TexasCHLforum.com

wgoforth wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote:

wgoforth wrote:If it gets turned over to their legal dept rather than he answering, I still won't know what HE said in class! Hmm

I can't imagine him giving a different answer in an email than he would have been teaching in class. Heck... send me his email... I will simply tell him howdy and that I have a couple quick questions for him. I won't go into the how, why, when or were of it all.

I said if he gives it to the LEGAL dept to answer (as you said he might) then I might still not know what HE himself taught in class.

I see what your saying. I was simply trying to make the point that if he thinks his answers are on stage, he may be afraid to respond. Maybe he will. Like i said... I was just trying to come up with why he may not have answered you quickly. You are correct about one thing. Answering your questions correctly at this point does not necessarily mean it is the same thing he said in class. Just the same, being called out on it may keep it from happening in a future class.

03Lightningrocks wrote:What you posted punkin is interesting. Now I am wondering about it all. One thing I will say about the possiblity you mentioned is that the instructers get a great big "FAIL" if they are not making sure the students are leaving with the proper understanding of the material. If Mr. wgofoart can misunderstand, so can others and the result is the same. A cancer of bad information spreading until it kills us all. (You folks like my dramatic analogy? ). But seriously, it is not a good thing that CHL instructers may be coming out of class teaching and spreading mis-information!

I challenge you to find one teacher anywhere of any subject that can teach well enough that every student retains the material precisely as it was taught. It simply ain't gonna happen. To call that "a great big 'FAIL'" by the instructors is to ignore reality.

wgoforth wrote:Is it possible I misunderstood ~all~ of this? I guess so. But if so I sure need to quit preaching if I can't decipher man's instructions, I sure wouldn't be able to decipher God's.

I'd wager God's instructions are a lot clearer than man's.

baldeagle wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote:What you posted punkin is interesting. Now I am wondering about it all. One thing I will say about the possiblity you mentioned is that the instructers get a great big "FAIL" if they are not making sure the students are leaving with the proper understanding of the material. If Mr. wgofoart can misunderstand, so can others and the result is the same. A cancer of bad information spreading until it kills us all. (You folks like my dramatic analogy? ). But seriously, it is not a good thing that CHL instructers may be coming out of class teaching and spreading mis-information!

I challenge you to find one teacher anywhere of any subject that can teach well enough that every student retains the material precisely as it was taught. It simply ain't gonna happen. To call that "a great big 'FAIL'" by the instructors is to ignore reality.

True....

baldeagle wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote:What you posted punkin is interesting. Now I am wondering about it all. One thing I will say about the possiblity you mentioned is that the instructers get a great big "FAIL" if they are not making sure the students are leaving with the proper understanding of the material. If Mr. wgofoart can misunderstand, so can others and the result is the same. A cancer of bad information spreading until it kills us all. (You folks like my dramatic analogy? ). But seriously, it is not a good thing that CHL instructers may be coming out of class teaching and spreading mis-information!

I challenge you to find one teacher anywhere of any subject that can teach well enough that every student retains the material precisely as it was taught. It simply ain't gonna happen. To call that "a great big 'FAIL'" by the instructors is to ignore reality.

True enough...however I was taking notes at the time, and these were not just said in passing. I am more than willing to say they may have been applying it in a way that I misunderstood, but my comments are not from forgetting. Perhaps misunderstanding. It would seem odd that I could sit through complex classes and recive a Master's Degree with a presidential scholarship and yet not understand this class.... but who knows.

If I misunderstood, and I may have, then I guarantee many others left with the same and now will be teaching it to untold numbers. That is my main concern. I sat discussing this with other students at break, and all of the ones I spoke with believed one was given notice by any sign. So if I am at fault here, the instructors also need to be more clear if this many are misunderstanding this much.

wgoforth wrote:....Perhaps misunderstanding,

There is also the very real possibility you heard them say exactly what you thought you heard them say. Who knows what "little miss lawyer britches" has been telling the DPS officers to teach. She has been known to espouse the exact opinions you cited on this thread. It is not that big of a stretch to think she may have convinced the others to teach it this way.

03Lightningrocks wrote:

wgoforth wrote:....Perhaps misunderstanding,

There is also the very real possibility you heard them say exactly what you thought you heard them say. Who knows what "little miss lawyer britches" has been telling the DPS officers to teach. She has been known to espouse the exact opinions you cited on this thread. It is not that big of a stretch to think she may have convinced the others to teach it this way.

Now THAT one would fit the pciture more closely...

I looked through the notebook supplied to see if any of this is written. The notebook contains only the slides which were not detailed, and used as outline of the talks. The slide which says "30.06 sign. Discuss sign requirements. Discuss what happens if sign is displayed but does not meet print standards." Thus, their answer isn't stated in our notebooks. The answers were oral. I wrote "served effective notice. Knew intent of the owners. Respect the sign." This was also where the Capt said if sign was not valid, call the DPS so they can correct them. However later the Sgt told us not to call the DPS as they didn't have time for that.

...Texas criminal law is not intent-based...if we miss following the letter of the law...our good intentions count for nothing...if they miss posting an enforceable sign, their intentions count for nothing...was the letter of the law satisfied or not...they can't have it both ways...


...I intended to drive 65...I intended to stop for that stop sign...I intended to pay for that candy bar...I intended only to shoot near him...they'd laugh us all the way to the lockup...

speedsix wrote:...Texas criminal law is not intent-based...if we miss following the letter of the law...our good intentions count for nothing...if they miss posting an enforceable sign, their intentions count for nothing...was the letter of the law satisfied or not...they can't have it both ways...

Amen. What's the saying, the path to hell is paved with good intentions? Lol... the program here modifies h-e-l-l even when talking about the literal place.

...in the few cases where a form of "intentional" is used in the CHL law, it is used CAREFULLY to give us an out...and the fact that intention is not a part of PC 30.06 isn't accidental...it's INTENTIONAL...

speedsix wrote:...in the few cases where a form of "intentional" is used in the CHL law, it is used CAREFULLY to give us an out...and the fact that intention is not a part of PC 30.06 isn't accidental...it's INTENTIONAL...

Speedsix has got it right. Section 30.06 was written as it was to PROTECT us CHL holders. Very specific requirements for language, size, and that the sign must be conspicuously placed.

The INTENT of the law is clear. The interpretation by DPS is a shame.

Crossfire wrote:

speedsix wrote:...in the few cases where a form of "intentional" is used in the CHL law, it is used CAREFULLY to give us an out...and the fact that intention is not a part of PC 30.06 isn't accidental...it's INTENTIONAL...

Speedsix has got it right. Section 30.06 was written as it was to PROTECT us CHL holders. Very specific requirements for language, size, and that the sign must be conspicuously placed.

The INTENT of the law is clear. The interpretation by DPS is a shame.

Yes Maam.

Please tell us how they respond and thanks for pushing on this.

If DPS is intentionally teaching bad law they're no better than the district attorneys who were prosecuting people for having guns in their cars after the legislature changed the law. I'm disappointed but with antigun Republicans like Straus pushing hard to restrict RKBA, I can't say I'm surprised this kind of garbage is spreading.

When WE THE PEOPLE get to vote, we need to remember how Straus and Lucio and others blocked gun rights in Texas.