CHL Instructors class

[wgoforth]

Not for nothing Mr. wgofoart, but reading your response to Mr. punkin made me remember something my grandma use to say when we were all kids. She use to say, "if you pick your nose long enough, your bound to get something". I will bet that class is one they won't soon forget.

I don't know you other than the many posts you have made in the past of your extreme concern about carrying past signs that don't apply to you. To be honest, I have wondered at times if you don't feel almost guilty when carrying. Like maybe there is a little voice in the back of your head telling you your doing wrong. Sometimes we hear what we want to hear if we are not careful.

I just have one question for you. Why on earth were you digging so hard to get them to tell you what you already know to be wrong? I am still interested to read about the outcome of all this but have to say, I am beginning to wonder if you didn't misunderstand what they were trying to teach you. Just the same, it is their job to make sure you get it right or they should fail you so I am giving you the benefit of the doubt.

I think your a good person and I don't for one second question your honesty or integrity so please don't take my post as a judgement against you. Obviously, something isn't working if a CHL instructer is sent out thinking the instructers are teaching what you feel they were teaching.

Hmmm... No, I am a stickler for law. I want to be right and want others to be also. As to why was I trying to get them to tell me.... (1) I understood them to say all signs give effective notice. (2) I thought either I am misunderstanding them, or by voicing my thoughts in class, they might modify or get others to see another side.

How ELSE am I to understand the specific question and answer "But sir....there are still many buildings with the old Vernon code. If all signs should be obeyed, how can you violate a non-existant law?" Answer "Because you were served effective notice."

[wgoforth]

Gentlemen...let me suggest something. I am not one to disregard when someone brings something to my attention. Could I be mistaken? Not impossible. Had I ~thought~ I had been, obviously I would not have posted these things. Since the question has been raised, and I do not wish to falsely accuse the program, let me write to the Officer who was in charge of the program for clarification. Until then, perhaps lets ride this thing out until I double check. Again, had I thought I misunderstood I would have done so first, but now that the question has been asked if it were possible...and it is a fair question, then let me find out!

[03Lightningrocks]

Hmmm... No, I am a stickler for law. I want to be right and want others to be also. As to why was I trying to get them to tell me.... (1) I understood them to say all signs give effective notice. (2) I thought either I am misunderstanding them, or by voicing my thoughts in class, they might modify or get others to see another side.

How ELSE am I to understand the specific question and answer "But sir....there are still many buildings with the old Vernon code. If all signs should be obeyed, how can you violate a non-existant law?" Answer "Because you were served effective notice."

Fair enough! I appreciate the fact that you're willing to bring this issue out and also appreciate you're chasing it down. If they are givng instructors bad information like they gave you on a regular basis, it will do exactly what you said it will do. I will go back to lurking the thread until you get a chance to investigate it further.

[srothstein]

Unless it was while I was in the bathroom, immunity for the instructor was not covered.

Just curious, but I was unaware of any immunity for an instructor. Could someone explain to me where this immunity is.

My understanding of an instructor's liability is that he made be held liable for someone who performs an incorrect act based on poor teaching. For example, as applied to CHL instructor's, if a student uses force when he is not authorized to and claims it was how he was taught, the instructor may be held liable. I know this happens in the police world under the theory of respondeat superior but I honestly do not know if it applies to a private training scenario like a CHL instructor.

I really am curious about where or how the instructor would be immune from teaching poorly and the student making a bad decision based on the instruction.

[wgoforth]

Unless it was while I was in the bathroom, immunity for the instructor was not covered.

Just curious, but I was unaware of any immunity for an instructor. Could someone explain to me where this immunity is.

My understanding of an instructor's liability is that he made be held liable for someone who performs an incorrect act based on poor teaching. For example, as applied to CHL instructor's, if a student uses force when he is not authorized to and claims it was how he was taught, the instructor may be held liable. I know this happens in the police world under the theory of respondeat superior but I honestly do not know if it applies to a private training scenario like a CHL instructor.

I really am curious about where or how the instructor would be immune from teaching poorly and the student making a bad decision based on the instruction.

GC §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.

(c) The department is not responsible for any injury or damage inflicted on any person by an applicant or license holder arising or

alleged to have arisen from an action taken by the department under this subchapter.

(d) The immunities granted under Subsections (a), (b), and (c) do not apply to an act or a failure to act by the state, an agency or subdivision

of the state, an officer of the state, or a peace officer if the act or failure to act was capricious or arbitrary.

(e) The immunities granted under Subsection (a) to a qualified handgun instructor do not apply to a cause of action for fraud or a deceptive trade practice.

[srothstein]

Thanks. That certainly does give immunity to an instructor for a mistake in teaching.

[Shinesintx]

Gentlemen...let me suggest something. I am not one to disregard when someone brings something to my attention. Could I be mistaken? Not impossible. Had I ~thought~ I had been, obviously I would not have posted these things. Since the question has been raised, and I do not wish to falsely accuse the program, let me write to the Officer who was in charge of the program for clarification. Until then, perhaps lets ride this thing out until I double check. Again, had I thought I misunderstood I would have done so first, but now that the question has been asked if it were possible...and it is a fair question, then let me find out!

Ya wanna know what infuriates the ever livin snot outa me...that you did not receive a manual in black and white that spells it out for all of us. Why in the heck is the DPS passing down info to instructors to teach in oral and not written form?

1) Shouldnt the DPS have a list of FAQ's?
2) For something as serious as CC, shouldn't they (DPS/State of Texas) have a website?
3) Do they fail to disseminate this info for a reason?

I could go on, but I think yall get my point.

[03Lightningrocks]

Gentlemen...let me suggest something. I am not one to disregard when someone brings something to my attention. Could I be mistaken? Not impossible. Had I ~thought~ I had been, obviously I would not have posted these things. Since the question has been raised, and I do not wish to falsely accuse the program, let me write to the Officer who was in charge of the program for clarification. Until then, perhaps lets ride this thing out until I double check. Again, had I thought I misunderstood I would have done so first, but now that the question has been asked if it were possible...and it is a fair question, then let me find out!

Ya wanna know what infuriates me, you do not receive a manual in black and white that spells it out for all of us. Why in the heck is the DPS passing down info to instructors to teach in oral and not written form?

1) Shouldnt the DPS have a list of FAQ's?
2) For something as serious as CC, shouldn't they (DPS/State of Texas) have a website?
3) Do they fail to disseminate this info for a reason?

I could go on, but I think yall get my point.

I don't think we are allowed to say "XXXXXXXXX" on this forum....LOL. I think we are suppose to type... "makes me mad". We shall see. If they delete my post and change your words to "makes me mad" we will have confirmation. I am with ya though... it makes me mad also.


Close 03 but that is enough to infuriate. Much worse than just making someone mad.
LT

[03Lightningrocks]

LOL... I would have to agree. Infuriates is more of a "power word".

[sjfcontrol]

Are they no longer handing out the "Concealed Handgun License Instructor Course Student Handout"? That included all the slides, and other information that was covered in class. About an inch thick and comb-bound when I took the course.

[A-R]

Just my $0.02 real quick. I took the course in July 2010 and was VERY impressed by the DPS troopers/instructors. I was very UNimpressed by the one woman who many have complained about (she taught the "legal" aspects), and her personal view of which signs gave "effective" notice.

I am curious to hear the "last word" on this and whether the OP may have misunderstood or if DPS is now teaching the one legal lady's opinion as fact regarding signage and other issues.

[MoJo]

Here's the section from the PC. Until it is changed HERE I don't care what the instructors or the DPS legal folks say it's just their opinion. Emphasis added.


PC §30.06. TRESPASS BY HOLDER OF LICENSE TO CARRY
CONCEALED HANDGUN. (a) A license holder commits an offense if the
license holder:
(1) carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter
411, Government Code, on property of another without effective consent;
and
(2) received notice that:
(A) entry on the property by a license holder with a concealed
handgun was forbidden; or
(B) remaining on the property with a concealed handgun was
forbidden and failed to depart.
(b) For purposes of this section, a person receives notice if the owner
of the property or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner
provides notice to the person by oral or written communication.
(c) In this section:
(1) “Entry” has the meaning assigned by Section 30.05(b).
(2) “License holder” has the meaning assigned by Section 46.035(f).
(3) “Written communication” means:
(A) a card or other document on which is written language
identical to the following: “Pursuant to Section 30.06, Penal Code
(trespass by holder of license to carry a concealed handgun), a person
licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code
(concealed handgun law), may not enter this property with a concealed
handgun”; or
(B) a sign posted on the property that:
(i) includes the language described by Paragraph (A) in both
English and Spanish;
(ii) appears in contrasting colors with block letters at least one
inch in height; and
(iii) is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the
public.
(d) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.
(e) It is an exception to the application of this section that the property
on which the license holder carries a handgun is owned or leased by a
governmental entity and is not a premises or other place on which the
license holder is prohibited from carrying the handgun under Section
46.03 or 46.035

[wgoforth]

The class does give you the handbook with copy of every slide. What the slide would say is "Business is to have a 30.06 sign like this:" followed by the wording. What it does NOT deal with in the book/slides is what I understood them to say you may or may not do if it does not meet requirements or is an otherwise non-valid sign or incorrectly posted 51%. THOSE are the issues that I understood them to say on several occasions, "you were served effective notice."

[wgoforth]

Here is the letter I sent to the instructor yesterday:

Dear XXX
First, I enjoyed your programs and appreciated the task before you. I am a full-time minister and speak before groups so I know what challenges you had.

There were some things said in class that I thought I understood, I then asked others and other officers after class to make sure...but now discussing them on the forum, many have told me I must have misundertsood so I am writing for clarification.

I ~understood~ the Capt to say that we should not carry past any no gun sign, that we were served effective notice. I asked about even the old Vernon Code is on some buildings, how can you violate a non-existant law? And I remember the answer being because I knew the intent, served effective notice. Too, in asking about a 7-11 that posted a 51%, the answer was don't go past it.

Is it the understanding of the DPS then what I understood... that although a business should post a valid 30.06, if they fail to do so that is their mistake, but we still knew their intent and should not carry past?

Did I also understand the lady from Regulatory Services to say that if we have a Ladies CHL class, and a man wants to attend, we cannot stop him or we will be violating federal law of a protected class (sex bias)? That we might tailor it for women, but cannot prevent a man?

That there is no minimum amount of alcohol for CHL carrier? That if you smell it on me while carrying there could be a problem?

Wanting to make sure, as these are different from both my understanding of the TPC as well as most on the forum. Wanting to make sure I didn't misunderstand the position of the DPS, and others are assuring me I must have!

Thanks again,
Wayne

[03Lightningrocks]

Just my $0.02 real quick. I took the course in July 2010 and was VERY impressed by the DPS troopers/instructors. I was very UNimpressed by the one woman who many have complained about (she taught the "legal" aspects), and her personal view of which signs gave "effective" notice.

I am curious to hear the "last word" on this and whether the OP may have misunderstood or if DPS is now teaching the one legal lady's opinion as fact regarding signage and other issues.

She may be the proverbial "Fox in the henhouse". It sure looks like the woman has an anti concealed carry agenda she is working.