TexasCHLforum.com

So what is the Future of CHL?
Do we ask for more rights? do away with 30.06 signs? Open carry? Harder shooting tests? Do away with the whole Revolver vs Semi qualification thing? What do you want to see done.

marksiwel wrote:So what is the Future of CHL?
Do we ask for more rights? do away with 30.06 signs? Open carry? Harder shooting tests? Do away with the whole Revolver vs Semi qualification thing? What do you want to see done.

I want a CHL that looks like those FBI ID's you flash people in your billfold. Honestly, I would like to see a web-based class content coupled with showing up at a range for certification/photos/automated prints.

Want to see the parking lot exemption passed.

Employer parking lots and campus carry are carry-overs from last session, so they are priority items.

I favor following Governor Perry's lead and putting CHL's in the same "not applicable" subsection in TPC §46.15 as are LEO's, judges, prosecutors, railroad COPS, water district COPS, . . . This would allow us to carry everywhere they can carry.

I also favor additional changes in the eligibility requirements for CHL and the processing requirements for CHL applications, but I can't be specific on an open forum.

Lower fees would be nice, but that's not happening in this economy. Plus, the effective rate is far below the $140 for new licenses and $70 for renewals, due to the greatly expanded discounts for people age 60, veterans (no longer must be retired military, etc.).

There are other things that aren't on the "breaking news" level but that will have a positive impact on CHL's and those wanting to obtain a CHL.

We don't want to get rid of 30.06 signs! That Penal Code Section was passed to help CHL's faced with prosecution under TPC §30.05. Open-carry is not a CHL issue, but a stand-alone issue.

Chas.

Purplehood wrote:Honestly, I would like to see a web-based class content coupled with showing up at a range for certification/photos/automated prints.

I have mixed emotions about online classes and tests. As Exec. Director of TSRA and as an NRA Board Member, I'm all for anything that makes it easier and cheaper to obtain a CHL. For these reasons, I will support any bill that tends to achieve this goal, including online classes and tests.

However, as a CHL instructor, NRA instructor, general firearms instructor and seminar speaker, I am convinced that a canned online class is inferior to a live class given by a good instructor. Any experienced teacher will tell you that audience input in the form of questions, anecdotes, etc. can be a very valuable part of the overall learning experience. You don't get that with a online video. Another issue for me personally is the subject matter of the class. I can cover the required material in far less than 10 hrs, including not more than 15 minutes on the use of force/deadly force. However, my 10 classes include 3 hrs on the use of force/deadly force, because in my view, that is the most important subject students need to learn. An online video would not cover this critical subject in the depth I cover it. Granted, most other instructors don't either and I'm sure each of us has an opinion on what is the most important part of the class.

If the goal is to go through the motions and get it done as quickly as possible, like a defensive driving online course, then an online course with a test is the most expedient way to accomplish this goal. If the goal is quality education on the statutorily-mandated subject matter, then a live course is superior. As an attorney, I can and do get most if not all of my annually required continuing education hours using State Bar approved online courses, simply because it convenient with my busy schedule. However, none of those online courses come close to the quality of a live CLE seminar.

Again, I have mixed emotions, but my personal opinions don't matter when I wearing my TSRA or NRA hats.

Chas.

I would love the parking lot and campus carry bills to become law.

If we are in the "not applicable" subsection in TPC §46.15 are we still subject to the 30.06 signs? I'm thinking we would be since you, Charles, said later that we don't want to get rid of them. I'm okay with that.

I can't find my DD-214, so I don't know how to go about getting my veteran discount.

I think the subject matter is too important to do online courses. I'm with Charles, the instructor, on this part. However, this forum probably comes pretty close, and might even surpass the classroom when it comes to that interaction. While not face to face it does allow for interaction with instructors, LEOs, and others with a great amount of experience.

C-dub wrote:I can't find my DD-214, so I don't know how to go about getting my veteran discount.

We can't let that happen! Here you go: http://www.archives.gov/veterans/milita ... cords.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

BTW, yes 30.06 signs would still apply to CHL's.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Purplehood wrote:Honestly, I would like to see a web-based class content coupled with showing up at a range for certification/photos/automated prints.

I have mixed emotions about online classes and tests. As Exec. Director of TSRA and as an NRA Board Member, I'm all for anything that makes it easier and cheaper to obtain a CHL. For these reasons, I will support any bill that tends to achieve this goal, including online classes and tests.

However, as a CHL instructor, NRA instructor, general firearms instructor and seminar speaker, I am convinced that a canned online class is inferior to a live class given by a good instructor. Any experienced teacher will tell you that audience input in the form of questions, anecdotes, etc. can be a very valuable part of the overall learning experience. You don't get that with a online video. Another issue for me personally is the subject matter of the class. I can cover the required material in far less than 10 hrs, including not more than 15 minutes on the use of force/deadly force. However, my 10 classes include 3 hrs on the use of force/deadly force, because in my view, that is the most important subject students need to learn. An online video would not cover this critical subject in the depth I cover it. Granted, most other instructors don't either and I'm sure each of us has an opinion on what is the most important part of the class.

If the goal is to go through the motions and get it done as quickly as possible, like a defensive driving online course, then an online course with a test is the most expedient way to accomplish this goal. If the goal is quality education on the statutorily-mandated subject matter, then a live course is superior. As an attorney, I can and do get most if not all of my annually required continuing education hours using State Bar approved online courses, simply because it convenient with my busy schedule. However, none of those online courses come close to the quality of a live CLE seminar.

Again, I have mixed emotions, but my personal opinions don't matter when I wearing my TSRA or NRA hats.

Chas.

I'm fully in line with this. My wife, son and myself all took the CHL course from Charles, and the information he presented outside of the mandated curriculum was extremely thorough and relevant!

IMO, 30.06 signs are our Texas friends.

AFAIK, Texas is the only state that has a specific no CHL sign in usage. In other states, you pretty much have to assume that any "no guns" sign aplies to everybody - CHL and otherwise.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong about the other state's signs...or, anything else.

Purplehood wrote:

marksiwel wrote:So what is the Future of CHL?
Do we ask for more rights? do away with 30.06 signs? Open carry? Harder shooting tests? Do away with the whole Revolver vs Semi qualification thing? What do you want to see done.

I want a CHL that looks like those FBI ID's you flash people in your billfold. Honestly, I would like to see a web-based class content coupled with showing up at a range for certification/photos/automated prints.

They already have those, it's those CHL BADGES!

C-dub wrote:I think the subject matter is too important to do online courses. I'm with Charles, the instructor, on this part. However, this forum probably comes pretty close, and might even surpass the classroom when it comes to that interaction. While not face to face it does allow for interaction with instructors, LEOs, and others with a great amount of experience.

In all honesty, an online course would likely have been better than the class I took. When they give you the answers and read the class instruction straight from a book..... I realize this is the fault of the class and not of the CHL laws.

Oldgringo wrote:IMO, 30.06 signs are our Texas friends.

AFAIK, Texas is the only state that has a specific no CHL sign in usage. In other states, you pretty much have to assume that any "no guns" sign aplies to everybody - CHL and otherwise.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong about the other state's signs...or, anything else.

Some states are that way, but Missouri for one has a specific size (11 x 14) with 1" letters and must state 'concealed carry prohibited ' in the wording. I know there are other states that have similar requirements also, just not off the top of my head without checking out http://www.handgunlaw.us" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. The advantage we have is the specific wording, size and two languages which makes it undesirable for many locations that might just post otherwise.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

C-dub wrote:I can't find my DD-214, so I don't know how to go about getting my veteran discount.

We can't let that happen! Here you go: http://www.archives.gov/veterans/milita ... cords.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

BTW, yes 30.06 signs would still apply to CHL's.

Chas.

Thanks very much for this Charles. I completed everything, but when it printed it was quite small. I hope the faxed barcode will be readable.

C-dub wrote:I can't find my DD-214, so I don't know how to go about getting my veteran discount.

C-dub,

To get your DD-214 try here:

http://www.archives.gov/veterans/milita ... cords.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Jim