punkndisorderly wrote:I wasn't there, so I can't comment on what was said at the particular class. Please don't take this as calling the orignial poster a liar or dismissing his comments. It's very possible that what was taught in the class he took was different what was taught at the CHL instructor course I took several months ago. Most of those points were similar to things that were addressed in the class I attended, but are missing details or exceptions that were not included in his post. Some of them, if the instruction was the same as that given during my class, appear to be taken out of context.
Again, maybe the material has change. Maybe there was some sort of "interference" and there was some sort of breakdown between what the instructors there were trying to convey and what the original poster heard and understood. I left with a very favorable impression of both the instructors and with what was taught during the class.
I won't go throug the entire list, but I will take a few and discuss my uderstanding of what was taught in my class.
As for the signage, for example, what was said in class was that, while a gun buster sign (or other sign outside the requirements of texas law) doesn't meet the criteria spelled out in 30.06(c)(3), it might be a good idea to obey any posted signage to avoid potential problems. They said that a DA could still try to press the case arguing substantial compliance. They also said that the ultimate result in such a case would be up to the judge and/or jury which would vary from one part of to another. Basically a "you will probably beath the rap, but you won't beat the ride" kind of arguement.
As for the no womens only classes example, what was said in my class was that you could conceivably be sued or lose your certification for discrimination if you refused people service because of their membership in a protected class. You can't deny service to women, or men. Much the same as you could get into hot water if you decided to do whites only classes or denied disabled people who are otherwise able to safely complete the course reasonable accomodations.
Last, the part about civil immunity. I'm about 99% sure that they discussed it in my class. What was said was that, while you are protected, you can still be sued. In short, yes they can sue you, and yes they will lose (unless they can argue you weren't justified under 9.32).
I probably don't have what was said 100% right, and what you read in my post is probably different from what I'm meaning to say, it seems like most of the examples just seem like the orignial poster only got part of what I got in my class. Whether it was change in material, differences in interpretation, or what, I don't know.
the 30.06, since that was of most concern and was hashed in detail. They clearly said that while the business SHOULD have the 30.06, if they do not..that's their fault. BUT you know the intent. I raised my hand and asked "Then what about old building with the Vernon statutes? How can you violate a law that doesn't exist?" They said "You have been served effective notice." After class, I went to another instructor in the room, and asked "But what of the Gun Buster? I don't know what they mean by that? They may mean no UNLICENSED firearm?" He said again, canned phrase "You know the intent, you were served effective notice." In Another class dealing with the 51%, I mentioned that I know a 7-11 that incorrectly posted a 51% sign, I am assuming that since it was by mistake we are allowed to carry? The resposne was "No, they just selected the wrong sign, but you should observe it."
Unless it was while I was in the bathroom, immunity for the instructor was not covered. There were several times he said something and then said "I covered this in class didn't I?" And with us saying "no" he said "Well I meant to." So perhaps he intended to, but forgot. Considering how they stressed we might want to get insurance or incorporate because we can get sured for what we taught, it really didn't sound like they were aware of it.
On the immunity of the homeonwer in a justifiable shooting, when I showed them the immunity provision for the homeowner, his response was a clear "I have never seen that before it must be new."
On the women's class, I believe we are saying the same.... sex is a protected class, and federal law would prevent you from barring a man from a women's only class. You can tailor it for women, but cannot tell a man no. That was what I was saying too.
When I thought perhaps I misunderstood, I did ask for clarification in class (in fact, I may have been the most vocal person in class and then would follow it up with a discussion with an instructor afterwards.
Is it possible I misunderstood ~all~ of this? I guess so. But if so I sure need to quit preaching if I can't decipher man's instructions, I sure wouldn't be able to decipher God's.
). But seriously, it is not a good thing that CHL instructers may be coming out of class teaching and spreading mis-information!
