TexasCHLforum.com

There is no "continuing education" requirement for Texas CHL Instructors. I get my CE here on this forum, by reading everything I can find on the subject and teaching the class. Many years ago we were required to go to Austin for a day of lecture and shooting. I have heard here on this forum that we will be required again at next re-qual to attend a class and shoot with a fellow Instructor. I enjoy that. Best people in the world to hang out with.

In the spirit of this thread, does anybody make a booklet of CHL-16 that has both the actual verbiage of Texas Law and a laymans reading of the law? Sometimes the legalese is tough to understand.

crazy2medic,

I second your idea.

I've yet to read a law that didn't cause my eyes to glaze over with the first sentence as law is written with more difficulty to understand the an insurance policy or all the caveats pertaining to a credit card transaction.

I think a lot of the inaccuracies out there fall on the instructors not clearly (or even correctly) covering the lessons, not keeping up to date, or the student just not listening, but there were some things that I noticed in the Jan 2016 Instructor class.

From statements made, at least a few of the students had obviously not read any CHL-16 update in years. Maybe since the first one. And I don't think some of those caught on that things had changed. Many did not have a copy of the current CHL-16 with them and DPS no longer hands them out.

The DPS instructors themselves said they are not the experts on LTC, RDS is, but they are tasked to teach the class. This was the second or third time. Plus they rotate instructors teaching the class. I think they did a very good job but there were some things that I think weren't covered adequately.

Examples:
In discussion of PC 46.035 Unlawful Carrying the slide had this line:
"Premises of a church, synagogue, or other established place of worship (if effective notice is given per Penal Code Chapter 30)"
After they covered this slide in about 10 seconds I heard someone behind me say "So you still can't carry in a church" and the person beside them said "That's right". On the class evaluation I mentioned that the last part needs more clarity.

When the 06/07 signs were covered at the end the instructor basically said, correctness really doesn't matter, the intent was good enough. He said he even knew of a case of someone convicted for passing a gun buster sign. Didn't give any details and I never caught up with him to ask.

The 06/07 example signs where mixed case block letters. We've had the discussion here about height and only the uppercase were 1". Someone in class pointed out the sign was not valid because of the letters and the reply was "we don't add the Spanish because it can vary". "No, the letters are too small". Blank look.

51% sign. When asked how you tell if the sign was valid or not, and what to do if it's not, they had no answer to the first and the second was "just don't go in".

There was a few others but those stuck in my mind. If I hadn't been on here for so long I would have had no idea what the reality was about these. (Although we will continue to debate 3 and 4 )

Once again, I am not bashing the the DPS instructors. They did a great job under the constraints they have. They teach several different classes at the school and as they themselves said, they are not experts on LTC.

Thanks for the tidbit about the courthouse. Now I need to file a complaint for the one in Edinburg. My "the instructor said" moment was when he suggested that we fire a round into the ground when we draw our firearm.... I think there also needs to be signage scenarios such as having a blue sign with a 30.06/07 sign. It's amazing how misinformed people are about it.

bear94 wrote: My "the instructor said" moment was when he suggested that we fire a round into the ground when we draw our firearm...

What he said WHAT?

If you heard him correctly, that is not just not staying up on current law as it relates, not Admin changes, that was a direct lecture statement from a person in apparent expertise and athority to violate the law
That one if you are remembering correctly needs to go back to DPS for an instructor review.

crazy2medic wrote:In the spirit of this thread, does anybody make a booklet of CHL-16 that has both the actual verbiage of Texas Law and a laymans reading of the law? Sometimes the legalese is tough to understand.

E.Marquez wrote:

bear94 wrote: My "the instructor said" moment was when he suggested that we fire a round into the ground when we draw our firearm...

What he said WHAT?

If you heard him correctly, that is not just not staying up on current law as it relates, not Admin changes, that was a direct lecture statement from a person in apparent expertise and athority to violate the law
That one if you are remembering correctly needs to go back to DPS for an instructor review.

I had him repeat it because I couldn't believe he said that. Thankfully I know better than to ever consider that, however, I'm worried that someone may take it to heart.

howdy wrote:There is no "continuing education" requirement for Texas CHL Instructors. I get my CE here on this forum, by reading everything I can find on the subject and teaching the class. Many years ago we were required to go to Austin for a day of lecture and shooting. I have heard here on this forum that we will be required again at next re-qual to attend a class and shoot with a fellow Instructor. I enjoy that. Best people in the world to hang out with.

If I'm reading your post correctly, it says the next Instructor Renewal Class won't be with the DPS but rather with a fellow instructor. I may be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure that we will still be required to attend the renewal class with the DPS (at least I haven't heard to the contrary).

The major deviation from the norm with the last recertification was that the DPS only conducted the classroom portion, with the range proficiency conducted by a fellow instructor & submitted separately.

bear94 wrote:

E.Marquez wrote:

bear94 wrote: My "the instructor said" moment was when he suggested that we fire a round into the ground when we draw our firearm...

What he said WHAT?

If you heard him correctly, that is not just not staying up on current law as it relates, not Admin changes, that was a direct lecture statement from a person in apparent expertise and athority to violate the law
That one if you are remembering correctly needs to go back to DPS for an instructor review.

I had him repeat it because I couldn't believe he said that. Thankfully I know better than to ever consider that, however, I'm worried that someone may take it to heart.

That being the case, have you notified anyone at DPS they need to visit with this particular instructor in order to correct him so others won't follow his advice? If not, I recommend you do so.

bblhd672 wrote:

crazy2medic wrote:In the spirit of this thread, does anybody make a booklet of CHL-16 that has both the actual verbiage of Texas Law and a laymans reading of the law? Sometimes the legalese is tough to understand.

The problem with that is that any such booklet would be - at best - an "interpretation" which is really just an opinion, and at worst possibly could be considered as "legal advice". Unless every single reference to the law was prefaced with "this is just my opinion, and NOT to be considered as legal advice, but here is what I think this means", the author might be opening himself up to liabilities. At some point, wading through the disclaimers would become too burdensome.

It is far better to do the hard part — actually read the law for yourself. And it is not just enough to read §411. You have to read other chapters/sections/subsections for definitions of things like "use of force", "use of deadly force", "bodily harm", "great bodily harm", "reasonableness", and "reasonably believes" in order to fully understand the limits AND expansions under §411.

Most or all of that is in the CHL-16 handbook. If you want a hard copy, you can download the current PDF and take it to a FedEx Kinkos and have them print and bind it into a booklet form, and it won't cost that much.....particularly when compared to how much you spent on a gun, holster, belt, ammunition, LTC class, and LTC application.

In a parallel example, I have prepared a number of Bible studies on various topics over the years for small group Bible studies I've either led or been a member of, and there's a principle at work there which anyone who has done the same, or any pastor who has prepared a sermon can tell you: the person who did the work of preparing a study lesson ALWAYS gets more out of the preparation than the person who was guided by that lesson.

Similarly, it takes longer, and it is more challenging, but you will understand LTC law more deeply and correctly if you put in the work of studying it yourself than you will benefit from relying on someone else's interpretations......which are, by definition, at least one generation removed from the actual wording of the law.

And the one overriding principle to keep in mind with regard to the law is this: unless a law exists to specifically forbid something, that thing is by default legal. Someone saying it is illegal doesn't make it so. Only the law can do that. Someone saying a thing is legal doesn't make it so. Unless that person is your lawyer and is personally willing to absorb your penalties if he or she is wrong, you have to go to the law, and do your due diligence to make sure for yourself. Simply relying on someone else's word — even an attorney's word, unless you have hired him/her specifically as your legal counsel — is bad policy.

This.
Reading the penal, code of criminal procedures, and the uniform act, can be tedious. Even though I have been out of law enforcement for several years, I keep the latest editions of these on hand so I can keep myself updated on any changes.
Someone else's opinion, is just that, opinion. There is no substitute for doing your own homework.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

bblhd672 wrote:

crazy2medic wrote:In the spirit of this thread, does anybody make a booklet of CHL-16 that has both the actual verbiage of Texas Law and a laymans reading of the law? Sometimes the legalese is tough to understand.

The problem with that is that any such booklet would be - at best - an "interpretation" which is really just an opinion, and at worst possibly could be considered as "legal advice". Unless every single reference to the law was prefaced with "this is just my opinion, and NOT to be considered as legal advice, but here is what I think this means", the author might be opening himself up to liabilities. At some point, wading through the disclaimers would become too burdensome.

It is far better to do the hard part — actually read the law for yourself. And it is not just enough to read §411. You have to read other chapters/sections/subsections for definitions of things like "use of force", "use of deadly force", "bodily harm", "great bodily harm", "reasonableness", and "reasonably believes" in order to fully understand the limits AND expansions under §411.

Most or all of that is in the CHL-16 handbook. If you want a hard copy, you can download the current PDF and take it to a FedEx Kinkos and have them print and bind it into a booklet form, and it won't cost that much.....particularly when compared to how much you spent on a gun, holster, belt, ammunition, LTC class, and LTC application.

In a parallel example, I have prepared a number of Bible studies on various topics over the years for small group Bible studies I've either led or been a member of, and there's a principle at work there which anyone who has done the same, or any pastor who has prepared a sermon can tell you: the person who did the work of preparing a study lesson ALWAYS gets more out of the preparation than the person who was guided by that lesson.

Similarly, it takes longer, and it is more challenging, but you will understand LTC law more deeply and correctly if you put in the work of studying it yourself than you will benefit from relying on someone else's interpretations......which are, by definition, at least one generation removed from the actual wording of the law.

And the one overriding principle to keep in mind with regard to the law is this: unless a law exists to specifically forbid something, that thing is by default legal. Someone saying it is illegal doesn't make it so. Only the law can do that. Someone saying a thing is legal doesn't make it so. Unless that person is your lawyer and is personally willing to absorb your penalties if he or she is wrong, you have to go to the law, and do your due diligence to make sure for yourself. Simply relying on someone else's word — even an attorney's word, unless you have hired him/her specifically as your legal counsel — is bad policy.

If I write a book/article/post about Texas law without placing the words "this is just my opinion" in front of every interpretation of the law, am I opening myself up to liability civilly, or criminally? How so? Practicing law without a license? In that case I hope the DPS FAQ writers were all members of the Bar, because it doesn't have any warnings and has contained inaccuracies in the past.

Do I have to post IANAL in my sig line in order to avoid civil/criminal liability for my posts? What if I am a lawyer, but not accepted to practice in Texas, or let my license lapse?

If I'm not taking money from people specifically for interpreting a law for them...not by selling them a book, then it's a bit of a stretch to say I'm practicing law. I know there's the occasional suit against WillMakerPro.com and Nolo Press from some state bar association, but I don't think posting on the Forum is even close.

And then back to the original post...I agree with your assessment that reading the law oneself and researching (perhaps even here on the Forum) is better than waiting for someone (even a lawyer) to author an interpretation that will last until a judge has a different view...

ScottDLS <-----Did I SAY I was a lawyer? Well then, there's your answer!

ScottDLS wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

bblhd672 wrote:

crazy2medic wrote:In the spirit of this thread, does anybody make a booklet of CHL-16 that has both the actual verbiage of Texas Law and a laymans reading of the law? Sometimes the legalese is tough to understand.

The problem with that is that any such booklet would be - at best - an "interpretation" which is really just an opinion, and at worst possibly could be considered as "legal advice". Unless every single reference to the law was prefaced with "this is just my opinion, and NOT to be considered as legal advice, but here is what I think this means", the author might be opening himself up to liabilities. At some point, wading through the disclaimers would become too burdensome.

It is far better to do the hard part — actually read the law for yourself. And it is not just enough to read §411. You have to read other chapters/sections/subsections for definitions of things like "use of force", "use of deadly force", "bodily harm", "great bodily harm", "reasonableness", and "reasonably believes" in order to fully understand the limits AND expansions under §411.

Most or all of that is in the CHL-16 handbook. If you want a hard copy, you can download the current PDF and take it to a FedEx Kinkos and have them print and bind it into a booklet form, and it won't cost that much.....particularly when compared to how much you spent on a gun, holster, belt, ammunition, LTC class, and LTC application.

In a parallel example, I have prepared a number of Bible studies on various topics over the years for small group Bible studies I've either led or been a member of, and there's a principle at work there which anyone who has done the same, or any pastor who has prepared a sermon can tell you: the person who did the work of preparing a study lesson ALWAYS gets more out of the preparation than the person who was guided by that lesson.

Similarly, it takes longer, and it is more challenging, but you will understand LTC law more deeply and correctly if you put in the work of studying it yourself than you will benefit from relying on someone else's interpretations......which are, by definition, at least one generation removed from the actual wording of the law.

And the one overriding principle to keep in mind with regard to the law is this: unless a law exists to specifically forbid something, that thing is by default legal. Someone saying it is illegal doesn't make it so. Only the law can do that. Someone saying a thing is legal doesn't make it so. Unless that person is your lawyer and is personally willing to absorb your penalties if he or she is wrong, you have to go to the law, and do your due diligence to make sure for yourself. Simply relying on someone else's word — even an attorney's word, unless you have hired him/her specifically as your legal counsel — is bad policy.

If I write a book/article/post about Texas law without placing the words "this is just my opinion" in front of every interpretation of the law, am I opening myself up to liability civilly, or criminally? How so? Practicing law without a license? In that case I hope the DPS FAQ writers were all members of the Bar, because it doesn't have any warnings and has contained inaccuracies in the past.

Do I have to post IANAL in my sig line in order to avoid civil/criminal liability for my posts? What if I am a lawyer, but not accepted to practice in Texas, or let my license lapse?

If I'm not taking money from people specifically for interpreting a law for them...not by selling them a book, then it's a bit of a stretch to say I'm practicing law. I know there's the occasional suit against WillMakerPro.com and Nolo Press from some state bar association, but I don't think posting on the Forum is even close.

And then back to the original post...I agree with your assessment that reading the law oneself and researching (perhaps even here on the Forum) is better than waiting for someone (even a lawyer) to author an interpretation that will last until a judge has a different view...

ScottDLS <-----Did I SAY I was a lawyer? Well then, there's your answer!

I get your point, and what is I said was certainly hyperbolic, but we do live in a litigious society, and it is populated with a surplus of idiots. Books are different from forum posts because a consumer has paid for the alleged expertise contained in the book. A forum post is just a forum post, and it is worth exactly what it cost the reader to read it......which is to say, it's worth nothing. By definition, any forum post in a discussion like this one is just opinion. If someone publishes a book for commercial consumption purporting to "explain" LTC law in "layman's terms", and that author does not put a disclaimer somewhere in the book stating that his explanation does not constitute legal advice and that the reader should consult an attorney to verify the information, then he or she is a fool — because as sure as God made little green apples, there will be some incompetent out there somewhere who will take the author's interpretation as permission to release the stupid within. At least the CHL-16 states the law directly, and is the official position of the state, without any interpreting filters. And, it's free.

I can go to any grocery or health food store where vitamins or over the counter analgesics are sold, and the odds are that an innocent bottle of vitamin C or ibuprofen will have printed somewhere on the label a recommendation to consult one's doctor before consuming the product. This is basically the disclaimer which protects the manufacturer from the stupidity of the consumer. Anyone who doubts the consumer's propensity to refuse responsibility for his or her choices in life need only listen to a few tv or radio ads for prescribed medications.......fully half of which ad time is spent listing all of the possible negative side effects of those meds. ALL of these disclaimers exist because the consumer is a fickle idiot who, more often than not refuses to do his own due diligence before buying and consuming the product, and who won't hesitate to hire a shyster to recoup the losses sustained due to the fecklessness of their own decision-making.

Any book author who publishes a layman's interpretation of CHL-16 without a legal disclaimer at least at the front of the book, should not be surprised if someone sues him; and the cost of defending the lawsuit will almost certainly prove more expensive than simply paying the plaintiff to go away.....an expense which a short paragraph of 10 or 15 words in the book's foreword could have avoided.

But book or no book, nothing for the license holder can beat doing his or her due diligence and actually reading and knowing the law.