TexasCHLforum.com

DPS Maintains a list of instructors somewhere, Check and see if he is, indeed, a real CHL instructor first. Anyone can claim they are... he sure sounds like he isn't.


That was my first thought as well.........

The police will most assuredly cover all angles and elevations of the building of a robbery in progress.

gigag04 wrote:The police will most assuredly cover all angles and elevations of the building of a robbery in progress.

In my city they sure would. The Police, D.P.S. Sheriff and Constable's offices are all within blocks of the bank.
My ex-Step brother is on ERT (Emergency Response Team, like SWAT elsewhere) up in Indiana in a fairly big city, by Indiana standards, but I have been to cities that only employed between 2 and 4 officers though, sorta Andy Griffith style, undermanned.

Beiruty wrote:

Abraham wrote:Beiruty ,

Sorry, after reading and re-reading, I still don't fully understand your post.

Would you please clarify?

If a CHLer decided to engage and stop a crime, say a robbery in progress at your favorite eater, the CHLer is justified in using a deadly force. Since it is justified, the legality of the actions of the CHLer is not the point.
The issue at the hand, should the CHLer engage or be a good witness?
To engage or not engage is a decision the CHLer has to take and this depends on many factors such as:
A) The shooter and his shooting capabilities. Is he a good shooter? is he in good physical condition to seek cover engage one or more threats? An old person or a novice shooter may decide, I can't do it. I will be good witness or I am bailing out.
B) How many threats? Again, many would say, I cannot take out 3 threats in 5 secs. Howver, if you watch a IDPA match, a shooter can place at least 2 holes in 3 targets in less that 5 sec.
C) Does the CHLer has the opportunity to draw and not being killed while doing so? A gun pointed at your head means it is too late to reach for your gun.
D) Are there good guys in the the line of fire? Most would say I am not sharp shooter and I am not drawing on some one who is taking a hostage. Understandable.

Also, many would say I am bailing out. I have nothing to do with this, here I am out of the emergency exit.

I respectfully take the mindset of "Just because you can does not mean you should"
Everyone is going to have their own mindset and I welcome that so long as it is a legal one.

My own opinions are that unless me or my family are being directly threatened and we cannot escape safetly im not going to engage. Especially in situations like armed robbery you never know all the facts. The all too common "accomplice posing as another shopper/hostage" comes to mind.
And while it may seem like a stingy and cold hearted mindset, I have obtained my CHL, spent the time training, and put forth all the necessary costs for fees, firearms, ammunition, etc etc so that myself and my family are protected. I am not the police, I am not a security guard, nor am I a superhero. When it comes down to it...ive got no obligation to anyone other than myself and my family. If you have taken the aproach to not take the proper steps to ensure you are protected, thats your bad. And im sure not going to put myself in harms way because of the choices youve made. CHL holders arent some exclusive club lurking in the shadows, and unless youve got a criminal history there arent alot of hoops to jump through.

Now, we all know its not always cut and dry and there would be times where id probably be forced to bend on that.

YMMV

ex_dsmr wrote:
I respectfully take the mindset of "Just because you can does not mean you should"
Everyone is going to have their own mindset and I welcome that so long as it is a legal one.

My own opinions are that unless me or my family are being directly threatened and we cannot escape safetly im not going to engage. Especially in situations like armed robbery you never know all the facts. The all too common "accomplice posing as another shopper/hostage" comes to mind.
And while it may seem like a stingy and cold hearted mindset, I have obtained my CHL, spent the time training, and put forth all the necessary costs for fees, firearms, ammunition, etc etc so that myself and my family are protected. I am not the police, I am not a security guard, nor am I a superhero. When it comes down to it...ive got no obligation to anyone other than myself and my family. If you have taken the aproach to not take the proper steps to ensure you are protected, thats your bad. And im sure not going to put myself in harms way because of the choices youve made. CHL holders arent some exclusive club lurking in the shadows, and unless youve got a criminal history there arent alot of hoops to jump through.

Now, we all know its not always cut and dry and there would be times where id probably be forced to bend on that.

YMMV

I agree about 100% with this. My struggle comes in the thought of "If my wife and/or child are in that 'bank' or whatever the scenario is, I would hope that a good guy CHL'r would protect them or take out the bad guys before they got hurt." I know I can't count on it, but I'd sure hope for it to play out that way.

So, in general I agree with the above, but I think there's a side of me, which may be an old school feeling of duty to protect women and children mentality, that would have me act if I felt I could succeed in stopping the threat to a woman or a child. (ESPECIALLY A CHILD) I admit, that if it's a man, I'd be less likely to do anything. That may sound bad, but I'm just being honest. I see our role as men to protect the those who cannot protect themselves (for the most part). Other men are responsible for themselves (for the most part).

This is all my opinion and mind-set, but does anyone else struggle with this?

The struggle comes in that even for defending a woman I don't know, it's hard to justify risking your own financial security and/or life when you have a family that depends on you.

All that rambling above being said, I am very confident that I just know until I'm in the situation... and I pray that I NEVER am.

RPB wrote:"Distance is your friend" that applies to 1) bad guys with guns and 2) ex-wives.

"all my exes live in Texas and that's why I hang my hat in Tennessee" - George Strait

boba wrote:

RPB wrote:"Distance is your friend" that applies to 1) bad guys with guns and 2) ex-wives.

"all my exes live in Texas and that's why I hang my hat in Tennessee" - George Strait

I knew if I held out long enough someone would go there!

boba wrote:

RPB wrote:"Distance is your friend" that applies to 1) bad guys with guns and 2) ex-wives.

"all my exes live in Texas and that's why I hang my hat in Tennessee" - George Strait

Who told you my ringtone for ex# 2?

The good news is she recently moved to MI.

There is a lot a good info here but I would like to make a small comment about question #2 about a "non CHL" holder carrying a concealed weapon in a vehicle. The way my instructor (Mr. Cotton) presented the law to our class, was that in order for a "non CHL" holder to carry a concealed weapon in a vehicle, they MUST be in control of said vehicle and not riding as a passenger. Thanks, Steven

PC §46.02. UNLAWFUL CARRYING WEAPONS. (a) A person commits
an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries
on or about his or her person a handgun, illegal knife, or club if the
person is not:

(2) inside of or directly en route to a motor vehicle that is owned
by the person or under the person's control.

How/When to correct an instructor:

There is a difference between correcting someone and asking for a clarification. A TexasCHL ain't cheap. The student is the customer and is entitled to proper and correct instruction...or a refund.

Now, are we back on topic?

69rrvert wrote:There is a lot a good info here but I would like to make a small comment about question #2 about a "non CHL" holder carrying a concealed weapon in a vehicle. The way my instructor (Mr. Cotton) presented the law to our class, was that in order for a "non CHL" holder to carry a concealed weapon in a vehicle, they MUST be in control of said vehicle and not riding as a passenger. Thanks, Steven

PC §46.02. UNLAWFUL CARRYING WEAPONS. (a) A person commits
an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries
on or about his or her person a handgun, illegal knife, or club if the
person is not:

(2) inside of or directly en route to a motor vehicle that is owned
by the person or under the person's control.

Mr. Cotton knows the law much better than I do, but in this case I disagree. As a general rule, he is correct, but the non-driver could also be the owner of the vehicle. Then he could carry without a CHL.

For example, I own my truck. I will occasionally allow my daughter to drive it, with me as passenger (splitting the driving on a long trip for example). If I am the registered and normal owner of the truck (as in it is mine, not hers that is just registered to me thus confusing the issue slightly), and my daughter just happens to be driving, we can both be carrying a pistol without either of us having a CHL. This is based on her being in control and me being the owner. There is an or clause in the law you quoted that perfectly matches this situation.

Oldgringo wrote:How/When to correct an instructor:

There is a difference between correcting someone and asking for a clarification. A TexasCHL ain't cheap. The student is the customer and is entitled to proper and correct instruction...or a refund.

Now, are we back on topic?

Not yet. The OP was about a hunter safety class.