TexasCHLforum.com

baldeagle wrote:Charles, speaking of the track record of Texas CHLs, any chance you'll be able to update that data with more recent stats?

They were updated shortly after DPS posted the 2010 and 2011 data. DPS has traditionally released two years at a time.

Chas.

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=17975" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I knew CHL Instructors would not like reducing the number of hours because they won't be able to charge as much for a 4 hr. course. Although I'm a CHL Instructor, I'm a Second Amendment activist first, NRA Board Member second, and a CHL Instructor a distant third.

I have to admit that I'm a bit disappointed that all instructors don't feel the same.

Chas.

I think with less money investment, less time investment, we would see a great increase in the number of CHL holders in Texas. And... with a 4 hour class, since I have to pay for a room for all day - we could do TWO CHL classes on a Saturday. Win-Win.

When I went through my class, our instructor spent an hour teaching two of the attendees the basics of gun usage and marksmanship. So in my experience, because these two individuals passed both the range and exam portions, there are people getting their CHL who are very green when it comes to firearms. A bit scary, considering I had to hit the deck twice when the lady next to me was waving the business end around between reloads.

Is the fact that someone can pass the range portion of the test, the first time they have handled a firearm, indicative of a flaw in the requirements? Is shooting from 3 and 7 yards, which can earn you enough points so that you can score 0 on the 15 yard portion and still pass, enough to prove you are reliable enough to carry a gun? Hitting a 12" circle that is 9 and 21 feet in front of you is not a difficult task.

This instructor was very patient - explained sight picture, explained the basic operation of the gun, and have these newbies a very hands on tutorial. I personally would have refunded their money and sent them home.

I'd like to see a prerequisite - if you can't fire a gun without assistance, then you should take a "welcome to the wonderful world of guns" course first. This could be a few hours of the class. Split the class into two days - one day is range - where instructor identifies who needs more help. Everyone else gets to go home after passing the range test. Newbies stay for longer (and pay more).

I just don't think the range portion is adequate, given my experience. My opinion, for what it's worth.

There is no evidence that CHL's from states that require less training have any greater incidence of accidental shootings, non-justified shootings, other accidents, or committing felonies than CHL's from states that require more training. For example, I can get a VA non-resident license with one training hour, or a Utah non-resident license with four hours.

Cite the statistics that state they are more dangerous. Here is a clue: if such evidence existed, the antis would be trumpeting them. My favorite statistician, John Lott, has repeatedly published that concealed carry licensees from all states have an exemplary record, far better than the general public.

If someone makes a decision to take additional training, or spend regular range time, or buy two identical guns to carry one and practice with the other, then I applaud their personal decision to prepare effectively to defend oneself. However, other people still have the God-given right to protect human life, whether or not they also choose to make those wise choices.

There is a huge difference between choosing to voluntarily train because it is important to a person versus being mandated to train. That difference is called "liberty".

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

baldeagle wrote:Charles, speaking of the track record of Texas CHLs, any chance you'll be able to update that data with more recent stats?

They were updated shortly after DPS posted the 2010 and 2011 data. DPS has traditionally released two years at a time.

Chas.

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=17975" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thanks. Your maintenance of these data is much appreciated.

When I took my CHL course my wife took hers at the same time. I had carried for work for several years and been around firearms since i was about 8 years old. She was relatively green when it comes to firearm use however she did have several dry runs in the living room using snap caps to practice both double and single action trigger pull on several different firearms. I am not an instructor but I did drill into her head safe handling and storage long before ever taking her on a live fire range outing. Our instructor was a close friend of mine our classroom was in a familiar environment with little distraction so he could make sure she understood the laws and do and don'ts of concealed carry. The class room portion was way too long in my opinion but as required I also completed it, for my wife however she felt it was not enough time and constantly asks me to help her refresh her memory of use of force statute and where it is and is not legal to carry.

That being said the time issue is a double edged sword for instructors...some students have the concept of concealed means concealed down, they know the laws (as good or better than many law enforcement) and have some background as a shooter(hunting, plinking, competition)... These people shouldn't need more than 4 hours of instruction/refresh on changes to law....others like my wife may need a longer duration of in class time... Just a thought...

I am not a CHL instructor, so my opinion should weigh a little less. My experience has been as a professional police trainer though, so some of it might still apply.

When TCLEOSE gives us a course outline and a time structure for the course, I sometimes look at it and wonder how I will fill the allotted time. Most of the time, I can stretch it out when needed, or compress it if there is too much material for the time allotted. The law specifies some requirements for the material to be covered for a CHL class, but does not give a full detailed outline. I could easily make a lesson plan that would make the legal requirements a four hour or a ten hour class, or anything in between. I could probably stretch it to a 16 hour class, just on when the use of force is justified. The only real questions are how much detail I need to go into for each point covered and how much class participation I allow. I try to not limit participation but have taught a few classes where I had to tell the students up front that we needed to keep a lid on discussion to cover the material in the specified time.

So, my opinion is that there is no real harm to going to a shorter class. The tradeoff will be how much depth the students get on what is covered. The students who really care seem to be able to research this and get their questions answered. Look how many end up on this forum because they did not remember or understand something the instructor said. If the legislature is willing to accept this tradeoff, I am in favor of it. I think the length of the class right now might be blocking a few people (not many but some) from getting their CHL and a shorter class would get more people in.

Few points:
1. I find it somewhat sad that "instructors" who claim to support second amendment rights are in favor of any government required training - some of the arguments I've read in this thread lead me to believe that there are at least a few who care more about the money than the constitutional right.

2. Why is it that I frequently hear instructors complaining about people showing up who don't know how to shoot. You, as an instructor, have several options at your desposal. Teach them, tell them to come back for more training, or just tell them to go away. No complaining required. Unless of course you are one of those instructors who guarantees that everyone who takes your class passes both written and shooting tests. See that one a lot these days. If you are one of those, you get what you ask for.

3. I am in favor of the new proposal. I believe it will create more interest in the program and will promote smaller classes. I for one would not attend a class of more than 10 under the new system as I would not want to sit around for hours while 50 students complete their shooting requirements. I believe most people feel this way and would avoid the large factory assembly line type classes.

4. I would also be in favor of eliminating the shooting requirement for renewals. If you can pass the range test once I don't see why you should have to repeat the process.

1. Law abiding citizens should have the right to carry a gun openly or concealed regardless...

2. The average gun owner does not appreciate the gravity or has even accepted to possibliity of using deadly force (evidenced by their gun handling)...

3. The better a person is trained, the more prepared they are to implement deadly force, the less likely they will have to (evidenced by the VERY low statistics)...

4. My Law Enforcement friends have communicated to me the difference in handling a CHLer vs. Joe Citizen is quite a bit different due to the training CHLer's receive.

Which puts me in a spot, I feel we should be able to carry a gun without a "stinking" license but then again I am reminded (by my own students) that their CHL class brought up so many questions that they had never considered. Until the law changes I will continue to do good work that I believe is a public service.

I think there should be a whole separate class prior to CHL. It shouldnt be the job of the CHL instructor to show people how to hold a gun and other basics. It's a concealed handgun course.. Before you are allowed to enroll you should have to either test out or take a 14 hour gun course.

If I remember correctly it was a 14 hour course for hunter education and it should be similar to that but if you qualify, or test out, then u can do the 4 hour chl course.

Charles,
One part of the law I have an issue with has nothing to do with the number of hours. I am a licensed private investigator, I am also a CHL Holder, however as I understand the law I can't carry while working as a PI. I don't understand why.

Ericstac wrote:I think there should be a whole separate class prior to CHL. It shouldnt be the job of the CHL instructor to show people how to hold a gun and other basics. It's a concealed handgun course.. Before you are allowed to enroll you should have to either test out or take a 14 hour gun course.

If I remember correctly it was a 14 hour course for hunter education and it should be similar to that but if you qualify, or test out, then u can do the 4 hour chl course.

Doesn't have to be your job...if they don't know how to handle a firearm then fail them and move on. Non-issue as far as I'm concerned.

Doesn't have to be your job...if they don't know how to handle a firearm then fail them and move on. Non-issue as far as I'm concerned.

or look at it as a business opportunity: rather than fail them, refund their money and suggest they really should consider a "handguns for dummies" class (hopefully with a better name) that you would be happy to teach for a small fee and then they would be eligible for a discount on the CHL class.

Crossfire wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I knew CHL Instructors would not like reducing the number of hours because they won't be able to charge as much for a 4 hr. course. Although I'm a CHL Instructor, I'm a Second Amendment activist first, NRA Board Member second, and a CHL Instructor a distant third.

I have to admit that I'm a bit disappointed that all instructors don't feel the same.

Chas.

I think with less money investment, less time investment, we would see a great increase in the number of CHL holders in Texas. And... with a 4 hour class, since I have to pay for a room for all day - we could do TWO CHL classes on a Saturday. Win-Win.

That's absolutely how I see it playing out. If an instructor wanted to do so, they could hold morning and afternoon classes, with the range portion in the middle.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I knew CHL Instructors would not like reducing the number of hours because they won't be able to charge as much for a 4 hr. course. Although I'm a CHL Instructor, I'm a Second Amendment activist first, NRA Board Member second, and a CHL Instructor a distant third.

I have to admit that I'm a bit disappointed that all instructors don't feel the same.

Chas.

Well said, Charles. I can get on a soapbox about a bunch of the details as an instructor -- as some here can testify -- but the long and short is: I can't "Prove" it, but I "know" that if I, as an instructor, can't give you as a student what you need to safely and legally carry a gun in public in 4 hours time, I probably can't do it in 10 hours time either -- whether that's a function of instructor failure or student failure, the outcome is the same.

And I also think you're right, that with a more reasonable time requirement, the overwhelming (to the prospective CHL student) "10 hour class" would turn fewer off to the process -- our revenues wouldn't suffer badly -- although that's not the reason I do it...

I'm not sure I'm on board for a "Maximum" training time restriction though...but I have to think about the logistics of that part before I can be sure....