TexasCHLforum.com

wgoforth wrote:

OldRingo said: C'mon 03, not "any old goof ball" can teach CHL classes. It takes money to get an Instructors license just as that medium is also required to obtain a CH license. Understanding the various signs and notifications must be optional?

BTW, has anyone mentioned that "concealed is concealed" over the duration of this thread?

Yes, it has been said by most of us...but are you noticing that this is NOT the CHL instructor saying this, but rather the DPS INSTRUCTORS CERTIFICATION school teaching this TO instructors? Thus the concern is NOT the keeping of it concealed, but that the DPS is TELLING instructors to teach that all gun signs are binding. Thus this isn't about the practice of carrying, but of TEACHING...and if the DPS teaches this today, instructors leave believing it, teach it to their classes...it becomes law without a shot fired.

Okay, I have nothing to add. It is up to the Instructor applicants to correct this state driven misinformation.

wgoforth wrote:In fact, the Captain went as far as to say that if a sign is non-compliant, call it in to the DPS...

Reading through the thread again I found this. I can think of nothing dumber than reporting a gun buster sign as non-compliant to the DPS. Perfect... we should all give the anti-gun Captain a list of businesses that can be written to and given proper instruction on how to further restrict our RKBA!!! Obviously, someone of anti-gun sentiment has been put in charge of that section of the DPS. This is evidence that a fox has slipped into our hen house.

Slightly off topic, but it goes to some instructors. They're human, and like me, just don't absorb or remember it all:

A good friend of mine, and a business partner, is an instructor.

The other day we're driving to lunch, and I asked him what his carry choice was today. As we drove, I was sharing that I liked a certain pistol for OWB carry under a jacket for church. He turns to me and says "Chuck, you can't carry in church". We talked, he was adamant. I told him that we'd bet lunch, and I'd Google it on my smart phone and show him when we stopped in the parking lot.

I had steak for lunch.

Peace.

chuckybrown wrote:Slightly off topic, but it goes to some instructors. They're human, and like me, just don't absorb or remember it all:

A good friend of mine, and a business partner, is an instructor.

The other day we're driving to lunch, and I asked him what his carry choice was today. As we drove, I was sharing that I liked a certain pistol for OWB carry under a jacket for church. He turns to me and says "Chuck, you can't carry in church". We talked, he was adamant. I told him that we'd bet lunch, and I'd Google it on my smart phone and show him when we stopped in the parking lot.

I had steak for lunch.

Peace.

Yup, church carry gets misunderstood a lot. A local instructor in Brownwood taught until recently you can't carry in church and got corrected. They get hung up on the fact that the penal code DOES say that...then miss the last paragraph that was added by later legislature, saying it applies ONLY if the church had a 30.06.

wgoforth wrote:

chuckybrown wrote:Slightly off topic, but it goes to some instructors. They're human, and like me, just don't absorb or remember it all:

A good friend of mine, and a business partner, is an instructor.

The other day we're driving to lunch, and I asked him what his carry choice was today. As we drove, I was sharing that I liked a certain pistol for OWB carry under a jacket for church. He turns to me and says "Chuck, you can't carry in church". We talked, he was adamant. I told him that we'd bet lunch, and I'd Google it on my smart phone and show him when we stopped in the parking lot.

I had steak for lunch.

Peace.

Yup, church carry gets misunderstood a lot. A local instructor in Brownwood taught until recently you can't carry in church and got corrected. They get hung up on the fact that the penal code DOES say that...then miss the last paragraph that was added by later legislature, saying it applies ONLY if the church had a 30.06.

A classic example of, "...a little learnin' can be a dangerous thing...".

Oldgringo wrote:

wgoforth wrote:

chuckybrown wrote:Slightly off topic, but it goes to some instructors. They're human, and like me, just don't absorb or remember it all:

A good friend of mine, and a business partner, is an instructor.

The other day we're driving to lunch, and I asked him what his carry choice was today. As we drove, I was sharing that I liked a certain pistol for OWB carry under a jacket for church. He turns to me and says "Chuck, you can't carry in church". We talked, he was adamant. I told him that we'd bet lunch, and I'd Google it on my smart phone and show him when we stopped in the parking lot.

I had steak for lunch.

Peace.

Yup, church carry gets misunderstood a lot. A local instructor in Brownwood taught until recently you can't carry in church and got corrected. They get hung up on the fact that the penal code DOES say that...then miss the last paragraph that was added by later legislature, saying it applies ONLY if the church had a 30.06.

A classic example of, "...a little learnin' can be a dangerous thing...".

Probably 1/4 of the preachers I know carry right into the pulpit. Self included.

wgoforth wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:

wgoforth wrote:

chuckybrown wrote:Slightly off topic, but it goes to some instructors. They're human, and like me, just don't absorb or remember it all:

A good friend of mine, and a business partner, is an instructor.

The other day we're driving to lunch, and I asked him what his carry choice was today. As we drove, I was sharing that I liked a certain pistol for OWB carry under a jacket for church. He turns to me and says "Chuck, you can't carry in church". We talked, he was adamant. I told him that we'd bet lunch, and I'd Google it on my smart phone and show him when we stopped in the parking lot.

I had steak for lunch.

Peace.

Yup, church carry gets misunderstood a lot. A local instructor in Brownwood taught until recently you can't carry in church and got corrected. They get hung up on the fact that the penal code DOES say that...then miss the last paragraph that was added by later legislature, saying it applies ONLY if the church had a 30.06.

A classic example of, "...a little learnin' can be a dangerous thing...".

Probably 1/4 of the preachers I know carry right into the pulpit. Self included.

The high ground is usually the easiest position to defend plus it often offers the commanding view of the field.

Oldgringo wrote:

wgoforth wrote:

OldRingo said: C'mon 03, not "any old goof ball" can teach CHL classes. It takes money to get an Instructors license just as that medium is also required to obtain a CH license. Understanding the various signs and notifications must be optional?

BTW, has anyone mentioned that "concealed is concealed" over the duration of this thread?

Yes, it has been said by most of us...but are you noticing that this is NOT the CHL instructor saying this, but rather the DPS INSTRUCTORS CERTIFICATION school teaching this TO instructors? Thus the concern is NOT the keeping of it concealed, but that the DPS is TELLING instructors to teach that all gun signs are binding. Thus this isn't about the practice of carrying, but of TEACHING...and if the DPS teaches this today, instructors leave believing it, teach it to their classes...it becomes law without a shot fired.

Okay, I have nothing to add. It is up to the Instructor applicants to correct this state driven misinformation.

Has anyone pointed this out to Charles? Maybe he has not noticed this in this thread. I would like to know what his thoughts are on this.

...he don't miss just a whole lot...

VoiceofReason wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:

wgoforth wrote:

OldRingo said: C'mon 03, not "any old goof ball" can teach CHL classes. It takes money to get an Instructors license just as that medium is also required to obtain a CH license. Understanding the various signs and notifications must be optional?

BTW, has anyone mentioned that "concealed is concealed" over the duration of this thread?

Yes, it has been said by most of us...but are you noticing that this is NOT the CHL instructor saying this, but rather the DPS INSTRUCTORS CERTIFICATION school teaching this TO instructors? Thus the concern is NOT the keeping of it concealed, but that the DPS is TELLING instructors to teach that all gun signs are binding. Thus this isn't about the practice of carrying, but of TEACHING...and if the DPS teaches this today, instructors leave believing it, teach it to their classes...it becomes law without a shot fired.

Okay, I have nothing to add. It is up to the Instructor applicants to correct this state driven misinformation.

Has anyone pointed this out to Charles? Maybe he has not noticed this in this thread. I would like to know what his thoughts are on this.

This discussion has now been given its own thread. It has been suggested that i may be mistaken and am always willing to consider that. So I have written the instructor for clarification. Once he responds, we can go from there. Until then, shall we let it ride? If I am mistaken, I'll owe some apologies and take my lumps like a big boy I promise.

Since this is not the original topic, and you have started a new thread, I will lock this one.

Please direct all future responses to: viewtopic.php?f=7&t=51394" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;