TexasCHLforum.com

If changed to 4 hours maybe they can do something like a min of 4 or max of 10 ???
Just tossing that out there.

PracticalTactical wrote:I don't think anybody here is considering the possibility of vicarious liability in the number of class hours. Personally, I wouldn't go below about 8 hours. I just don't think I could get students to understand it all in less time.

We're already at 4 hrs for renewals and these folks make up the vast majority of CHL students every year. We haven't had a problem with renewals students.

PracticalTactical wrote:If the required in-person class time were lowered to 4 hours, I would have an online pre-course with a test they have to pass before coming to the classroom.

While you can establish any personal requirements you feel prudent to attend your class, be careful that you don't add to the statutory requirements to pass the DPS course and obtain a CHL-100. As instructors, we cannot add additional requirements to pass the course.

PracticalTactical wrote:But 4 hours of total classroom without anything else to back it....no way. Most students would be OK with 4 hours because they're pretty with it, but I'm not putting my name on any of my student's bullets without some good training to get me off the hook.

You wouldn't be on the hook at all. We instructors have immunity. Plus, you already do it with renewal students and studies show those students recall very little of any from their course 5 years earlier. Also, when you teach students on their 4th renewals, they will not have had a class in 10 years.

I would like to see the Code amended such that the only subjects taught are 1) use of force; 2) regulatory matters for CHL's (renewals, change of address, etc.) and 3) a short basic firearms safety segment. (Edited to add: 3) off-limits areas. Thanks Cobra Medic.)

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

PracticalTactical wrote:I don't think anybody here is considering the possibility of vicarious liability in the number of class hours. Personally, I wouldn't go below about 8 hours. I just don't think I could get students to understand it all in less time.

We're already at 4 hrs for renewals and these folks make up the vast majority of CHL students every year. We haven't had a problem with renewals students.

PracticalTactical wrote:If the required in-person class time were lowered to 4 hours, I would have an online pre-course with a test they have to pass before coming to the classroom.

While you can establish any personal requirements you feel prudent to attend your class, be careful that you don't add to the statutory requirements to pass the DPS course and obtain a CHL-100. As instructors, we cannot add additional requirements to pass the course.

PracticalTactical wrote:But 4 hours of total classroom without anything else to back it....no way. Most students would be OK with 4 hours because they're pretty with it, but I'm not putting my name on any of my student's bullets without some good training to get me off the hook.

You wouldn't be on the hook at all. We instructors have immunity. Plus, you already do it with renewal students and studies show those students recall very little of any from their course 5 years earlier. Also, when you teach students on their 4th renewals, they will not have had a class in 10 years.

I would like to see the Code amended such that the only subjects taught are 1) use of force; 2) regulatory matters for CHL's (renewals, change of address, etc.) and 3) a short basic firearms safety.
Chas.

That sounds very reasonable to me

apostate wrote:

point blank CHL wrote:......I think a min. of 8 hours plus range would be good...

Eight hours classroom plus two hours on the range?

LOl.....you got me on my typo

Charles L. Cotton wrote: You wouldn't be on the hook at all. We instructors have immunity.

In the instructor course, they told us that there's vicarious liability, as in if we teach wrong or inadequately, we could civilly be on the hook for what a student does based on the incorrect knowledge.

Is there more to the story than what they taught?

PracticalTactical wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote: You wouldn't be on the hook at all. We instructors have immunity.

In the instructor course, they told us that there's vicarious liability, as in if we teach wrong or inadequately, we could civilly be on the hook for what a student does based on the incorrect knowledge.

Is there more to the story than what they taught?

Anybody can sue anybody for any reason. Whether they can prevail is another question.

I feel that 10 hours is plenty or even to much time for a one day class, I would prefer an 8 hour class and think it would be more effective. I say this because it seems the students start to become less focused the last two hours or so just becasue they are tired.

My approach is to cover the states requirement for sure but I will qaulify many times during the class that this is just the start of their training. I stress that there is no way to retain all of the info they receive in one day, the student must continue their training "journey" on their own with the knowledge that they will get out only as much as they put in.

As a CHL holder for 14 years as well as an instructor, I have come to realize all of what can go wrong but that realazation did not happen overnight.

PracticalTactical wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote: You wouldn't be on the hook at all. We instructors have immunity.

In the instructor course, they told us that there's vicarious liability, as in if we teach wrong or inadequately, we could civilly be on the hook for what a student does based on the incorrect knowledge.

Is there more to the story than what they taught?

As much as I respect the training folks at DPS, this is incorrect, at least in part. Fist, vicarious liability means you are liable for the wrongful acts of a third party. That's not going to happen in this context in Texas.

The issue would be a claim by the "shooter" that he was improperly trained. Either way, instructors enjoy immunity from civil liability for their acts as an instructor, unless they acted fraudulently or in violation of the Texas Consumer Protection & Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

Now in the interest of full disclosure, subsection (e) was added during the 2009 legislative session and it greatly reduced the immunity instructors used to enjoy. Prior to that amendment, instructors had the same immunity as did "the state, an agency or subdivision of the state, an officer or employee of the state, [or] a peace officer[.]" It was added when a laundry list of changes was submitted to the new then-chairman of the House Public Safety Committee. (I will withhold my opinion of that one-term chairman, but thankfully he was not reelected! I also will not disclose you tendered the laundry list.) We were able to defeat all but two of the items this attorney wanted. Unfortunately, we were not able to defeat this provision.

There was absolutely no reason to amend the code. If the state and everyone else continues to enjoy widespread immunity, why should instructors be singled out? By invoking the DTPA, it makes it easier to pursue a suit against an instructor by the student, including frivolous lawsuits. Why this person wanted to make it easier to file frivolous lawsuits is beyond comprehension.

So the bottom line is we still have limited immunity by statute, but under facts that can trigger the DTPA, it may or may not be available.

Chas.

Tex. Gov't Code §411.208 wrote:Sec. 411.208. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY. (a) A court may not hold the state, an agency or subdivision of the state, an officer or employee of the state, a peace officer, or a qualified handgun instructor liable for damages caused by:

• (1) an action authorized under this subchapter or a failure to perform a duty imposed by this subchapter; or
  
  (2) the actions of an applicant or license holder that occur after the applicant has received a license or been denied a license under this subchapter.

(b) A cause of action in damages may not be brought against the state, an agency or subdivision of the state, an officer or employee of the state, a peace officer, or a qualified handgun instructor for any damage caused by the actions of an applicant or license holder under this subchapter.

(c) The department is not responsible for any injury or damage inflicted on any person by an applicant or license holder arising or alleged to have arisen from an action taken by the department under this subchapter.

(d) The immunities granted under Subsections (a), (b), and (c) do not apply to an act or a failure to act by the state, an agency or subdivision of the state, an officer of the state, or a peace officer if the act or failure to act was capricious or arbitrary.

(e) The immunities granted under Subsection (a) to a qualified handgun instructor do not apply to a cause of action for fraud or a deceptive trade practice.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I would like to see the Code amended such that the only subjects taught are 1) use of force; 2) regulatory matters for CHL's (renewals, change of address, etc.) and 3) a short basic firearms safety segment.

Nothing on 30.06, 46.03 and 46.035?

Cobra Medic wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I would like to see the Code amended such that the only subjects taught are 1) use of force; 2) regulatory matters for CHL's (renewals, change of address, etc.) and 3) a short basic firearms safety segment.

Nothing on 30.06, 46.03 and 46.035?

Good catch. Yes, the class would obviously have to cover off-limits locations.

Chas.

How about outlawing "Insurance Companies/Law Firms" (I.E.: [pre-paid legal]) from giving sales pitches during a CHL Class?

What's next.......
Gun Dealers promoting current weeks "Max Profit of the week Guns we need to move"?

Quote: "Florida will accept any class taught by a NRA instructor and the instructor can just make up his own class certificate for the student."

Does this mean that the certificate for the (no-shooting) "NRA Home Firearm Safety Course" is what the "ex-Utah" instructors are now using for students to submit for the Florida CCW?

Greybeard wrote:Quote: "Florida will accept any class taught by a NRA instructor and the instructor can just make up his own class certificate for the student."

Does this mean that the certificate for the (no-shooting) "NRA Home Firearm Safety Course" is what the "ex-Utah" instructors are now using for students to submit for the Florida CCW?

Florida accepts State Hunters Ed and Safety, a CCL from another state, Law Enforcement training or proof of shooting from competitions or military and doesn't specify that you have to shoot for the class. However, the NRA courses in subparagraph 2 and 3, or the made up course in 7 listed below require they demonstrate they can safely discharge a firearm for the instructor. I have heard at least one instructor has them shoot wax bullets with a primer-only charge in class to get by this requirement.

http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2010/790.06" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

FL 790.06 wrote: (h) Demonstrates competence with a firearm by any one of the following:
1. Completion of any hunter education or hunter safety course approved by the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission or a similar agency of another state;
2. Completion of any National Rifle Association firearms safety or training course;
3. Completion of any firearms safety or training course or class available to the general public offered by a law enforcement, junior college, college, or private or public institution or organization or firearms training school, utilizing instructors certified by the National Rifle Association, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission, or the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services;
4. Completion of any law enforcement firearms safety or training course or class offered for security guards, investigators, special deputies, or any division or subdivision of law enforcement or security enforcement;
5. Presents evidence of equivalent experience with a firearm through participation in organized shooting competition or military service;
6. Is licensed or has been licensed to carry a firearm in this state or a county or municipality of this state, unless such license has been revoked for cause; or
7. Completion of any firearms training or safety course or class conducted by a state-certified or National Rifle Association certified firearms instructor;

A photocopy of a certificate of completion of any of the courses or classes; or an affidavit from the instructor, school, club, organization, or group that conducted or taught said course or class attesting to the completion of the course or class by the applicant; or a copy of any document which shows completion of the course or class or evidences participation in firearms competition shall constitute evidence of qualification under this paragraph; any person who conducts a course pursuant to subparagraph 2., subparagraph 3., or subparagraph 7., or who, as an instructor, attests to the completion of such courses, must maintain records certifying that he or she observed the student safely handle and discharge the firearm;

Ya Keith, what you put in red is quite pertinent - what I suspect many of 'em are ignoring.

I am guessing they may also be using the following line to eliminate having to pay NRA for the Course Booklet and/or Certificate: "or an affidavit from the instructor, school, club, organization, or group that conducted or taught said course".