HB-47 Maximum of 4 Hours?

[Wodathunkit]

I know several people who obtained a CHL for the sole purpose of forgoing background checks. These folks don't carry, or ever intend to. I think the state should offer a BGC service so these people (who don't really want a CHL) are not wasting spots in classes for those that want them.

[KC5AV]

10 hours is definitely too long. People just can't easily absorb that much information in one sitting. It makes for a grueling class for everyone including the poor instructor who has to talk that long or do tag team teaching. But, there are an amazing number of students who come to class having zero knowledge of the laws or how to shoot a gun. It's those students you hope you can interest in staying after class for a while if we go with the 4 hours (which will include the range qual).

Just a clarification... I don't believe the range portion is included in the 4 hours.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Like all instructors I too have to teach a 10 hr. class for new students and a 4 hr. class for renewal students. At the end of the renewal class, those students get the same test as do new students. So for 15 years we've been teaching the required material in four hours and this includes the range time. Whenever I hear an instructor claim it can't be done, I wonder how their renewal students pass the test since the code will not let a renewal class exceed 6 hours. So yes, everyone teaching for 10 hours has from 4 to 6 hours of filler.

As for the claim that HB47 was designed to let instructors teach 2 classes a day, well whoever said it doesn't have a clue how much investigation went into the bill before it was ever suggested. We got input from very good instructors from all over the State. I suspect someone picked up on my comment responding to instructors who are more concerned about keeping up their revenue stream than improving gun laws for Texans. My comment merely pointed out that they could run two classes a day if that was their concern.

When SB60 passed in 1995, the 10hr and 4hr times were pulled right out of the air. They weren't remotely based upon an estimate of how long it would take to teach the material. If the bill had required 40 hours of training, then we'd be teaching 40 hr. classes and some instructors would be screaming that it couldn't be done in a mere 10 hours.

Of course, you can't teach your hr. 10 class in 4 to 6 hrs. but that's not the goal. The goal is to cover the statutorily-required material. Again, we've been doing it in 4 hrs. for renewal students for 15 years.

BTW, a committee substitute will be filed allowing the course to be between 4 to 6 hours. As someone already noted, this does not include the range time, so even teaching a 4 hr. class under the new proposal will result in more classroom time than under the current law.

Chas.

[TexasGal]

Thanks for clarifying that, Mr Cotten, I was told by someone it included the range time, so that sounds much better. I am certainly not disputing the opinions of Instructors who have been doing this for years, I was just reporting what some experienced people I talked to reacted like to the idea. If the material is easily and thoroughly covered in 4 hours to amount to an equal effectiveness of learning by the class, then I see no reason not to do it that way. Will the DPS drop the dispute resolution requirement in it's current form? That part seems like it could be taught in a better way.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Thanks for clarifying that, Mr Cotten, I was told by someone it included the range time, so that sounds much better. I am certainly not disputing the opinions of Instructors who have been doing this for years, I was just reporting what some experienced people I talked to reacted like to the idea. If the material is easily and thoroughly covered in 4 hours to amount to an equal effectiveness of learning by the class, then I see no reason not to do it that way. Will the DPS drop the dispute resolution requirement in it's current form? That part seems like it could be taught in a better way.

DPS can't drop dispute resolution because it statutorily-required. It should be dropped, even though it is my second favorite topic to teach. I doubt we'd have the votes to remove it because it sounds so appealing.

Chas.

[Crossfire]

DPS can't drop dispute resolution because it statutorily-required. It should be dropped, even though it is my second favorite topic to teach. I doubt we'd have the votes to remove it because it sounds so appealing.

Chas.

Charles - if that is your 2nd favorite topic, (and I know what your most favorite is ) then I am definitely NOT doing this right. Perhaps you could help me out with this!

[KC5AV]

DPS can't drop dispute resolution because it statutorily-required. It should be dropped, even though it is my second favorite topic to teach. I doubt we'd have the votes to remove it because it sounds so appealing.

Chas.

Charles - if that is your 2nd favorite topic, (and I know what your most favorite is ) then I am definitely NOT doing this right. Perhaps you could help me out with this!

AGREED