TexasCHLforum.com

A coworker at work was talking about getting his CHL and mentioned he was told of an instructor that will teach him everything he needs to know to pass the CHL test in 1hr. I was like and had to sit down and spend like 1/2 hr explaining of using deadly force and responsibility that comes with it. NO shortcuts and more over I explained how much time and effort is needed in range time, education and even competitive shooting. He confessed he is only interested in having CHL not to carry but just to have in if there is need to have it. I was like whatever

Beiruty wrote:A coworker at work was talking about getting his CHL and mentioned he was told of an instructor that will teach him everything he needs to know to pass the CHL test in 1hr

Now THAT is the kind of instructor who definitely needs to be reported to DPS.

Might just be an instructor with good advertising skills. Sure, yeah....this is going to take, like an hour....pack a lunch, JIC....

Beiruty wrote: 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.

This site is the #1 reason why I decided to become an instructor. I learned so much more here than any of my courses/renewals. My instructors weren't horrible, but there was a lot of bluster and macho talk and one guy spent 15 minutes telling me all the parts, add ons and accessories I NEEDED to let him put on my Glock because he was a "certified Glock armorer"

Point is, I think instructors (generally speaking) can and should do better than what I was taught in the "early years". And from the classmates I met at the certification course this summer, I think there are a lot of very good people who really want to teach this stuff properly. And the DPS instructors are certainly very good people who exude integrity.

So when I hear of someone not doing it "right" - I tend to get a little perturbed. Same thing with real estate. I've worked multiple deals where the other agent messed up something that could've significantly hurt their client's position (like forgetting to turn over the option money check ). Not bad-mouthing Realtors or CHL instructors in general. Just saying the bad apples do tend to spoil the whole bunch in the eyes of a large percentage of the population.

Of course, in a perfect world every CHL applicant would be required to take Charles Cotton's deadly force seminar from the man himself. What do you think Charles, you ready to do all 400,000 renewals?

To be fair, my instructor in his class (but not at the time when the instruction was going on) had mini "gun, gun safe, and holster show" and anything you can think of as accessories for concealed carry. In addition, the instructor has more gun related courses from basic handgun course to advanced ones and rifle and shotguns too. Of course, we learned of all those courses from his website at the time when we booked for the CHL course.

Hoi Polloi wrote: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?

Let the free market sort it out. A lot of advice about which instructors to go to and which to avoid gets passed by word of mouth. Happy students will "sell" the course/instructor to potential students. (That is unless you're one of those top-secret CHL'ees who would never dream of letting anyone know you have a CHL.) Unhappy students will warn people away from that instructor.

austinrealtor wrote: But if an instructor is not properly and fully teaching all the relevant information, then I think DPS should be notified.

Very good thoughts in your comments, Realtor, and while you may have only taught one course up to now, it certainly looks like you will be a fine instructor.

In respect of your sentence I quoted, we must keep in mind that there is a significant difference between the student's knowledge at his first course and at his renewal course(s), or at least I would hope so. I would think that it is a rare student who is knowledgeable enough to recognize that an instructor does not cover the field when he walks into his initial course with an open, but largely empty, mind.

I concur with the commentator above who suggested that we may see the results of poor or inadequate instruction in the questions we sometimes see here, particularly those we see from new licensees. We all know that there are those who will not, or cannot, learn. I would suggest that those are few, however, and that a good instructor, and a good examination, should be able to winnow those few out.

Elmo

Ameer wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote: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.

What problem are we trying to solve? The system is working great with the test as it is. Why try to make it harder?

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Ameer wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote: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.

What problem are we trying to solve? The system is working great with the test as it is. Why try to make it harder?

Chas.

With the greatest of respect, Charles, I would think that reasonable men can differ on this. My first renewal course largely consisted of the instructor explicitly telling the students what the questions on the test would be, and what the answers were, then rambling on about what a good shot he was. If this is what Ameer meant by "teaching to the test," and if it still happens, I agree with his concern. I hope it seldom happens now, if ever.

Similar concerns have been raised here and elsewhere about education in general in Texas becoming "teaching to the TAKS."

I really believe that such an instructor, along with his students, are counterproductive to what appear to be our mutual goals.

Elmo

Russell wrote: SNIP He said that while Florida got the "full" Castle Doctrine that includes civil immunity, Texas did not. Hence why you should buy his product.

Thats great, except that Castle Doctrine and CHL have nothing to do with eachother.

b322da wrote:With the greatest of respect, Charles, I would think that reasonable men can differ on this. My first renewal course largely consisted of the instructor explicitly telling the students what the questions on the test would be, and what the answers were, then rambling on about what a good shot he was. If this is what Ameer meant by "teaching to the test," and if it still happens, I agree with his concern. I hope it seldom happens now, if ever.

Similar concerns have been raised here and elsewhere about education in general in Texas becoming "teaching to the TAKS."

I really believe that such an instructor, along with his students, are counterproductive to what appear to be our mutual goals.

Elmo

I'm on your side. Meaning if we as a state are going to require instruction to legally carry, then that instruction must be taught thoroughly and correctly with integrity and no shortcuts.

I think if I'm understanding Charles' overall viewpoint (and I hope I'm not misunderstanding or overstating his view) it is that we already have as much or more instruction than we "need" and the ultimate goal should be no instruction, possibly even no license - like Constitutional Carry. I"m NOT suggesting that he is pushing for such right now all at once, because if there's one thing I've learned about Mr. Cotton from listening to him and reading his commentaries, he definitely abides by the incremental approach (which I too agree is the best approach).

And I very much agree with the viewpoint that we don't need MORE instruction. Could the test be "harder"? Maybe, but at the same time that could harm people who simply "don't test well." Seems Charles' point is if the pendulum needs to swing at all, it needs to swing toward less regulation, less mandated instruction, mandated class time, etc. and not more. As long as all instructors are actually teaching what they should for as long as they should, I would agree with this point.

The problem comes when you continuously hear stories of instructors who don't "do it right", who cut corners, waste time discussing unrelated or at best ancillary topics, and then their students either come here (if they and we are lucky) to ask for clarification and remedial "instruction" or worse, never fully understand the laws etc.

reading about all these bad instructors makes me want to go and find the worse one and embarrass him / her in their own class. Just go in there and correct them at each and every turn.

Does that make me a bad person?

Okay, no. Putting the onus on the instructors is just plain silly in my opinion. DPS puts out a handbook with the laws right there in it. The average person can read them and get a good enough understanding to stay out of trouble. The job of the instructor is make sure the student has a good idea of the intent of the laws and where to study the dos and donts, and make sure you have a good understanding of the highlights. If you can memorize all the laws in a 10 hour class, good for you. The average person is going to need to read and reference the handbook from time to time.
Sure there are bad instructors out there. I got lucky and found a good instructor. However, I had a firm understanding of the laws before I even went to my class.

b322da wrote:With the greatest of respect, Charles, I would think that reasonable men can differ on this. My first renewal course largely consisted of the instructor explicitly telling the students what the questions on the test would be, and what the answers were, then rambling on about what a good shot he was. If this is what Ameer meant by "teaching to the test," and if it still happens, I agree with his concern. I hope it seldom happens now, if ever.

Similar concerns have been raised here and elsewhere about education in general in Texas becoming "teaching to the TAKS."

I really believe that such an instructor, along with his students, are counterproductive to what appear to be our mutual goals.

I would support getting rid of the class and saving time and money. However, if there's going to be a class and a written test, they should be meaningful instead of a waste of time and money.