TexasCHLforum.com

https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/Hi ... Bill=HB497

I wonder what problem this law is attempting to solve?

No clue. I haven't heard anything about crazy ammo being used in any news stories. I looked and the author is a Republican from District 1 (Northeast Texas). So it seems unlikely that this is an anti-gun push. I agree that without more information this seems like a solution in search of a problem.

The way I read the bill, it adds certain topics for LTC TRAINING that have to do with retention holsters and types of ammo.
It does not apply to what types of ammunition can be used for concealed carry.
Since 22LR can now be used for the proficiency testing maybe they want to make sure that students don't think that
it is suitable for self defense?

Probably confusion due to this:

DocV wrote: ↑Mon Dec 10, 2018 9:29 pm Probably confusion due to this:

Instead of pew pew, you have mew mew?

We have to pass the bill so you can read it....

sailor2000 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 10, 2018 10:49 pm We have to pass the bill so you can read it....

Well, that's not quite true. The bill verbiage is posted for all to see:
https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/86R/b ... navpanes=0

It seems all they want to do is add information about different types of ammunition and their uses to the course curriculum. I already discuss this somewhat in my course, so it won't be a big challenge to add it in.
Bill text is below for those who don't want to click the link above. Note the ONLY things added are the areas colored in red. It doesn't seem too bad to me.




A BILL TO BE ENTITLED AN ACT

relating to the classroom instruction part of the handgun proficiency course taken to obtain a license to carry a handgun.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:

SECTION 1. Section 411.188(b), Government Code, is amended to read as follows:
(b) Only qualified handgun instructors may administer the range instruction part of the handgun proficiency course. A qualified handgun instructor or approved online course provider may administer the classroom instruction part of the handgun proficiency course. The classroom instruction part of the course must include not less than four hours and not more than six hours of instruction on:
(1) the laws that relate to weapons and to the use of deadly force;
(2) handgun use and safety, including:
(A) types and uses of ammunition; and
(B) use of restraint holsters and methods to ensure the secure carrying of openly carried handguns;
(3) nonviolent dispute resolution; and
(4) proper storage practices for handguns with an emphasis on storage practices that eliminate the possibility of accidental injury to a child.

SECTION 2. Section 411.190(b), Government Code, is amended to read as follows:
(b) In addition to the qualifications described by Subsection (a) or (a-1), as appropriate, a qualified handgun instructor or approved online course provider must be qualified to instruct persons in:
(1) the laws that relate to weapons and to the use of deadly force;
(2) handgun use, proficiency, and safety, including:
(A) types and uses of ammunition; and
(B) use of restraint holsters and methods to ensure the secure carrying of openly carried handguns;
(3) nonviolent dispute resolution; and
(4) proper storage practices for handguns, including storage practices that eliminate the possibility of accidental injury to a child.

SECTION 3. The change in law made by this Act applies only to an application to obtain a license to carry a handgun submitted on or after the effective date of this Act. An application submitted before the effective date of this Act is governed by the law in effect on the date the application was submitted, and the former law is continued in effect for that purpose.

SECTION 4. This Act takes effect September 1, 2019.

It is the lack of specificity that bothers me... is this an education requirement and if so what is the text of said education or is it a limitation of what can be used to qualify? Thank you

After the School Marshal fiasco, they probably want LTC Instructors extolling the virtues of frangible ammo above and beyond any other types.

But really, telling people to carry hollow points over FMJ for self defense would be a good thing.

Agree with Vol Texan. I already discuss types of ammo and the pros and cons of various rounds for self defense. I also stress that students should fire enough of whatever ammo they will carry to ensure proper functioning in their carry firearm. I include this in the section on handgun use and safety.

AJSully421 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 11, 2018 1:04 am After the School Marshal fiasco, they probably want LTC Instructors extolling the virtues of frangible ammo above and beyond any other types.

But really, telling people to carry hollow points over FMJ for self defense would be a good thing.

Maybe just explaining the differences and issues of different types of ammo, covering things like penetration, expansion recoil feed issues costs etc.
While the bill might be a good idea. It could never be fully covered in the amount of time that they have. School(classes) an only do so much, what they can do is provide us with just enough information to lean on our own.

I think that every class should be required to provide a link to this forum.

I think there's much, much more benefit to a new licensee, current licensees, and society as a whole by passing legislation to repeal 46.035 and also exempting LTC from 46.03 same as cops on vacation. If they do that and have lots of time left in the legislative session, I suppose there's not much harm in adding a discussion of ammunition to the LTC curriculum. But the legislature should definitely not spend a minute on anything like this until the repeal of 46.035 and the LTC 46.03 exemption are on their way to the governor.

I think it's important to note that the existing law does not require any certain type of holster, and we here on the boards have pondered ad nauseum as to whether this holster or that fits the wording of "belt or shoulder holster." Forcing LTC instructors to cover holster types when no specific definitions are given in law for the same seems like a problem to me.

imkopaka wrote: ↑Tue Dec 11, 2018 12:27 pm I think it's important to note that the existing law does not require any certain type of holster, and we here on the boards have pondered ad nauseum as to whether this holster or that fits the wording of "belt or shoulder holster." Forcing LTC instructors to cover holster types when no specific definitions are given in law for the same seems like a problem to me.

This has to do with open carry to educate people about restraint holsters.