Civil immunity issues at CHL renewal

[Greybeard]

Quote: "It could be that it's not required material to teach."

Not sure how it's been presented in the last few years, but some of us were in instructor renwal classes in '07 where a certain presenter refused to discuss any part of Senate Bill 378.

[The Annoyed Man]

When I took my class in December of 2007, one of the instructors briefly mentioned a prepaid legal service, but he didn't spend much time on it, and he DID spend a lot more time talking about defense to prosecution and civil immunity. It seemed to me like the prepaid plan was just mentioned as an option if one wanted to pursue it, but it wasn't specifically recommended. I appreciated the extra information even though I did not act on it; and I certainly didn't feel like they were belaboring the point.

[PappaGun]

I haven't been through renewal yet, so I am not sure of what all it entails.
I am sure the structure of the class varies widely and my guess is that this instructor did not give you all you needed for renewal until you sat through the pitch.
Sounds like a time share hostage situation!
I would have been really tempted to ask if I could have my paperwork and bail.
And if, as austinrealtor said, the pitch was part of the 4 hour class, you were robbed!
Give me a brochure and I'll look at it when I can.

[A-R]

And if, as austinrealtor said, the pitch was part of the 4 hour class, you were robbed!

IF (big huge if) the full 4 hours were not devoted to required subjects, then not only was he robbed, but so were the others students in class, and very likely a crime - or at least an administrative infraction - was committed. IANAL.

I've only been an instructor for a very short time. But the great DPS officers who taught the instructor course were ADAMANT that anything other than teaching the required material and the required number of hours was a big NO-NO. I don't have my notes in front of me, but I think at the least an instructor who fails to do so would lose his certification, and I think it can also rise to the level of a crime (tampering with government documents ... because the instructor is falsifying the renewal documents saying he taught the required info in required time) depending on severity and frequency.

Maybe one of the other instructors/legal eagles here can help me out with the particulars as I don't have my class notes in front of me.

If OP only recieved 3.5 hours of actual CHL instruction he REALLY needs to report this to DPS. One thing a definitely remember the DPS instructors emphasizing is how one bad apple can spoil the bunch.

[A-R]

When I took my class in December of 2007, one of the instructors briefly mentioned a prepaid legal service, but he didn't spend much time on it, and he DID spend a lot more time talking about defense to prosecution and civil immunity. It seemed to me like the prepaid plan was just mentioned as an option if one wanted to pursue it, but it wasn't specifically recommended. I appreciated the extra information even though I did not act on it; and I certainly didn't feel like they were belaboring the point.

THIS is how I think it should be done. Mention it, put the bug in the students' heads, and move on to more important topics. If students wants more info, they can find it or you can provide it to them after class, during breaks, etc.

[Abraham]

Other than a brief mention such "insurance type coverage" exists, with no commercial specifics provided, I'd be fine with it.

Otherwise, I'd be contacting DPS with the specifics of how an instructor is using his CHL class as a selling venture.

Now, maybe doing so is legal, I don't know, but it's NOT O.K. with me and I'd be certain to let the instructor know about my upcoming complaint to DPS were I subjected to such "captive audience mistreatment".

[Charles L. Cotton]

I agree with instructors not making a sales pitch in CHL classes since we have a captive audience and they don't have the option to leave. The only time prepaid legal or self-defense insurance is brought up in my classes is when someone asks, and even then I try to keep it to a minimum and offer to discuss it during a break.

I can say with confidence that students aren't missing out any required material if the instructor allows a short sales pitch. The course content for the initial class is not 10 hours of material, but the 10 hour requirement isn't the fault of DPS. It's in the statute and it should be reduced if not repealed. I think the subject matter of the course should be specified as it is now, then leave it up to the instructor to teach it in whatever time frame is required. Arbitrary minimum times are just that, arbitrary; they aren't based upon the material to be covered, class size, student make-up, etc. When SB60 passed in 1995, it had the 10 to 15 hour requirement for new licenses and 4 to 6 hours for renewals. The time was set before the course had even been designed by DPS! You can't get more arbitrary than that.

DPS does not establish lesson plans and that is an excellent approach. They just identify the subjects to be covered, give us material on those subjects, then give instructors the flexibility to create our own lesson plans. While this is not conducive to uniformity, it does result in some instructors creating very good classes, while others probably cover only the minimum. Remember, uniformity can result in uniformly bad classes. If it were not for flexibility, I would not be able to spend about 3 hrs on the use of force, a subject matter I feel is absolutely critical for students to learn.

During one instructor renewal class, I asked Star Riddle what DPS wanted us to do if/when we finish the class material in less than 10 hours. She said, "sit around and shoot the bull until the 10 hours is up. We prefer you talk about something relevant to the course subject matter, but if you've already covered it, talk about anything until time is up." Star clearly understood that some classes take longer because of the size of the class, the time spent on the range, questions asked by students, etc. So I recommend not complaining to DPS about extraneous subjects being discussed, unless you are not covering the core material DPS requires. I firmly believe we do not want DPS establishing a mandatory class lesson; we need to retain the flexibility for instructors to structure the classes to fit their style of teaching, so long as the core material is covered.

Renewals need to change. The statute requires/allows only the teaching of changes in the law, and that certainly doesn't take 4 hours. However, renewal students take the same test, so we have to cover the same material the 10 hr. folks get, but obviously in a greatly condensed format. Again, a short sales pitch doesn't deprive the students of anything.

In the 15 years since, SB60 passed, CHL's have garnered a great track record in terms of being law-abiding citizens. The system is working, so let's be careful about calling for change. The last time America voted for "change," well . . .

Chas.

[wally775]

I will not bother putting Mr. Cotton’s whole post in quotes.
It would just take up space for no real reason.

I will say I cannot disagree with one word and I support every word.
I especially agree with the complete last paragraph.

Thanks Charles.

[MasterOfNone]

The statute requires/allows only the teaching of changes in the law

The actual requirement from GC §411.188 is "(1) at least four hours of instruction on one or more of the subjects
listed in Subsection (b); and (2) other information the director determines is appropriate." (Subsection (b) lists the four subjects required for the initial license.) So an instructor can cover not only changes in the law, but also any material in those subjects. He can make it an "advanced" version of the initial class if so desired.

I suspect the minimum times (just like in defensive driving classes) are meant to avoid a Name That Tune type of marketing, in which instructors will market their classes based on how quickly they can get you in and out.

The instructor from the OP may have erred. Even if he provided four hours of the required subjects, requiring you to listen to his sales pitch seems inappropriate. But that's a gray area. How many instructors mention products that they sell (holsters, guns, safes,...) during a class? If you are concerned about the class, report your concern to DPS. If they think it is worth investigating, they will send someone to a class. If it is a problem, it will be addressed. If it's OK, the instructor gets an extra student. Maybe he gets a "You know, you really shouldn't do that" talk.

[Hoi Polloi]

Or you could just give them bad word of mouth so that the good instructors flourish from good word of mouth while the bad instructors die off from supply and demand.

If you tell people that you had an OK class which included a 30 minute pressure-ridden sales pitch for pre-paid legal and left out some topics you thought were important to cover while someone else gushes that he had a fantastic class which covered everything essential plus a lot of useful advanced topics he hadn't previously considered, which instructor do you think will get the next renewal student?

[Ameer]

I can say with confidence that students aren't missing out any required material if the instructor allows a short sales pitch. The course content for the initial class is not 10 hours of material, but the 10 hour requirement isn't the fault of DPS.

Based on many questions posted here, it looks like 10 hours is not enough for some people. I don't know if those students weren't able to learn it 10 hours, or their instructor wasn't able to teach it in 10 hours, but somewhere and somehow the basic essentials were not understood by those students.

It's a good thing those students come here and ask the questions, but it's a bad thing they didn't know the answers when they walked out of the class after 10 hours of instruction (not to mention the cost of the class.)

I think the subject matter of the course should be specified as it is now, then leave it up to the instructor to teach it in whatever time frame is required.

I would agree if the test was given by DPS and randomly selected from a large pool of questions, so instructors have to teach all of the required subject matter, instead of teaching to the test.

[A-R]

I can say with confidence that students aren't missing out any required material if the instructor allows a short sales pitch. The course content for the initial class is not 10 hours of material, but the 10 hour requirement isn't the fault of DPS.

Based on many questions posted here, it looks like 10 hours is not enough for some people. I don't know if those students weren't able to learn it 10 hours, or their instructor wasn't able to teach it in 10 hours, but somewhere and somehow the basic essentials were not understood by those students.

It's a good thing those students come here and ask the questions, but it's a bad thing they didn't know the answers when they walked out of the class after 10 hours of instruction (not to mention the cost of the class.)

I think the subject matter of the course should be specified as it is now, then leave it up to the instructor to teach it in whatever time frame is required.

I would agree if the test was given by DPS and randomly selected from a large pool of questions, so instructors have to teach all of the required subject matter, instead of teaching to the test.

Very good points.

And just to be clear, I am only advising that OP report this instructor to DPS if he feels the instructor BOTH did not cover the required materials AND didn't use the entire 4 hours of classtime to talk about relevant subjects. If he covered all the material in 3 1/2 hours and everyone knew everything they needed to know and then he talked about prepaid legal, I still don't LIKE that, but don't think it's anything to necessarily concern DPS with - more of a "market correction" as Hoi Polloi alluded to.

But if an instructor is not properly and fully teaching all the relevant information, then I think DPS should be notified. An uneducated or even undereducated CHL holder reflects badly on all of us and the whole CHL program in general, especially if they get caught using the "but that's not what my instructor taught us" excuse when the police are slapping on the handcuffs (extreme example, I realize).

I've only taught one class so far, but it took the full time to get across all the pertinent information. My students were all newbies not only to CHL, but to guns in general, so that's probably part of it (spent more time going over "how to shoot" and stressing safety than I likely would in a class with people who know firearms already).

[KD5NRH]

This explains the anecdote of the police officer who said that each round fired in the line of duty has cost him $10,000, and this was quite a while ago.

I thought that was just his marksmanship causing a half million in damage to the range at every requalification.

The instructor from the OP may have erred. Even if he provided four hours of the required subjects, requiring you to listen to his sales pitch seems inappropriate. But that's a gray area. How many instructors mention products that they sell (holsters, guns, safes,...) during a class?

Mentioning is one thing, making it a significant part of the curriculum is an entirely different situation.

[Beiruty]

I agree with instructors not making a sales pitch in CHL classes since we have a captive audience and they don't have the option to leave. The only time prepaid legal or self-defense insurance is brought up in my classes is when someone asks, and even then I try to keep it to a minimum and offer to discuss it during a break.

I can say with confidence that students aren't missing out any required material if the instructor allows a short sales pitch. The course content for the initial class is not 10 hours of material, but the 10 hour requirement isn't the fault of DPS. It's in the statute and it should be reduced if not repealed. I think the subject matter of the course should be specified as it is now, then leave it up to the instructor to teach it in whatever time frame is required. Arbitrary minimum times are just that, arbitrary; they aren't based upon the material to be covered, class size, student make-up, etc. When SB60 passed in 1995, it had the 10 to 15 hour requirement for new licenses and 4 to 6 hours for renewals. The time was set before the course had even been designed by DPS! You can't get more arbitrary than that.

DPS does not establish lesson plans and that is an excellent approach. They just identify the subjects to be covered, give us material on those subjects, then give instructors the flexibility to create our own lesson plans. While this is not conducive to uniformity, it does result in some instructors creating very good classes, while others probably cover only the minimum. Remember, uniformity can result in uniformly bad classes. If it were not for flexibility, I would not be able to spend about 3 hrs on the use of force, a subject matter I feel is absolutely critical for students to learn.

During one instructor renewal class, I asked Star Riddle what DPS wanted us to do if/when we finish the class material in less than 10 hours. She said, "sit around and shoot the bull until the 10 hours is up. We prefer you talk about something relevant to the course subject matter, but if you've already covered it, talk about anything until time is up." Star clearly understood that some classes take longer because of the size of the class, the time spent on the range, questions asked by students, etc. So I recommend not complaining to DPS about extraneous subjects being discussed, unless you are not covering the core material DPS requires. I firmly believe we do not want DPS establishing a mandatory class lesson; we need to retain the flexibility for instructors to structure the classes to fit their style of teaching, so long as the core material is covered.

Renewals need to change. The statute requires/allows only the teaching of changes in the law, and that certainly doesn't take 4 hours. However, renewal students take the same test, so we have to cover the same material the 10 hr. folks get, but obviously in a greatly condensed format. Again, a short sales pitch doesn't deprive the students of anything.

In the 15 years since, SB60 passed, CHL's have garnered a great track record in terms of being law-abiding citizens. The system is working, so let's be careful about calling for change. The last time America voted for "change," well . . .

Chas.

I learned here on the TX laws and the rules of justified use of deadly force or threat of deadly force than the CHL course. At the time when I took the CHL we had a hard copy of an old DPS Firearms Laws and the instructor was scratching out and on the fly updating the stated laws. It was more confusing than first date.