TexasCHLforum.com

Quote: "They don't want you to have two licenses with current dates."

Thanks, Larry. You might want to hang out here a little more, btw. That is a much more clear way of saying it than what I heard - or attempted to hear in the midst of apparent grumbling over the flip flop. I went back through Marion's 8-page handout and found nothing to that effect, even under the part describing the downloadable CR-70. Like Pittman said in '95, "Remember: If it ain't written down, it never happened ..."

Not sure exactly who it came from, but laying on the tables when we got back from lunch was a single page handout where they had spent the $ on a color copy of the map here: http://www.gunmap.org/ With it being entitled "The Death of Gun Control -2007", if that one came from Ms. O'Shaw, sumbuddy needs to buy her dinner!

Complaint limited to SB378 being blatantly missing in 22 pages of "Legal Issues" handouts (covering other changes) and what appeared to be her intentional avoidance.

Complaint letter mailed/faxed 8-11-07 to DPS Director Thomas A. Davis, Jr. with http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/ ... 00378E.HTM as printed attachment. Copy mailed/faxed at the same time to The Honorable Senator Jeff Wentworth.

El Gato - I very much agree with what ya said about what is not necessarily being conveyed very well (if at all) to new instructors. One of the fairly new guys at DCSA was in the June '07 school and came away without knowing where the 4 initially prohibited locations in 46.035 were amended in 1997 ... The "new" written test is a slightly revised version of Riddles' trickery/humor. Holmes said she started revising it just before she left - which was well before the legislature got to cranking out changes. They are supposedly revising the test and to get us a new one.

I did not even turn in my "evaluation form" on this one. Not enough room for "comments". And I wanted to "sleep on it" before lighting 'em up with a letter. Some of it was, once again, excellent with top-drawer training and attitudes, but overall, the most disappointing renewal school in 10 years.

Skip - In Jean's defense, another part of her job is evidently "communicating" via phone sometimes with those whose application is being rejected. In her handout, she noted in two different places, that if apps are rejected, DPS still keeps the $. Lots of folks who don't read well apparently can handle her explanation for rejection better than they understand losing the $. And some evidently do lots of yelling over that.

Stevie - Marion Stahl was the one who pulled the pin on the "invalid" license grenade. I was sitting about 2/3 of the way back in the class and might have missed a little of what she said due to all of the snorting going on between us. The way we took it was that all expired licenses are supposed to be returned. She said something to the effect that such has been in the regs all along, but "new administration" wants to enforce it ... Edited 8-15-07 to add: See Larry Arnold's post on page 2 here.

When asked about the new law booklets being available, she said something about "September" - which, in my experience, means January - maybe. On a more positive note, she did indicate they've got some extra staff and lately have been able to turn most of the new apps around in around 40 days or less ....

Since Stevie D referenced (in the "Veterans thread) this thread as somewhat a "synopsis", I'll add here a couple of things that may also apply promptly to more of "the masses" - without effort to get into the Veteran or Legal Beagle discounts and such.

While TR-100's for "original" students are still good for 2 years from first date shown, on-line applications are good for just 1 year. (After that, get out the old credit card again!)

Invalid licenses should be sent back to DPS. (Recent decision by "the new administration".)

Stevie - First rattle out of the box, the "facilitor" mentioned she would be coming in to speak after lunch and requested something to the effect of "avoid jumping on Jeanne". I kinda gathered that she had some tough sledding last week. In class Tuesday there were about a dozen of us who've been in the program since '95, so I suspect similar in class(es) last week. Not exactly the kind of guys who'll cut a Colorado-lovin' lady lawyer much slack. I'd be reeeeeal curious to hear from an instructor who was there last week ...

Then too, 2 years ago, I was there in mid-September right after Rosenthall had been doing some of his major chest thumping with the media. It was then she gave us a brand new handout related to "Traveling"- and subsequently posted the same thing on their web site - to the effect that "DPS has no authority to determine or to comment on how this law will be enforced by the various local law enforcement and prosecuting agencies."

I can't help but think they may have a similar posture with SB378 - yet it was odd that 378 was not noted in any of the handouts. I even had my wife go through the paperwork last night to see if I had missed it. She did not find it either, but did make the comment they seemed to go to a great deal of effort in the text regarding changes taking care of "Judicial Officers".

As I understood it, the "bye" does consider previous renewals but does not come until the 3'rd renewal. And only then, if the app. is received after Sept. 1, 2007. They (and computers) are supposedly going to keep track of things and inform renewal people of what they need to submit.

In the morning session with Lt. Derrick, I was watching the screen and listening carefully during his Power Point "Deadly Force" presentation for mention of "presumption" and it did not come. A primary focus was, once again, on the words "reasonable belief" and "justified".

Another instructor's inquiry regarding the Castle Doctrine did get the response that the thrust of the expansion was related to peoples' cars and business locations. In regard to query on "civil immunity", the answer was (a skeptical?) "By design." And then he moved on ...

Yes, about a full page related to HB1815 amending 46.02.

The first was on a handout entitled "2007 amendments to Concealed Handgun Statute and Related Statutes".

"HB 1839 Training requirements for renewals
Provides that a renewal applicant must complete the required course in handgun proficiency, and obtain the otherwise required proficiency certificate, not more than once in any 10-year period."

While I'd followed many of the changes through the spring legislative session and TSRA's "recap", this is one that did not register with me. And it was somewhat "new news" as well to most of the other 50 or so instructors present in Georgetown yesterday.

The "simplified" explanation was that, after Sept. 1, students on their 3'rd, 5'th, 7'th, etc. renewal would not have to take a renewal class or submit a new TR-100. Such students will supposedly be notified of same when given the written notice from DPS regarding their upcoming CHL expiration date and how to reapply.

The other "surprise" was that there was nothing in the handout referenced above regarding the new "Castle Doctrine/Stand Your Ground" law or in another 20-page handout ("Updated 08/07") on "Legal Issues". Zip, zero, nada in handouts. And yep, Charles, when queried on it at the end of her dog and pony show, our infamous female declined to discuss it ...