Civil immunity issues at CHL renewal

[KD5NRH]

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.

This is where I have a problem with it.

As an example, I don't know if it's still done that way, but when I took it, the private pilot written exam was drawn from a pool of a few hundred questions, without changing the order of the answers, (i.e. the answer to a given question number would always be "B") and the question number from the pool was included on the test. One of the guys in my class just couldn't learn the material, so he memorized the answer key to the entire pool (question number and answer letter) and aced his written test in record time while having less knowledge of the subject than most of us had by the third day of class.

Ham tests are done similarly, though the answers are often rearranged to prevent the above. Nonetheless, I have seen people ace even the Extra test who could tell you that the answer to E7F02 is prescaler, without having any idea what the question is.

Do you really want people representing CHLs and gunowners in general who have only the above sort of "knowledge" of the material tested?

[alvins]

we had some lady who works at a pawn shop in the clearlake area or somthing. she didnt teach squat other then the correct answers for the test and how she was some body guard in an ealier life. i didnt have to listen to any sales pitch though.

[RPB]

we had some lady who works at a pawn shop in the clearlake area or somthing. she didnt teach squat other then the correct answers for the test and how she was some body guard in an ealier life. i didnt have to listen to any sales pitch though.

Sad, but the class I took from retired military, retired LEO, firearms instructor was great. It took a little longer than the "required" time and covered more than just the "required" material, (but no sales pitches for other merchandise) so felt it was worth the extra time to know things which weren't covered in the books, so it was well worth the money. ....

This forum continued my education, and at a fantastic price.

[alvins]

Their was so many things wrong with that class it wasnt funny. i was just happy to get out of their and the class over.

Mainly....

1 no teaching of anything.
2 had mine at best shot range in friendswood when it was owned by the previous person. it was about 35 degrees outside and i dont think any warmer inside.
3 only went over answers to test questions.
4 spent a huge amount of time on the firing portion of the test.


the only good thing we spent even more amount of time making sure everyone had everything filled out all the I's dotted and T's crossed.

[RPB]

Well, if an "anti" lobbyist or Senator takes a class, so they can go through "the express line" or in order to say " I took it and all they did was"

I certainly hope they get a good class like the one I had and like I'm sure MOST are, ... usually you get a sweet berry, but sometimes you get a tart one.

[Rex B]

I took my renewal course last Saturday, put on by a Ft Worth police officer.
Going through the laws, he specifically pointed out the section that said you are NOT immune from civil liability. I kept waiting for him to get to the last law listed on his handout (83.001) negating civil liability, but he never did, and I never found an opportunity to call him on it.

But we didn't get an insurance sales pitch.

[b322da]

I took my renewal course last Saturday, put on by a Ft Worth police officer.
Going through the laws, he specifically pointed out the section that said you are NOT immune from civil liability. I kept waiting for him to get to the last law listed on his handout (83.001) negating civil liability, but he never did, and I never found an opportunity to call him on it.

But we didn't get an insurance sales pitch.

We have been over and over this time and again here, Rex, but I see it may have to be said again, just briefly this time, or some new CHLers are liable to believe it.

With the greatest of respect, a general statement that "you are not immune from civil liability" is quite correct, unless some qualifiers are thrown in.

Elmo

[Barbi Q]

A bad Texas instructor may or may not be worse than a competent Utah instructor, but they're both a lot better than Loony Burnam, who not only wants to take guns out of the hands and holsters of crime victims and other good people, but thinks we're NOT taxed enough already and wants to add a state income tax to kill the Texas private sector.

[Rex B]

I took my renewal course last Saturday, put on by a Ft Worth police officer.
Going through the laws, he specifically pointed out the section that said you are NOT immune from civil liability. I kept waiting for him to get to the last law listed on his handout (83.001) negating civil liability, but he never did, and I never found an opportunity to call him on it.

But we didn't get an insurance sales pitch.

We have been over and over this time and again here, Rex, but I see it may have to be said again, just briefly this time, or some new CHLers are liable to believe it.

With the greatest of respect, a general statement that "you are not immune from civil liability" is quite correct, unless some qualifiers are thrown in.

Elmo

Elmo, those were my words, not his. I did not record the session so I can't quote him verbatim.
He was a bit more direct. He said, in effect "You will almost certainly be sued"

And I agree, anyone can be sued for anything. Prevailing is another matter. In 2006 the legislature made it clear that a CHL holder in a legal defensive case cannot be held civilly liable for damages.
My point is this instructor made no attempt to to point out the 2006 changes, and he ignored the 83.001 that was listed on the handout he was reading from. It was the very last paragraph.
That's an important omission, and I see no way it could be inadvertent.

[Barbi Q]

Selectively teaching the laws they like, and ignoring the laws they don't, is cheating their students.

[b322da]

I took my renewal course last Saturday, put on by a Ft Worth police officer.
Going through the laws, he specifically pointed out the section that said you are NOT immune from civil liability. I kept waiting for him to get to the last law listed on his handout (83.001) negating civil liability, but he never did, and I never found an opportunity to call him on it.

But we didn't get an insurance sales pitch.

We have been over and over this time and again here, Rex, but I see it may have to be said again, just briefly this time, or some new CHLers are liable to believe it.

With the greatest of respect, a general statement that "you are not immune from civil liability" is quite correct, unless some qualifiers are thrown in.

Elmo

Elmo, those were my words, not his. I did not record the session so I can't quote him verbatim.
He was a bit more direct. He said, in effect "You will almost certainly be sued"

And I agree, anyone can be sued for anything. Prevailing is another matter. In 2006 the legislature made it clear that a CHL holder in a legal defensive case cannot be held civilly liable for damages.
My point is this instructor made no attempt to to point out the 2006 changes, and he ignored the 83.001 that was listed on the handout he was reading from. It was the very last paragraph.
That's an important omission, and I see no way it could be inadvertent.

Rex,

Please forgive me. I did not follow the quotes of quotes correctly.

I am having a very bad day here today, both with misunderstanding others and getting myself understood.

Senior moment.

Elmo

[Rex B]

No offense taken, I could have been more clear.