and incorporation of some plan of action to the prudent CHL instructor.

Because YOU think it is a concern, then it must be for the "prudent" instructor? I don't see where "most" think it is a concern, and I am waiting for proof that it is.

I understand that you have an answer that so far has worked for you. I for one have to be more flexible when it comes to such things and try and listen to all sides, while giving more weight to t people and credentials that would incline them to be of greater knowledge on the subject matter.

And if you feel the need to worry about a silly issue go ahead. And am I to think that YOU are the person with greater knowledge? If not, I would be interested in who is. You offer no evidence that scoring IS an issue.

You could be right on all counts and if so, that would be a good thing to know. I will follow the truth wherever it may take me but the preponderance of evidence would suggest your dismissive solution on this mattter might not be the best course of action to the target audience of this forum and the industry as a whole.

Evidence you have failed to establish.

Again, you are free to knock yourself out over this. You can keep making sideways insults towards me, but I don't care. I have been in this business a long time, I have had this discussion with MANY people, people I know AND respect, and I don't believe its an issue.

I will watch this thread for any facts or evidence that I am wrong, but I wil not repond to any of your further jabs.

Unless you can show me where a successful prosecution was made because someone was a good shot, I just don't care.

There are many other things to worry about in training.

As I already said, if you are justified in using deadly force you are justified. You ability is irrelevent.

As far as Law Enforcement records, it makes it easy to simply record pass/fail.

It is a moot point, but feel free to worry about it if you like.

Rabbi wrote:

dws1117 wrote:

They dont get to keep the targets and they are destroyed.

Please forgive my ignorance, but what liability could come from the student keeping thier test target?

I could not cite case law for CHL classes, but it has been a common practice for Lawyers to use arguments based on the scores of police officers involved in shootings. Even some Police Dept. have gone to a strict Pass/Fail system

"WEll Officer, it says you scored a perfect on your last Quals"

"I guess"

"That makes you some kind of marksmen Top 5% of all shooters in you Dept"

"Well, I shoot OK"

"So, why didnt you shoot the gun out of his hand instead of killing him...."

It has happened before.

Unless you can cite me a case where that was effective in court, I don't believe it. I have heard this bull for too many years.

If you are justified in using in Deadly Force, how good a shot you are will not nullify that justification. It is also well documented that shooting is much less accurate in actual Deadly Force encounters than standing static on a range. WELL DOCUMENTED.

If students want their scores I gladly tell them. If they want their targets I gladly allow them to take them.

There is no real need to do otherwise. If you perceive a need, then thats OK for you.