TexasCHLforum.com

My wife and I just took our CHL class and I was very disappointed in our instructor. What he told us was way out of date.

He said the following was illegal:

church carry
amusement park carry
Dart bus (Dallas Area Rapid Transit)


On a break I quietly pulled him a side and asked him about the provision that said church carry and amusement park carry did not apply unless properly posted... he said I guess you can try to use that as a loophole.

Its unfortunately a lot of people just paid to get bad info.

Luckily I have watched this forum for a while and I thank all of y'all for clearing up any bad info.

Unfortuantely he was a cop and I suspect there are a lot of cops that aren't quite up to date on the laws. There are a lot of laws that would make it hard to memorize all of them, but I'd think he would know the CHL laws since he teaches the class.

Shawn -
You did the right thing by taking him aside and telling him that his information was incorrect. According to your account your instructor wasn't too receptive, but it is up to him to update his classroom instruction.

I suspect his response to you was simply trying to "cover" himself. You may well have prompted him to update his material so the next class may be better informed.

Chas.

I guess saying I was disappointed was a little harsh.

He was very good in giving us real world examples and stressing the importance of practicing real scenarios when possible and not just standing in front of a still target. Other than the one point I mentioned he was good.

regardless, this forum has been a good source of information..thx!

shawn wrote:I guess saying I was disappointed was a little harsh.

Actually, Shawn, I do not think the term "disappointed" is harsh at all. This change has been on the books for over 10 years now. It would make me wonder about the accuracy of any other specific legal info which may have been provided in the class.

Did he cover the recent (last legislative session) change about carrying in " the premisis of a court" rather than "in a court"? It is a slight change in wording which, if not pointed out, could land an uninformed CHL in jail.

If some good ole boy were just trying to informally give you some information (for free) about CHL laws, then "disappointed" might be too harsh. For someone who takes on the responsibility to do CHL instruction PROFESSIONALLY, perhaps "disappointed" was too MILD a word to use. I say this as a CHL instructor.

CWOOD wrote:

shawn wrote:I guess saying I was disappointed was a little harsh.

Actually, Shawn, I do not think the term "disappointed" is harsh at all. This change has been on the books for over 10 years now. It would make me wonder about the accuracy of any other specific legal info which may have been provided in the class.

Instructors/Teachers/Professors/Cops are not infallible. If your conversation with the instructor causes him to change his training so that he provides more up-to-date information in future classes, then it was a win-win situation. Again, I applaud your initiative.

CWOOD wrote:

shawn wrote:I guess saying I was disappointed was a little harsh.

Did he cover the recent (last legislative session) change about carrying in " the premisis of a court" rather than "in a court"? It is a slight change in wording which, if not pointed out, could land an uninformed CHL in jail.

The way I understand it you can not carry... PC46.03 (3) on the premises of any government court or offices utilized by the court.

So that means in any physical building where a court or offices utilized by the court are located. So even if the court shares a building with some one else, can't carry in that building.

is that correct. If so, I don't remember if he told us that or I just gathered that from my own studying. I do not remember him dwelling on it, but I do remember him going over the definition of "premises".

if I'm wrong, feel free to correct me... I'm still actively learning.

shawn wrote: So even if the court shares a building with some one else, can't carry in that building, is that correct... I'm still actively learning.

shawn, you have it exactly correct.

My point was that this small change in the wording of the law had a large changed in what was permissible. The change was made as a compormise to get a greater advancement for CHL's.

We are nearly all "still actively learning." I hope we continue to do so. I compliment you on your ongoing effort to learn these things more completely. We should all be so concientious.