HB48: No renewal class required

This sub-forum will open for posting on Sept. 1, 2012.

Moderators: Charles L. Cotton, carlson1

Do you support HB48 that removes the requirement to take CHL renewal course?

I support HB48 and I am not a CHL Instructor
167
73%
I support HB48 and I am a CHL Instructor
14
6%
I oppose HB48 and I am not a CHL Instructor
37
16%
I oppose HB48 and I am a CHL Instructor
10
4%
 
Total votes: 228


bayouhazard
Senior Member
Posts: 823
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 2:30 pm
Location: Wild West Houston

Re: HB48: No renewal class required

Postby bayouhazard » Wed Mar 06, 2013 2:42 pm

This looks like a step in the right direction. We don't need a class to renew a driving license or voter registration. We shouldn't need one to renew a handgun license.


Salty1
Senior Member
Posts: 914
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 7:44 pm

Re: HB48: No renewal class required

Postby Salty1 » Wed Mar 06, 2013 3:38 pm

Personally I have no problem with attending renewal classes, I enjoy hearing about any changes in the law from other peoples perspective and hanging out with like minded people for a few hours.
Salty1

User avatar

RottenApple
Senior Member
Posts: 1625
Joined: Sun Jan 09, 2011 3:19 pm

Re: HB48: No renewal class required

Postby RottenApple » Wed Mar 06, 2013 3:44 pm

Salty1 wrote:Personally I have no problem with attending renewal classes, I enjoy hearing about any changes in the law from other peoples perspective and hanging out with like minded people for a few hours.


Eliminating the need for the class doesn't mean that instructors can't still offer it. Call it a "Refresher Course" if you will. There will be some who will take it for exactly the reasons you state.

BTW, this is the same reason that even some very experienced shooters take a Basic Pistol course. They've may have been shooting for years or even decades, but they want to refresh themselves on the basics. Personally, I think it's a great idea.

User avatar

VMI77
Senior Member
Posts: 6096
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 5:49 pm
Location: Victoria, Texas

Re: HB48: No renewal class required

Postby VMI77 » Wed Mar 06, 2013 3:59 pm

Purplehood wrote:I think that renewal "classes" should be an online review of current laws related to the CHL and an e-signature affirming that you have read them.



I could go for that too.
"Journalism, n. A job for people who flunked out of STEM courses, enjoy making up stories, and have no detectable integrity or morals."

From the WeaponsMan blog, weaponsman.com

User avatar

DocV
Senior Member
Posts: 899
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2011 4:29 pm

Re: HB48: No renewal class required

Postby DocV » Wed Mar 06, 2013 4:12 pm

RX8er wrote:I support the idea of no class for renewal. Where I think the bill falls down is somehow making sure that at each renewal, the CHL holder is up to speed on any changes to the law.


That was my concern but Sec. 411.185.c of the proposal specifically requires the director to produce an informational form describing the law and requires license holder to acknowledge the form. I am still mulling this one over.
NRA Lifetime Member
I was addicted to the hokey-pokey, but I turned myself around.

User avatar

RoyGBiv
Senior Member
Posts: 6860
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2011 11:41 am
Location: Fort Worth

Re: HB48: No renewal class required

Postby RoyGBiv » Wed Mar 06, 2013 4:17 pm

Jumping Frog wrote:
Purplehood wrote:I think that renewal "classes" should be an online review of current laws related to the CHL and an e-signature affirming that you have read them.

That is what Ohio does. Attorney General publishes a "Concealed Carry Handbook". The CHL affirms under penalty of perjury that they have downloaded and reviewed the current pamphlet as part of the application.

It'll never work. It's FAR too reasonable and requires people to exhibit a modicum of personal responsibility.


:mrgreen:
I am not a lawyer. This is NOT legal advice.!
Image
Nothing tempers idealism quite like the cold bath of reality.... SQLGeek

User avatar

fickman
Senior Member
Posts: 1706
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 2:52 pm
Location: Fort Worth, Texas

Re: HB48: No renewal class required

Postby fickman » Wed Mar 06, 2013 4:35 pm

Keith B wrote:I am an instructor and believe there are enough people out there that do not stay up to date with law changes and need to be updated and let know about them. I would not mind seeing some type of online test with a larger question pool and random questions being chosen from the pool; that would at least require them to study the laws.

As for shooting, there are a lot that come through that haven't shot in 5 years (last CHL proficiency). I think there still needs to be that portion. Some of our worst students on the range are the renewals. :banghead:

I was thinking about the instructors who might say, "but how will the students get the latest info on the laws?" . . . then I remembered all of the threads here about grossly uninformed instructors, and how some of their more scrupulous students noticed their own incompetence and sought supplemental info online that eventually led them to our little community here.

No matter what renewal mechanism we come up with, there's going to be a licensed subset of uninformed out there.

VMI77 wrote:
Purplehood wrote:I think that renewal "classes" should be an online review of current laws related to the CHL and an e-signature affirming that you have read them.



I could go for that too.

This isn't objectionable to me.

RoyGBiv wrote:
Jumping Frog wrote:
Purplehood wrote:I think that renewal "classes" should be an online review of current laws related to the CHL and an e-signature affirming that you have read them.

That is what Ohio does. Attorney General publishes a "Concealed Carry Handbook". The CHL affirms under penalty of perjury that they have downloaded and reviewed the current pamphlet as part of the application.

It'll never work. It's FAR too reasonable and requires people to exhibit a modicum of personal responsibility.


:mrgreen:

I'd even be willing to buy a $5 handbook with the new laws at the time of renewal. . . or it could be added to the current fee.

A class definitely isn't necessary.
Native Texian

User avatar

sunny beach
Banned
Posts: 234
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2012 7:32 pm

Re: HB48: No renewal class required

Postby sunny beach » Wed Mar 06, 2013 8:27 pm

Instructors can take an online test. Let us take an online test and if we pass, no class!


MeMelYup
Senior Member
Posts: 1870
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2010 3:21 pm

Re: HB48: No renewal class required

Postby MeMelYup » Wed Mar 06, 2013 9:02 pm

sunny beach wrote:Instructors can take an online test. Let us take an online test and if we pass, no class!

I can go for that.


chasfm11
Senior Member
Posts: 3166
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:01 pm
Location: Northern DFW

Re: HB48: No renewal class required

Postby chasfm11 » Wed Mar 06, 2013 9:17 pm

Keith B wrote:I am an instructor and believe there are enough people out there that do not stay up to date with law changes and need to be updated and let know about them. I would not mind seeing some type of online test with a larger question pool and random questions being chosen from the pool; that would at least require them to study the laws.

As for shooting, there are a lot that come through that haven't shot in 5 years (last CHL proficiency). I think there still needs to be that portion. Some of our worst students on the range are the renewals. :banghead:


Keith, is this because they have bad attitudes, because they don't know (or pay attention to) range rules or because they are lousy shots?

I got a lot out of my original class. Like others have said, however, it was just a starting point for me. I showed me all that I didn't understand and I've been studying ever since. I'm certain that I will get a lot out of my renewal course, too. On the other hand, I don't think that making people take the course necessarily helps with retaining knowledge on the Texas CHL related laws. Those that want to, will. Those for whom the class is simply a checkmark on the sheet probably won't. Most people that take the classes apparently have enough interest that they have retained sufficient information to keep themselves out of trouble. On balance, I wonder exactly want percentage of them actually put themselves in situations (by carrying most of the time) where it makes any difference.
6/23-8/13/10 -51 days to plastic
Dun Spiro Spero

User avatar

FL450
Senior Member
Posts: 757
Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 6:48 am
Location: Pearland, Texas

Re: HB48: No renewal class required

Postby FL450 » Wed Mar 06, 2013 10:09 pm

how would this affect future reprocity agreements?
I love the sound smell of jet fuel in the morning.
Fat thumbs + IPhone = errors, please forgive.

User avatar

Topic author
Charles L. Cotton
Site Admin
Posts: 16631
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:31 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX
Contact:

Re: HB48: No renewal class required

Postby Charles L. Cotton » Wed Mar 06, 2013 10:16 pm

FL450 wrote:how would this affect future reprocity agreements?


I don't know for sure, but unlike lowering the number of hours, deleting the renewal class entirely probably will have a negative impact on reciprocity. Any states that require our law to be equal to or more stringent than their law may cancel reciprocity with Texas.

Chas.
Image

User avatar

C-dub
Senior Member
Posts: 11755
Joined: Sat May 16, 2009 7:18 pm
Location: DFW

Re: HB48: No renewal class required

Postby C-dub » Wed Mar 06, 2013 10:30 pm

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
FL450 wrote:how would this affect future reprocity agreements?


I don't know for sure, but unlike lowering the number of hours, deleting the renewal class entirely probably will have a negative impact on reciprocity. Any states that require our law to be equal to or more stringent than their law may cancel reciprocity with Texas.

Chas.

That's what I was going to ask. After this question was asked and answered in the other thread regarding the reduction in class time, it seemed like it might be relevant in this thread about the deletion of renewals.
I am not and have never been a LEO. My avatar is in honor of my friend, Dallas Police Sargent Michael Smith, who was murdered along with four other officers in Dallas on 7.7.2016.

User avatar

Moby
Senior Member
Posts: 367
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2012 9:41 pm
Location: Dallas
Contact:

Re: HB48: No renewal class required

Postby Moby » Wed Mar 06, 2013 10:38 pm

I do not look at driving, voting, and carrying a gun in the same light.
I am all for a renewal class and in fact think the practical shooting requierments are fairly lame.

I could be convinced to taking on line courses/tests for legal changes.
I would welcome more stringent range qualifications.

I'm sure most do not feel that way. Sorry...I do.
Be without fear in the face of your enemies.
Stand brave and upright that the Lord may love thee.
Speak the truth always even if it means your death.
Protect the helpless and do no wrong!

Image


Right2Carry
Banned
Posts: 1447
Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2006 2:29 pm
Location: Dallas/Fort Worth Area

Re: HB48: No renewal class required

Postby Right2Carry » Wed Mar 06, 2013 11:01 pm

The_Busy_Mom wrote:Hmmmm....... That's one that I have to give some more thought to. If you go off the thought that CHL class is for education about the law (simplistic, I know), then you put a CHL license in the same category as a driver's license. You don't have to take a class to renew your driver's license, just get another picture and pay your fee when it expires. The argument is that you didn't have to take a class to get your driver license to begin with, so you wouldn't need a class to renew. The same cannot be (currently) said for CHL license. You have to have the class time to get the license, so I would say that some sort of renewal class would be needed. I would bet most of the people on this forum don't know about new laws that affect driver licenses (age restrictions being the big one that I can think of right off the top of my head). People who are responsible for conceal carrying a firearm should be up to speed on changing legislation. The most efficient way to do this is through a renewal class. I understand that ignorance of the law is no excuse. I'm just not really sure how I feel about someone carrying a firearm, basing their actions on information that might be 15 years old. Think about how much has changed since 1995/1996 when the program was enacted.

I'll vote after I see some different sides to this coin.

:txflag: TBM

Edited: Now that I typed out what I thought, I realize that the current 10 renewal requirement isn't much different than my point of 15 year old information. Critical thinking - it does a mind good.


NOTE: Applicants under 25 years of age must also successfully complete a driver education course before applying for their first Texas driver license.

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/DriverLice ... icense.htm
“Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference in the world. But, an American Soldier doesn't have that problem". — President Ronald Reagan, 1985


Return to “2013 Texas Legislative Session”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest