TexasCHLforum.com

kw5kw:

If this instructor's authority to teach the CHL class is revoked then I take this to mean that all current CHL holders that went thru this instructors class might be or will be revoked!

Nope. I don't read it that way. I think the section 411.191 you quoted applies only to certified instructors. If an already-licensed CHL's former instructor is suspended or revoked, it doesn't affect the carrier's license.

kw5kw wrote:So, how do you teach it now, please.
In my first class 4.5 years ago, I was taught no alcohol...period.
In this last class, they said not intoxicated.

To me, as a reasonable citizen, it still means no alcohol.

I teach this:

I know that a police officer does not have to use a blood alcohol level to determine if I am intoxicated, as a CHL holder. He gets to use his own judgment. While I believe most LEOs use good judgment, I am not going to trust the status of my CHL to an unknown LEO's judgment.

So, since my CHL is important to me, I choose not to drink at all if I am carrying. You get to decide for yourself what you will do.

This point has been debated on this forum before, and I really don't want to open this can of worms again. The only point I really wanted to make was that it was NOT taught the same way at every instructor class, every time, every session, every year. That's why some instructors heard it differently. And, since there are approximately 1000 instructors in Texas, and maybe 10 who post on this forum frequently, that means that there are about 990 of them that haven't heard this debate.

Right or wrong, for the first 2 years I taught that "no legal limit" meant that you could not drink and carry. I know that I heard it that way, because I wrote it down in my notes and circled it! And since there was no one to tell me differently, I didn't know anything else until I went to the next instructor update.

Now I try to stay up on all the latest stuff. I read the forums, read the law and try to understand. I still make mistakes. We all do. But as long as I keep learning, I think I am doing the best I can.

Wow! Guess I went on a rant there! OK, done now.

llwatson wrote: I know that I heard it that way, because I wrote it down in my notes and circled it! And since there was no one to tell me differently, I didn't know anything else until I went to the next instructor update.

LLW - I recall as you do - exactly - and I wrote it down as well...

I have since learned the correct interpretation and I am good with it...

Regarding carrying while intoxicated;

Here is the law;


§46.035. Unlawful carrying of handgun by license holder.


(d) A license holder commits an offense if, while
intoxicated, the license holder carries a handgun under the authority
of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, regardless of whether
the handgun is concealed.

It does not say "with any detectable amount of alcohol", or, "after consuming any alcohol". It says "while intoxicated".

The term "legal limit" is a misnomer. It was created by the media to describe a person who, for the purposes of DWI, had a blood alcohol level that was at or above the PRESUMED LEVEL of intoxication. Currently that level is .08%. The DWI law says that a person commits an offense if the person drives "intoxicated", period.

Intoxication is then defined as:

(A) not having the normal use of mental or physical faculties
by reason of the introduction of alcohol, a controlled substance, a
drug, a dangerous drug, a combination of two or more of those
substances, or any other substance into the body; or

(B) having an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more.

Regardless of how the person acts or behaves, he is presumed to be intoxicated at .08% or above BAC. However, if the person is BELOW the .08% or refuses to submit a breath sample, definition A can be used to obtain a conviction. The DWI laws require that a person be offered a chance to give a sample of breath or blood if suspected of DWI.

That is the only offense where a BAC test is applicable. For charges like Public Intoxication and Carrying a Concealed Handgun while Intoxicated, definition A is all that is required.

The term "legal limit" is used to describe a .08% BAC, and is applicable for DWI only. Many people believe that if you are below .08%, you are not DWI. That is not true.

The teaching in the CHL class and the subsequent question on the test regarding "no legal limit for CHL" applies to the fact that the .08% means nothing for the purpose of a CHL holder carrying while intoxicated. You are not required to be offered a breath test, nor will you be offered one if a LEO suspects you of being intoxicated while carrying, unless you were also driving at the time.

All the LEO has to suspect is that you do not have the normal use of mental or physical faculties
by reason of the introduction of alcohol, a controlled substance, a
drug, a dangerous drug, a combination of two or more of those
substances, or any other substance into the body.

He will establish that by observing your speech, balance, dexterity, eyes and smell of your breath.

If he has probable cause, he can arrest you under that. It would be an illegal arrest to arrest a person if they exhibit no signs of intoxication, but the LEO either observed the person consume alcohol or simply smelled it on your breath.

I think that CHL instructors should be teaching the law and not personal opinions. In areas where the law is gray an instructor can further offer their opinion on the law to the class as a starting point for the students to understand how the law may be interpreted.

I had an excellent instructor for my CHL class (Ross Bransford) and on the "intoxicated issue" I left the class understanding that it is illegal for a CHL holder to carry a handgun, regardless of whether it is concealed or not, on or about their person if they are intoxicated, but the law did not define intoxicated via BAC.

I think the best advice given is that if the instructor can not be reasoned with then perhaps DPS should be notified.

kw5kw wrote:

fadlan12 wrote:I was under the impression that should this instructor be de-certified all his students would lose thier licenses.

Is this correct?

according to GC §411.191
The procedures for the review of a denial, revocation, or suspension of a license under Section 411.180 apply to the review of a denial, revocation, or suspension of certification as a qualified handgun instructor. The notice provisions of this subchapter relating to denial, revocation, or suspension of handgun licenses apply to the proposed denial, revocation, or suspension of a certification of a qualified handgun instructor or an applicant for certification as a qualified handgun instructor.

If this instructor's authority to teach the CHL class is revoked then I take this to mean that all current CHL holders that went thru this instructors class might be or will be revoked!

EEEKK!

Was this in Dallas proper?

I read that as stating that the rules for notification and procedures for revoking a CHL and an Instructor Certification are the same. Instead of spelling it out a second time when they got around to revocation of an Instructor Certification, they just said it was the same as for revocation of a CHL, which they had already defined. Just my opinion, and IANAL.

BTW, TXI, I would drop the dime. There are people out there that are carrying in violation of some laws (or not carrying to prevent violating laws that don't actually exist) because of this instructor. That means they are in danger (either legal or physical). I couldn't ignore that. Also, in what way was his range qualification not legal? The class I attended didn't seem to care about the amount of time taken to make the shots, but the strings of fire were correct and at the correct distances.

1. The people are responsible for knowing the laws. They should read the particular laws themselves and not take what ANY instructor says.

2. Talk to him and help him if he wants, otherwise butt out :).

3. I see so many in this thread blaming the instructor. Once again, it is the peoples responsibility to read and know the laws.



Just my 2 cents,

Ron

nomadcrna wrote:1. The people are responsible for knowing the laws. They should read the particular laws themselves and not take what ANY instructor says.

2. Talk to him and help him if he wants, otherwise butt out :).

3. I see so many in this thread blaming the instructor. Once again, it is the peoples responsibility to read and know the laws.



Just my 2 cents,

Ron

Interesting. If your assertion that it is solely the student's responsibility then why certify instructors and make students take a class?

Students rely on the instructor to make sense of the law and explain it properly.

It is too late to butt out, DPS has been notified. It is my opinion I had an ethical obligation, if not a legal one.

Well I think you do. And I am glad that you told.

nomadcrna wrote:1. The people are responsible for knowing the laws. They should read the particular laws themselves and not take what ANY instructor says.

2. Talk to him and help him if he wants, otherwise butt out :).

3. I see so many in this thread blaming the instructor. Once again, it is the peoples responsibility to read and know the laws.



Just my 2 cents,

Ron

txinvestigator wrote:Interesting. If your assertion that it is solely the student's responsibility then why certify instructors and make students take a class?

Students rely on the instructor to make sense of the law and explain it properly.

I agree completely with what Ron said. Anyone who relies on their instructor will have an incomplete, often inaccurate education about CHL information.

Having taken the course four times, I consider the instructor nothing more than an informed individual, certainly not the final authority. From this very discussion, you can see how different instructors teach the course differently.

Why certify instructors and require a class? That was the price of getting the legislation passed.

I have always printed out and studied applicable parts of the governing statutes. From the beginning, I joined PDO and other forums to get others' opinions and stay current.

Mike1951 wrote:

nomadcrna wrote:1. The people are responsible for knowing the laws. They should read the particular laws themselves and not take what ANY instructor says.

2. Talk to him and help him if he wants, otherwise butt out :).

3. I see so many in this thread blaming the instructor. Once again, it is the peoples responsibility to read and know the laws.



Just my 2 cents,

Ron

txinvestigator wrote:Interesting. If your assertion that it is solely the student's responsibility then why certify instructors and make students take a class?

Students rely on the instructor to make sense of the law and explain it properly.

I agree completely with what Ron said. Anyone who relies on their instructor will have an incomplete, often inaccurate education about CHL information.

Having taken the course four times, I consider the instructor nothing more than an informed individual, certainly not the final authority. From this very discussion, you can see how different instructors teach the course differently.

Why certify instructors and require a class? That was the price of getting the legislation passed.

I have always printed out and studied applicable parts of the governing statutes. From the beginning, I joined PDO and other forums to get others' opinions and stay current.

Yes, and the very fact that you are here shows that you are unusual among CHL holders. The instructor is teaching them wrong, period. I do not believe that one should stick thier head in the sand just because something somone else does not not seem to directly impact oneself.

Thats one of societies problems.

txinvestigator wrote:Interesting. If your assertion that it is solely the student's responsibility then why certify instructors and make students take a class?

Given some of mis/disinformation CHLs have reported hearing from their instructors, I'm starting to wonder why DPS doesn't produce a standardized video for the class. We've even heard from instructors who were taught wrongly in CHLI courses.

I agree it's every student's responsibility to know and understand the law. I also agree that incompetent instructors should be booted, and the current system leaves way too much latitude for wrong information to creep into the process.

I think the class could be done nicely if the instructor's role was to start the DVD, administer the test, and conduct the proficiency test. It would certainly be more standardized.

Kevin

KBCraig wrote:Given some of mis/disinformation CHLs have reported hearing from their instructors, I'm starting to wonder why DPS doesn't produce a standardized video for the class.

They may never have thought of it. They are doing what the law requires.

It would cost around 100 grand, which isn't in their budget.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:It would cost around 100 grand, which isn't in their budget.

I doubt it would cost one tenth that, unless they used professional actors. We're not talking about an involved production.

Kevin

txinvestigator wrote:Students rely on the instructor to make sense of the law and explain it properly.

It is too late to butt out, DPS has been notified. It is my opinion I had an ethical obligation, if not a legal one.

TxInvestigator,

FWIW, I agree with what you did and why.

I also agree with what seems to be your general feeling on CHL holders being responsible for knowing the law. As you have demonstrated through many of your posts, that involves knowing MUCH more than just the CHL statute. To fully understand it a person has to get into many other sections of the law. The CHL instructors are licensed and being paid to deliver the correct stuff. We all need to learn more when we can, but when we find out an instructor gets it wrong, we need to speak up.

Thanx,
TraCoun