CHL/LTC - Sharing Qualification Test

The "What Works, What Doesn't," "Recommendations & Experiences"

Moderators: carlson1, Crossfire

User avatar

WildBill
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 12
Posts: 17350
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 12:53 pm
Location: Houston

Re: CHL/LTC - Sharing Qualification Test

#16

Post by WildBill »

Breny414 wrote:
thatguyoverthere wrote:My instructor for my CHL class had the same philosophy for the same reasons as stated by the OP, but my instructor went even further. He did not allow us to take photos of our targets, did not allow us to hold our targets long enough for us to count our own score (just take them down and hand them to him), and would not tell us our score after he checked our targets. All I knew at the end was that I passed. Seemed slightly overcautious to me, but I was ok with it all in all.
Seems to be a bit over the top... unless he was trying to teach a lesson. Like, be careful of the things you do, say, post, bumper stickers on your car, etc, etc, because these things could be used against you in a prosecution.
I can understand being careful about disclosing certain things. I was raised the same way. Not because these things could be used against me as a prosecution, but just not advertising that you own a gun or things that aren't any one's business. For example, I have been an NRA Life member for 30+ years, but don't have an NRA sticker on my car. I am not afraid of prosecution, but don't want to advertise to a thief.
Last edited by WildBill on Sat Feb 20, 2016 9:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
NRA Endowment Member
User avatar

thatguyoverthere
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 460
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2015 11:51 pm
Location: Fannin County

Re: CHL/LTC - Sharing Qualification Test

#17

Post by thatguyoverthere »

Breny414 wrote:
thatguyoverthere wrote:My instructor for my CHL class had the same philosophy for the same reasons as stated by the OP, but my instructor went even further. He did not allow us to take photos of our targets, did not allow us to hold our targets long enough for us to count our own score (just take them down and hand them to him), and would not tell us our score after he checked our targets. All I knew at the end was that I passed. Seemed slightly overcautious to me, but I was ok with it all in all.
Seems to be a bit over the top... unless he was trying to teach a lesson. Like, be careful of the things you do, say, post, bumper stickers on your car, etc, etc, because these things could be used against you in a prosecution.
I don't recall him going that direction so much, talking about those other things. But I do recall him specifically talking about the hypothetical prosecutor using a good qualification score against you in a court of law. I thought it was a little overdone also. But his class - no reason for me to argue with him about. I figured he could run his class like he wanted to. :tiphat:
User avatar

Breny414
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 256
Joined: Sun Nov 29, 2015 9:27 am
Location: Austin

Re: CHL/LTC - Sharing Qualification Test

#18

Post by Breny414 »

WildBill wrote: I can understand being careful about disclosing certain things. I was raised the same way. Not because these things could be used against me as a prosecution, but just not advertising that you own a gun or things that aren't any one's business. For example, I have been an NRA Life member for 30+ years, but don't have an NRA sticker on my car. I am not afraid of prosecution, but don't want to advertise to a thief.
That's a good point. Anyway, If I were to ever have a bumper sticker it would probably be something i thought was funny rather than something political.

But in my post I was thinking more along the lines of the "Terrorist Hunting Permit" bumper sticker or others that could be interpreted as provocative, depending against whom you used your firearm in self-defense.
User avatar

WildBill
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 12
Posts: 17350
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 12:53 pm
Location: Houston

Re: CHL/LTC - Sharing Qualification Test

#19

Post by WildBill »

Breny414 wrote:
WildBill wrote: I can understand being careful about disclosing certain things. I was raised the same way. Not because these things could be used against me as a prosecution, but just not advertising that you own a gun or things that aren't any one's business. For example, I have been an NRA Life member for 30+ years, but don't have an NRA sticker on my car. I am not afraid of prosecution, but don't want to advertise to a thief.
That's a good point. Anyway, If I were to ever have a bumper sticker it would probably be something i thought was funny rather than something political.

But in my post I was thinking more along the lines of the "Terrorist Hunting Permit" bumper sticker or others that could be interpreted as provocative, depending against whom you used your firearm in self-defense.
I see your point. There is no way I would have that on my car or home. Some consider it funny or clever, but I think they are tacky. But that's just me talking. ;-)
NRA Endowment Member
User avatar

WildBill
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 12
Posts: 17350
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 12:53 pm
Location: Houston

Re: CHL/LTC - Sharing Qualification Test

#20

Post by WildBill »

thatguyoverthere wrote:
Breny414 wrote:
thatguyoverthere wrote:My instructor for my CHL class had the same philosophy for the same reasons as stated by the OP, but my instructor went even further. He did not allow us to take photos of our targets, did not allow us to hold our targets long enough for us to count our own score (just take them down and hand them to him), and would not tell us our score after he checked our targets. All I knew at the end was that I passed. Seemed slightly overcautious to me, but I was ok with it all in all.
Seems to be a bit over the top... unless he was trying to teach a lesson. Like, be careful of the things you do, say, post, bumper stickers on your car, etc, etc, because these things could be used against you in a prosecution.
I don't recall him going that direction so much, talking about those other things. But I do recall him specifically talking about the hypothetical prosecutor using a good qualification score against you in a court of law. I thought it was a little overdone also. But his class - no reason for me to argue with him about. I figured he could run his class like he wanted to. :tiphat:
It is his class. Everyone has their opinions. As long as they state it's their opinion rather than the law or fact I can't complain too much.
NRA Endowment Member
User avatar

JayStation3
Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 52
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2012 4:37 pm
Location: Houston
Contact:

Re: CHL/LTC - Sharing Qualification Test

#21

Post by JayStation3 »

WildBill wrote:It's hard to believe that rumor is still alive and well.
My instructor said this very same thing to my class last year. He told us not to keep our targets and to stay away from pro gun stickers on our vehicles and "trespassers will be shot" type of signs around the house. So I did some research and is not so much a rumor from what I've found.

And just for the record, they can't use those signs or past awards or training or anything like that "as proof" or "evidence" against you in any criminal cases but they can used against you in a civil case.

They can be used to "paint" a picture of the "type" of person the people suing you wants the jury to see you as...
"The Nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools." - Thucydides
User avatar

WildBill
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 12
Posts: 17350
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 12:53 pm
Location: Houston

Re: CHL/LTC - Sharing Qualification Test

#22

Post by WildBill »

JayStation3 wrote:
WildBill wrote:It's hard to believe that rumor is still alive and well.
My instructor said this very same thing to my class last year. He told us not to keep our targets and to stay away from pro gun stickers on our vehicles and "trespassers will be shot" type of signs around the house. So I did some research and is not so much a rumor from what I've found.

And just for the record, they can't use those signs or past awards or training or anything like that "as proof" or "evidence" against you in any criminal cases but they can used against you in a civil case.

They can be used to "paint" a picture of the "type" of person the people suing you wants the jury to see you as...
Well then I have nothing to worry about. :tiphat:
NRA Endowment Member
User avatar

ScottDLS
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 5052
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 1:04 am
Location: DFW Area, TX

Re: CHL/LTC - Sharing Qualification Test

#23

Post by ScottDLS »

Does this mean I have to give up my "I'd rather be killing Communists" t-shirt and my Soldier of Fortune "Kill 'em all and let God sort them out" one?

I have had them since the A-Team and Miami Vice were on and no one's used them in a civil trial yet... :biggrinjester:

Maybe that's why my umbrella policy got canceled...or maybe it was the speeding tickets... :shock:
4/13/1996 Completed CHL Class, 4/16/1996 Fingerprints, Affidavits, and Application Mailed, 10/4/1996 Received CHL, renewed 1998, 2002, 2006, 2011, 2016...). "ATF... Uhhh...heh...heh....Alcohol, tobacco, and GUNS!! Cool!!!!"

MeMelYup
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 1874
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2010 3:21 pm

Re: CHL/LTC - Sharing Qualification Test

#24

Post by MeMelYup »

Some of that stuff is like a beware of dog sign on your front gate post. If you didn't know your dog was dangerous why did you put a beware of dog sign up?
User avatar

puma guy
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 7630
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2009 2:23 pm
Location: Near San Jacinto

Re: CHL/LTC - Sharing Qualification Test

#25

Post by puma guy »

WildBill wrote:The post reminds me of a very old rumor about professional boxers and martial artist black belts having to register their hands as deadly weapons.
You mean I didn't have to register????????? :biggrinjester:
KAHR PM40/Hoffner IWB and S&W Mod 60/ Galco IWB
NRA Endowment Member, TSRA Life Member,100 Club Life Member,TFC Member
My Faith, My Gun and My Constitution: I cling to all three!
User avatar

WildBill
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 12
Posts: 17350
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 12:53 pm
Location: Houston

Re: CHL/LTC - Sharing Qualification Test

#26

Post by WildBill »

puma guy wrote:
WildBill wrote:The post reminds me of a very old rumor about professional boxers and martial artist black belts having to register their hands as deadly weapons.
You mean I didn't have to register????????? :biggrinjester:
You still have to register, but only with Chuck Norris. :mrgreen:
NRA Endowment Member

MeMelYup
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 1874
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2010 3:21 pm

Re: CHL/LTC - Sharing Qualification Test

#27

Post by MeMelYup »

WildBill wrote:
puma guy wrote:
WildBill wrote:The post reminds me of a very old rumor about professional boxers and martial artist black belts having to register their hands as deadly weapons.
You mean I didn't have to register????????? :biggrinjester:
You still have to register, but only with Chuck Norris. :mrgreen:
That was the requirement in California in certain counties during the late 60's.
User avatar

WildBill
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 12
Posts: 17350
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 12:53 pm
Location: Houston

Re: CHL/LTC - Sharing Qualification Test

#28

Post by WildBill »

MeMelYup wrote:
WildBill wrote:
puma guy wrote:
WildBill wrote:The post reminds me of a very old rumor about professional boxers and martial artist black belts having to register their hands as deadly weapons.
You mean I didn't have to register????????? :biggrinjester:
You still have to register, but only with Chuck Norris. :mrgreen:
That was the requirement in California in certain counties during the late 60's.
This thread is getting way off topic [thanks to me].
I grew up in California during that time period and heard that claim, but was never able to see any evidence of a law that talked about it.
There was talk about making all prize fighting [boxing] illegal because it was too brutal and barbaric and they wanted to curtain betting on matches.

There were laws written to regulate prize fighting in California, but I can not find any requiring "registration" as a deadly weapon. If you can provide a link I will be grateful. :tiphat:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displ ... =403-420.1
Last edited by WildBill on Sun Feb 21, 2016 5:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
NRA Endowment Member

MeMelYup
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 1874
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2010 3:21 pm

Re: CHL/LTC - Sharing Qualification Test

#29

Post by MeMelYup »

WildBill wrote:
MeMelYup wrote:
WildBill wrote:
puma guy wrote:
WildBill wrote:The post reminds me of a very old rumor about professional boxers and martial artist black belts having to register their hands as deadly weapons.
You mean I didn't have to register????????? :biggrinjester:
You still have to register, but only with Chuck Norris. :mrgreen:
That was the requirement in California in certain counties during the late 60's.
I grew up in California during that time period and heard that claim, but was never able to see any evidence of a law that talked about it.
There was talk about making all prize fighting [boxing] illegal because it was too brutal and barbaric.

There were laws written to regulate prize fighting in California, but I can not find any requiring "registration" as a deadly weapon. If you can provide a link I will be grateful. :tiphat:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displ ... =403-420.1
I don't know, that is what I was told by a young martial arts person from the LA area.
User avatar

JayStation3
Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 52
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2012 4:37 pm
Location: Houston
Contact:

Re: CHL/LTC - Sharing Qualification Test

#30

Post by JayStation3 »

MeMelYup wrote:Some of that stuff is like a beware of dog sign on your front gate post. If you didn't know your dog was dangerous why did you put a beware of dog sign up?

I run/own a dog rescue, so I deal with more dogs in a week than most deal with in a lifetime. Here in Houston, a beware of dog sign is just a warning to bypassers that there may be a dog on the premise.

These signs do not constitute no trespassing.

My buddy had a beware of dog sign up and a meter guy jumped the fence anyway and got bit pretty bad. Police were called. Animal control was called. My buddy showed shot records to police later and police left.

A month later, meter guy sued my buddy. My buddy ended up winning BECAUSE the sign was there.
"The Nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools." - Thucydides
Post Reply

Return to “New to CHL?”