TexasCHLforum.com

Posted: **Wed Mar 06, 2013 2:42 pm**

This looks like a step in the right direction. We don't need a class to renew a driving license or voter registration. We shouldn't need one to renew a handgun license.

Posted: **Wed Mar 06, 2013 3:38 pm**

Personally I have no problem with attending renewal classes, I enjoy hearing about any changes in the law from other peoples perspective and hanging out with like minded people for a few hours.

Posted: **Wed Mar 06, 2013 3:44 pm**

Salty1 wrote:Personally I have no problem with attending renewal classes, I enjoy hearing about any changes in the law from other peoples perspective and hanging out with like minded people for a few hours.

Eliminating the need for the class doesn't mean that instructors can't still offer it. Call it a "Refresher Course" if you will. There will be some who will take it for exactly the reasons you state.

BTW, this is the same reason that even some very experienced shooters take a Basic Pistol course. They've may have been shooting for years or even decades, but they want to refresh themselves on the basics. Personally, I think it's a great idea.

Posted: **Wed Mar 06, 2013 3:59 pm**

Purplehood wrote:I think that renewal "classes" should be an online review of current laws related to the CHL and an e-signature affirming that you have read them.

I could go for that too.

Posted: **Wed Mar 06, 2013 4:12 pm**

RX8er wrote:I support the idea of no class for renewal. Where I think the bill falls down is somehow making sure that at each renewal, the CHL holder is up to speed on any changes to the law.

That was my concern but Sec. 411.185.c of the proposal specifically requires the director to produce an informational form describing the law and requires license holder to acknowledge the form. I am still mulling this one over.

Posted: **Wed Mar 06, 2013 4:17 pm**

Jumping Frog wrote:
Purplehood wrote:I think that renewal "classes" should be an online review of current laws related to the CHL and an e-signature affirming that you have read them.
That is what Ohio does. Attorney General publishes a "Concealed Carry Handbook". The CHL affirms under penalty of perjury that they have downloaded and reviewed the current pamphlet as part of the application.

It'll never work. It's FAR too reasonable and requires people to exhibit a modicum of personal responsibility.

Posted: **Wed Mar 06, 2013 4:35 pm**

Keith B wrote:I am an instructor and believe there are enough people out there that do not stay up to date with law changes and need to be updated and let know about them. I would not mind seeing some type of online test with a larger question pool and random questions being chosen from the pool; that would at least require them to study the laws.

As for shooting, there are a lot that come through that haven't shot in 5 years (last CHL proficiency). I think there still needs to be that portion. Some of our worst students on the range are the renewals.

I was thinking about the instructors who might say, "but how will the students get the latest info on the laws?" . . . then I remembered all of the threads here about grossly uninformed instructors, and how some of their more scrupulous students noticed their own incompetence and sought supplemental info online that eventually led them to our little community here.

No matter what renewal mechanism we come up with, there's going to be a licensed subset of uninformed out there.

VMI77 wrote:
Purplehood wrote:I think that renewal "classes" should be an online review of current laws related to the CHL and an e-signature affirming that you have read them.

I could go for that too.

This isn't objectionable to me.

RoyGBiv wrote:
Jumping Frog wrote:
Purplehood wrote:I think that renewal "classes" should be an online review of current laws related to the CHL and an e-signature affirming that you have read them.
That is what Ohio does. Attorney General publishes a "Concealed Carry Handbook". The CHL affirms under penalty of perjury that they have downloaded and reviewed the current pamphlet as part of the application.
It'll never work. It's FAR too reasonable and requires people to exhibit a modicum of personal responsibility.

I'd even be willing to buy a $5 handbook with the new laws at the time of renewal. . . or it could be added to the current fee.

A class definitely isn't necessary.

Posted: **Wed Mar 06, 2013 8:27 pm**

Instructors can take an online test. Let us take an online test and if we pass, no class!

Posted: **Wed Mar 06, 2013 9:02 pm**

sunny beach wrote:Instructors can take an online test. Let us take an online test and if we pass, no class!

I can go for that.

Posted: **Wed Mar 06, 2013 9:17 pm**

Keith B wrote:I am an instructor and believe there are enough people out there that do not stay up to date with law changes and need to be updated and let know about them. I would not mind seeing some type of online test with a larger question pool and random questions being chosen from the pool; that would at least require them to study the laws.

As for shooting, there are a lot that come through that haven't shot in 5 years (last CHL proficiency). I think there still needs to be that portion. Some of our worst students on the range are the renewals.

Keith, is this because they have bad attitudes, because they don't know (or pay attention to) range rules or because they are lousy shots?

I got a lot out of my original class. Like others have said, however, it was just a starting point for me. I showed me all that I didn't understand and I've been studying ever since. I'm certain that I will get a lot out of my renewal course, too. On the other hand, I don't think that making people take the course necessarily helps with retaining knowledge on the Texas CHL related laws. Those that want to, will. Those for whom the class is simply a checkmark on the sheet probably won't. Most people that take the classes apparently have enough interest that they have retained sufficient information to keep themselves out of trouble. On balance, I wonder exactly want percentage of them actually put themselves in situations (by carrying most of the time) where it makes any difference.

Posted: **Wed Mar 06, 2013 10:09 pm**

how would this affect future reprocity agreements?

Posted: **Wed Mar 06, 2013 10:16 pm**

FL450 wrote:how would this affect future reprocity agreements?

I don't know for sure, but unlike lowering the number of hours, deleting the renewal class entirely probably will have a negative impact on reciprocity. Any states that require our law to be equal to or more stringent than their law may cancel reciprocity with Texas.

Chas.

Posted: **Wed Mar 06, 2013 10:30 pm**

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
FL450 wrote:how would this affect future reprocity agreements?
I don't know for sure, but unlike lowering the number of hours, deleting the renewal class entirely probably will have a negative impact on reciprocity. Any states that require our law to be equal to or more stringent than their law may cancel reciprocity with Texas.

Chas.

That's what I was going to ask. After this question was asked and answered in the other thread regarding the reduction in class time, it seemed like it might be relevant in this thread about the deletion of renewals.

Posted: **Wed Mar 06, 2013 10:38 pm**

I do not look at driving, voting, and carrying a gun in the same light.
I am all for a renewal class and in fact think the practical shooting requierments are fairly lame.

I could be convinced to taking on line courses/tests for legal changes.
I would welcome more stringent range qualifications.

I'm sure most do not feel that way. Sorry...I do.

Posted: **Wed Mar 06, 2013 11:01 pm**

The_Busy_Mom wrote:Hmmmm....... That's one that I have to give some more thought to. If you go off the thought that CHL class is for education about the law (simplistic, I know), then you put a CHL license in the same category as a driver's license. You don't have to take a class to renew your driver's license, just get another picture and pay your fee when it expires. The argument is that you didn't have to take a class to get your driver license to begin with, so you wouldn't need a class to renew. The same cannot be (currently) said for CHL license. You have to have the class time to get the license, so I would say that some sort of renewal class would be needed. I would bet most of the people on this forum don't know about new laws that affect driver licenses (age restrictions being the big one that I can think of right off the top of my head). People who are responsible for conceal carrying a firearm should be up to speed on changing legislation. The most efficient way to do this is through a renewal class. I understand that ignorance of the law is no excuse. I'm just not really sure how I feel about someone carrying a firearm, basing their actions on information that might be 15 years old. Think about how much has changed since 1995/1996 when the program was enacted.

I'll vote after I see some different sides to this coin.

TBM

Edited: Now that I typed out what I thought, I realize that the current 10 renewal requirement isn't much different than my point of 15 year old information. Critical thinking - it does a mind good.

NOTE: Applicants under 25 years of age must also successfully complete a driver education course before applying for their first Texas driver license.

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/DriverLice ... icense.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

TexasCHLforum.com

HB48: No renewal class required

Re: HB48: No renewal class required

Re: HB48: No renewal class required

Re: HB48: No renewal class required

Re: HB48: No renewal class required

Re: HB48: No renewal class required

Re: HB48: No renewal class required

Re: HB48: No renewal class required

Re: HB48: No renewal class required

Re: HB48: No renewal class required

Re: HB48: No renewal class required

Re: HB48: No renewal class required

Re: HB48: No renewal class required

Re: HB48: No renewal class required

Re: HB48: No renewal class required

Re: HB48: No renewal class required