LEO taking CHL class

[VMI77]

To me, what should happen, is that all law enforcement in Texas should be trained and know the law for CHLs since they're going to be encountering people with CHLs in the performance of their duties (including Feds based in Texas). I have had several encounters, including local, BP, DPS, and Sheriffs, and have yet to have a problem, so either those officers were trained or they didn't care that I was carrying a gun. We could argue about how well people who take CHL classes actually understand the law, and my guess is not all that well. I'm way more concerned about how an officer is going to interact with me than whether he understands the ins and outs of CC when he's off duty and carrying --and he doesn't have to get a CHL to pull me over in a traffic stop.

I'm also a little biased against classroom instruction. In my life, including being an instructor in the military, I've found classroom lecturing to be nearly useless, and especially where the application being instructed is a practical, and not merely theoretical one. Or, to put it another way, where the instructional intent is to teach someone how to do something, hands on training is much more efficient than theoretical instruction. To me, the shooting part of the CHL class is the only functional part. The theory/law part of the class could be accomplished individually with a CHL "textbook" and a comprehensive online exam (in instruction would be more uniform that way as well). So, while I understand your argument, I'm inclined to think the average police officer is not really less informed about CHL than the average person with a CHL, though perhaps less informed than people who come to this forum regularly.

As I think about you're argument and my response I'm inclined to think that we're seeking the same goal by different methods. I just want police trained on CHL either at the academy or by their departments instead of taking the CHL class.

Now I see why we disagreed in the first place. Your focus is on 'does the LEO have enough knowledge about CHL to interact with us?'. I do agree that is an important topic, but that's not what this thread is about. This thread is about whether the LEO should have to take a CHL class to receive a piece of plastic in his/her pocket that says they have a Texas Concealed Handgun License.

The CHL does grant some things that LEO status does not. For instance, it grants us some reciprocity in other states. I do not know conclusively that LEO status does that...although it may be the case. It grants us a simpler process when purchasing a gun from a dealer. LEOs still have to go through the background checks.

On your side topic, I agree with you: I think it would be great if all LEOs received enough training to fully understand their interaction with CHL holders. From the data I've seen, that may not be the case. Whether we improve the training at the academy or provide it via CHL courses is for someone else to decide.

But on the original topic, I remain convinced...if they want the benefits of a CHL, then they should receive the same training that we have. What's covered in the academy is broad, much broader than we learn in CHL training, but it does not fully encompass what we know and do. They shouldn't claim to have a CHL unless they learn at least the same things we do.

And yes, original training is just the beginning. Like you, I have only so much faith that the training will get all the info across...but at least it is a start.

By Federal Law, LEO's can carry concealed anywhere in the US. The law was passed when Dubya was president.

The Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (LEOSA) is a United States federal law, enacted in 2004, that allows two classes of persons—the "qualified law enforcement officer" and the "qualified retired law enforcement officer"—to carry a concealed firearm in any jurisdiction in the United States, regardless of state or local laws, with certain exceptions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_Enfor ... Safety_Act

Which, to me, makes the CHL class for LEOs even more redundant. Personally, I think cops should always be armed. I'm not saying it should be required, but it should at least be encouraged.

[Vol Texan]

The CHL does grant some things that LEO status does not. For instance, it grants us some reciprocity in other states. I do not know conclusively that LEO status does that...although it may be the case. It grants us a simpler process when purchasing a gun from a dealer. LEOs still have to go through the background checks.

By Federal Law, LEO's can carry concealed anywhere in the US. The law was passed when Dubya was president.

Which, to me, makes the CHL class for LEOs even more redundant. Personally, I think cops should always be armed. I'm not saying it should be required, but it should at least be encouraged.

Thanks for clarifying the federal law...like I said, that may be the case, but I didn't know.

And again, we agree. There are redundancies. Actually, there are likely to be lots of redundancies, but there may still be some gaps. But you missed the second half of my paragraph, which I've now highlighted for you. There may still be benefits to CHL that LEO status does not fully enjoy, and that's where the gaps matter.

So...as long as there are ANY parts of the CHL class that are not FULLY encompassed within the the ENTIRE scope of knowledge imparted to a person when they attend the academy, then there may be something missing (as small as it may be); and that little small something that's missing (whatever it is) should also be learned in order to obtain that little piece of plastic. Sure, the badge grants lots of privileges, as it should (I wore one for four years myself, many years ago), but the plastic does as well. And if a person chooses to say they have a Texas CHL, and if they want to enjoy everything that a CHL offers as well, then take the class.

(Or, of course, we could push to get the full CHL curriculum added to the academy curriculum, finally making the CHL course 100% redundant, which would make your position fully correct, and mine completely invalid).

Gosh, it reminds me of many years ago: I was a Red Cross certified Lifeguard, but that wasn't enough to work at the Boy Scout camp as a lifeguard and swimming instructor. In order to do that, I had to have the BSA Lifeguard certification. Red Cross wasn't good enough (even though it was the gold standard). The requirements were almost 100% identical, but the BSA Lifeguard certification also required me to actually be a Boy Scout, and profess the Scout Oath, plus all that other stuff that went with it. I had been a Scout for years already, so I qualified. But I would not have gotten that second (BSA Lifeguard) cert unless I had met all the requirements, no matter how fully trained I already was by the Red Cross folks.

Kinda similar...just one more thing that a person had to do to get that second piece of plastic and the bennies that went along with it.

[VMI77]

The CHL does grant some things that LEO status does not. For instance, it grants us some reciprocity in other states. I do not know conclusively that LEO status does that...although it may be the case. It grants us a simpler process when purchasing a gun from a dealer. LEOs still have to go through the background checks.

By Federal Law, LEO's can carry concealed anywhere in the US. The law was passed when Dubya was president.

Which, to me, makes the CHL class for LEOs even more redundant. Personally, I think cops should always be armed. I'm not saying it should be required, but it should at least be encouraged.

Thanks for clarifying the federal law...like I said, that may be the case, but I didn't know.

And again, we agree. There are redundancies. Actually, there are likely to be lots of redundancies, but there may still be some gaps. But you missed the second half of my paragraph, which I've now highlighted for you. There may still be benefits to CHL that LEO status does not fully enjoy, and that's where the gaps matter.

So...as long as there are ANY parts of the CHL class that are not FULLY encompassed within the the ENTIRE scope of knowledge imparted to a person when they attend the academy, then there may be something missing (as small as it may be); and that little small something that's missing (whatever it is) should also be learned in order to obtain that little piece of plastic. Sure, the badge grants lots of privileges, as it should (I wore one for four years myself, many years ago), but the plastic does as well. And if a person chooses to say they have a Texas CHL, and if they want to enjoy everything that a CHL offers as well, then take the class.

(Or, of course, we could push to get the full CHL curriculum added to the academy curriculum, finally making the CHL course 100% redundant, which would make your position fully correct, and mine completely invalid).

Gosh, it reminds me of many years ago: I was a Red Cross certified Lifeguard, but that wasn't enough to work at the Boy Scout camp as a lifeguard and swimming instructor. In order to do that, I had to have the BSA Lifeguard certification. Red Cross wasn't good enough (even though it was the gold standard). The requirements were almost 100% identical, but the BSA Lifeguard certification also required me to actually be a Boy Scout, and profess the Scout Oath, plus all that other stuff that went with it. I had been a Scout for years already, so I qualified. But I would not have gotten that second (BSA Lifeguard) cert unless I had met all the requirements, no matter how fully trained I already was by the Red Cross folks.

Kinda similar...just one more thing that a person had to do to get that second piece of plastic and the bennies that went along with it.

The benefit of buying guns without the call in is definitely a big one if you buy a lot of guns and I think a lot of cops get a CHL for that purpose. An even bigger benefit when you buy from a local dealer instead of a big box store because you're in and out in 5 minutes.

[mojo84]

They can also carry on their chl if they have their badges pulled for an internal affairs investigation etc.

[Dori]

I don't see anything wrong with requiring everybody take the same class to get the same license. I think it would be better if everybody got the chance to "test out" of the class, but that should be open to doctors, lawyers and police chiefs equally.

[gigag04]

Not sure where it got confusing....all of the info in the CHL class is covered in the academy. Plus a bunch of other stuff.

[Vol Texan]

Not sure where it got confusing....all of the info in the CHL class is covered in the academy. Plus a bunch of other stuff.

If that's true, then why does another member who just got through the academy say the following: "We talked about TPC 30.06 for less than 10mins. Now I know why a local officer thought a gun busters sign was good enough reason to arrest a CHL holder for criminal trespass."?

[gigag04]

I feel like that is plenty....

I think the law can be explained in 3 minutes.

[nightmare69]

Not sure where it got confusing....all of the info in the CHL class is covered in the academy. Plus a bunch of other stuff.

If that's true, then why does another member who just got through the academy say the following: "We talked about TPC 30.06 for less than 10mins. Now I know why a local officer thought a gun busters sign was good enough reason to arrest a CHL holder for criminal trespass."?

My ears are burning.

If an officer is unsure on a law they will call a supervisor or look up the law themselves. Every officer should have to penal code in their car.

[Vol Texan]

All friendly banter that we've had here aside...

I think it would be great if all academies in Texas provided the actual CHL training to their students as part of the academy. I could imagine being a fly on the wall and hearing the academy instructors say on day xxx in the academy...

"Congratulations, gents and ladies. As of today (even though you're not a full academy graduate), you've earned your Texas CHL. Sure, you'll likely not need it once you've graduated from the course, since you'll likely get a job as a LEO. But you've earned it nonetheless, and there are some benefits to this as well. You'll get your card in a couple of weeks."

This would satisfy so many of our expressed wants and needs:

• Every new LEO would earn their CHL by taking the full CHL course.
• Every new LEO would know at least the basic things we've been taught (from a civilian CHL perspective), so they might have a better appreciation for what's going through our (civilian CHL) minds when they stop us.
• Our numbers would grow rapidly, even more so than they've grown since the campaigner-in-chief took office.

[TeXD9]

So bottom line, if a LEO wants a CHL but doesn't want to take the course should we just fill out a CHL-100 for them and charge a nominal fee for administrative purposes?

[Keith B]

So bottom line, if a LEO wants a CHL but doesn't want to take the course should we just fill out a CHL-100 for them and charge a nominal fee for administrative purposes?

They don't need a CHL-100. Here are their requirements if they want to bypass the class:

Sec. 411.1991. PEACE OFFICERS. (a) A person who is licensed as a peace officer under Chapter 1701, Occupations Code, and is employed as a peace officer by a law enforcement agency, or a member of the Texas military forces, excluding Texas State Guard members who are serving in the Texas Legislature may apply for a license under this subchapter. The person shall submit to the department two complete sets of legible and classifiable fingerprints and a sworn statement of the head of the law enforcement agency employing the applicant. A head of a law enforcement agency may not refuse to issue a statement under this subsection. If the applicant alleges that the statement is untrue, the department shall investigate the validity of the statement. The statement must include:
(1) the name and rank of the applicant;
(2) whether the applicant has been accused of misconduct at any time during the applicant's period of employment with the agency and the disposition of that accusation;
(3) a description of the physical and mental condition of the applicant;
(4) a list of the types of weapons the applicant has demonstrated proficiency with during the preceding year; and
(5) a recommendation from the agency head that a license be issued to the person under this subchapter.
(b) The department may issue a license under this subchapter to an applicant under this section if the statement from the head of the law enforcement agency employing the applicant complies with Subsection (a) and indicates that the applicant is qualified and physically and mentally fit to carry a handgun.
(c) An applicant under this section shall pay a fee of $25 for a license issued under this subchapter.
(d) A license issued under this section expires as provided by Section 411.183.

Added by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 62, Sec. 9.15(a), eff. Sept. 1, 1999.
Amended by:
Acts 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., Ch. 1146 (H.B. 2730), Sec. 11.17, eff. September 1, 2009.
Acts 2013, 83rd Leg., R.S., Ch. 251 (H.B. 485), Sec. 3, eff. September 1, 2013.
Acts 2013, 83rd Leg., R.S., Ch. 251 (H.B. 485), Sec. 4, eff. September 1, 2013.

[Unicorn Rancher]

So bottom line, if a LEO wants a CHL but doesn't want to take the course should we just fill out a CHL-100 for them and charge a nominal fee for administrative purposes?

If you're going to sell a certificate to someone who didn't take the class, you should charge a lot more than a nominal fee.

[n5wd]

So bottom line, if a LEO wants a CHL but doesn't want to take the course should we just fill out a CHL-100 for them and charge a nominal fee for administrative purposes?

They don't need a CHL-100. Here are their requirements if they want to bypass the class:

Sec. 411.1991. PEACE OFFICERS. (a) A person who is licensed as a peace officer under Chapter 1701, Occupations Code, and is employed as a peace officer by a law enforcement agency, or a member of the Texas military forces, excluding Texas State Guard members who are serving in the Texas Legislature may apply for a license under this subchapter. The person shall submit to the department two complete sets of legible and classifiable fingerprints and a sworn statement of the head of the law enforcement agency employing the applicant. A head of a law enforcement agency may not refuse to issue a statement under this subsection. If the applicant alleges that the statement is untrue, the department shall investigate the validity of the statement. The statement must include:
(1) the name and rank of the applicant;
(2) whether the applicant has been accused of misconduct at any time during the applicant's period of employment with the agency and the disposition of that accusation;
(3) a description of the physical and mental condition of the applicant;
(4) a list of the types of weapons the applicant has demonstrated proficiency with during the preceding year; and
(5) a recommendation from the agency head that a license be issued to the person under this subchapter.
(b) The department may issue a license under this subchapter to an applicant under this section if the statement from the head of the law enforcement agency employing the applicant complies with Subsection (a) and indicates that the applicant is qualified and physically and mentally fit to carry a handgun.
(c) An applicant under this section shall pay a fee of $25 for a license issued under this subchapter.
(d) A license issued under this section expires as provided by Section 411.183.

Added by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 62, Sec. 9.15(a), eff. Sept. 1, 1999.
Amended by:
Acts 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., Ch. 1146 (H.B. 2730), Sec. 11.17, eff. September 1, 2009.
Acts 2013, 83rd Leg., R.S., Ch. 251 (H.B. 485), Sec. 3, eff. September 1, 2013.
Acts 2013, 83rd Leg., R.S., Ch. 251 (H.B. 485), Sec. 4, eff. September 1, 2013.

Keith... Sorry for re-quoting your post in its entirety, but need to in order to ask the following: No where in there requires a peace officer to involve a CHL instructor in the process. From what I read, a peace officer applying under 41.1991 would apply directly to DPS, correct?

So back to the OP: If a peace officer (or someone otherwise eligible under 41.1991 to bypass the course) wants to take a CHL class from me, he/she can, and it would be processed like any other applicant, correct?