superchief wrote:As a gun owner, "shall not be infringed" means just that. I've never thought this whole program is in line with the second amendment.
This is something that I believe too many instructors forget or ignore. We are dealing with two constitutional rights, 1) the right to keep and bear arms; and 2) the right to preserve one's one life. The requirements to obtain a CHL must be the least restrictive possible and 10 hour classes do not meet that requirement. This isn't theory, it a fact. Contrary to the arguments of some, we've been teaching all of the required material in less than four hours for 16 years. During that time CHLs have garnered an incredible track record, so we are not debating in a vacuum.
I've been a firearms instructor for over 40 years in some form or another. I can teach a one day course or a one month course, depending upon what I choose to include. I conduct seminars that range from 1 hour to a full day, depending upon what I include in the course. It simply isn't necessary to keep students in a class for 10 hours to cover the statutorily-required material.
I teach classes other than the CHL class and they range from basic handgun skills for beginners to advanced handgun skills. I'm certified to teach all NRA classes other than muzzle loader and shotgun and I'm going to be doing more of them in the coming months. I believe strongly that people should get firearms training and I encourage all of my CHL students to do so. However, I will not let my personal opinions about training interfere with the constitutional rights of others.
Some instructors are so smitten with themselves, that they believe they are God's gift to the Texas CHL system. They aren't! The most prolific of CHL instructors has trained only a small fraction of the 600,000+ CHLs so their impact is nonexistent. Before we decided to push for the hour reduction, we contacted more active instructors in various parts of the State and asked for their input. Not one opposed the reduction and all agreed that the core material does not support a 10 hour course.
I am not suggesting that any instructor's 10 hour course isn't "good," but I am saying it isn't necessary to achieve a legitimate legislative goal while respecting constitutional rights. I find it frustrating that not one single instructor who opposes the change has answered my question as to whether they are going to stop teaching on Sept. 1st. If they truly believe what they are saying, i.e. that the course cannot be taught in 4 to 6 hours not counting range time, then why would they continue to teach when they have admitted they are not up to the task? Not one single instructor has answered my other question; i.e. do you feel your renewal students are not being properly trained now?
Chas.
I think Mr. Cotton is dead on with this post.