Renewal Class

[switch]

We had about 200 at the class today in Mesquite. :(

I have been curious how many would be interested in the train the trainer, teach the teacher course (some people confuse this w/the school marshal program). I asked our instructors. They had never asked. Seems to me that would be interesting information for DPS? I asked Sherri to ask. She thought everyone would raise their hand. Actually, only 30% indicated an interest.

The course will last 15 to 20 hours. Cost is not determined, yet. ($100?) All of us will NOT be eligible. They will probably limit it to CHL instructors that have had advanced training, maybe require some simunition experience. They have not decided, yet.

Actually, I thought Rick vetoed the school marshal program, but I guess not. I don't care enough to look up the law right now.

They were blaming us for the thousands of calls about 'grace period' for renewals (or lack thereof). I told them it was their fault. If they had posted something on the website, we would not have had to call them to find out. :)

Actually, pretty good hour of training, crammed into 8 hours of class. :)

[Crossfire]

I thought it was a great class! Way too many people crammed into the room - yes, probably close to 200. And technical difficulties with the sound system made it even more challenging. But, DPS Bamsch and Zgabay pushed right through it.

I do enjoy their teaching style, which is almost conversational. They are very comfortable going back and forth seamlessly. If you have never taught with a partner, you don't know how difficult that is - and they make it look effortless.

Yes, there was a lot of material that us long time instructors should have already known, but not everyone has been in the program for as long as you and I, Switch. Overall, a good review of what we already should know and some good NEW info too.

[cw3van]

I thought it was a great class! Way too many people crammed into the room - yes, probably close to 200. And technical difficulties with the sound system made it even more challenging. But, DPS Bamsch and Zgabay pushed right through it.

I do enjoy their teaching style, which is almost conversational. They are very comfortable going back and forth seamlessly. If you have never taught with a partner, you don't know how difficult that is - and they make it look effortless.

Yes, there was a lot of material that us long time instructors should have already known, but not everyone has been in the program for as long as you and I, Switch. Overall, a good review of what we already should know and some good NEW info too.

The class even with the technical difficulties & overcrowding was well done as Crossfire said when you have SGT Bamsch & Ms Zgabay it's going to be a good class.

[sjfcontrol]

It's a minor point, but I find the semi-hypothetical, self-answered questions somewhat annoying. Like Ferris Bueler's Econ teacher. ("Is it a good idea to repeat safety rules over and over? Anyone? Anyone? YES!"

And I find some of their logic baffling. Soooo, they hold back information so that they can disperse it to us face-to-face? (In individual classes so that not everybody hears the same thing at different times.) Especially when it is then followed up with complaints about receiving hundreds and thousands of emails and phone calls requesting verification of that same information. Gee, if only there were some technology whereby information could be posted at a single location that everybody could then reference. (Sigh…)

But I enjoyed what I could hear, anyway...

[Keith B]

I think the purpose of not posting it out there until they can actually face-to-face explain it was a better method for some of the issues. A good example is the misinterpretation everyone had that the renewal grace period would disappear after Sept. 1. Everyone reads things and interprets them a little differently (just look at posts on this forum for example). If they are in a venue where they can answer a question and clear it up, then that is better.

My only complaint was the push to have to finish. No, I really didn't want to be there any longer, but if it meant some people getting an answer to a question they really needed, then I would have sacrificed a little more time. Unfortunately they were at the mercy of the facility on closing time or I am sure they would have stayed longer.

As Crossfire said, they teach well together and they give good and correct information.

And as a note, they DO teach that PC 49.01 is the standard for any intoxication offense, whether driving or carrying a gun. End of story.

[KC5AV]

I still take exception to their claim that they contacted all instructors about renewal requirements. If it hadn't been for this forum, I'd have been in the dark about the NRA training. The only communication I've received from them was after I started the renewal process.

[Crossfire]

I will agree, they could make better use of the Instructor Updates section of the CHL website!

[switch]

Well, Sgt Bamsch said he never used the term 'zero tolerance'. Sounds like you can have a couple of beers and carry.

But the 'presentation' sure made it sound like zero tolerance.

They are real big on 'integrity', follow the law. If they want me to follow the law, they should follow the law.

There were 2 bills passed last session about renewals. The first required DPS to develop or approve an online renewal course, the second did away w/renewal courses. The 2nd over-rode the first.

We have laws, interpreted/expanded by rules. We have to follow both. The law (passed after the rule was created) said you have to renew before your CHL expires. Period. I was at the conference in Houston. Charles Cotton said he thought DPS wanted to keep the grace period but did not see how that would comply w/the law. Sherri was real careful, conspicuously, to NOT address that issue. I don't blame her. Above her paygrade. She did not have the ability to continue grace periods. However, once the decision has been made to ignore the law, why not post on the website? After the first 10 calls? 100 calls? Even after we got reports they were going to allow a grace period - we still questioned them. Who said that? Where is it written? (The answer was 'nowhere'.) I understand not wanting to email every instructor but do not understand why it was not posted. If they don't want to post, fine. Just don't blame CHL instructors for trying to understand/interpret the law.

While I am ranting. As they pointed out, the original bill would allow CHL's to carry on an expired license IFF they had already submitted a renewal app. (How would you prove you have started the renewal process.) Some were concerned that would mean the TX CHL would NOT exempt from a NICS check. I disagree. I think that is a misinterpretation and an over-reaction. Even though you could still legally carry on an expired license it would still be expired. If you came into my gun store and presented an expired CHL, I'm going to do a NICS check. If you say, "I've already renewed it. It's still good." I don't care. I'm doing a NICS or you can come back when you get your new license.

There was another bill (that did not pass) that would have allowed soldiers to carry on an expired TX CHL as long as they were stationed outside of TX. At first, I worried about that giving us problems w/NICS. Course, now it is moot because they can renew online just like everyone else.

[Keith B]

Well, Sgt Bamsch said he never used the term 'zero tolerance'. Sounds like you can have a couple of beers and carry.

But the 'presentation' sure made it sound like zero tolerance.

What I interpreted him to say was that every individual is different. We should not tell a student or anyone carrying a firearm that it is OK to consume alcohol and carry. First, if they do, become intoxicated (per 49.01) and get arrested, then you as an instructor told them it was OK to consume alcohol and carry.

Now, while you or I may be able to consume a beer with a meal when we are in good physiological condition and not become intoxicated or impaired per the penal code, others may not. My mother-in-law does not drink. I saw her consume about a 1/4 glass of wine once and was loopy. I have seen young kids 18 years old get buzzed on one 12oz 3.2 beer. I have seen a combination of over the counter allergy meds and a half glass of wine impair someone. Ad infinitum

So, what they are saying is while they don't believe that gunpowder and alcohol are a good combination at any level, don't give anyone legal advice on drinking or not while carrying. I will give the student or CHL the law as written, tell them that if they are impaired per the penal code they are intoxicated, and nothing more.

[switch]

I 'accidentally' brought home a 6-pack of non-alcoholic beer New Years eve. The kids got into it and were cross-eyed until one read the label and pointed out it was non-alcoholic. :)

Can you legally carry/drive when you are impaired? Sure. Have a fight w/your wife? Kid call, drunk, just wrecked your new Ferrari? Would you be impaired? I would. Might not be smart to drive/carry, but would be legal.

[Keith B]

I 'accidentally' brought home a 6-pack of non-alcoholic beer New Years eve. The kids got into it and were cross-eyed until one read the label and pointed out it was non-alcoholic. :)

Can you legally carry/drive when you are impaired? Sure. Have a fight w/your wife? Kid call, drunk, just wrecked your new Ferrari? Would you be impaired? I would. Might not be smart to drive/carry, but would be legal.

Actually, it is NOT legal for drive/carry when impaired:

Sec. 49.01.
DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:
(2) "Intoxicated" means:
(A) not having the normal use of mental or physical faculties by reason of the introduction of alcohol, a controlled substance, a drug, a dangerous drug, a combination of two or more of those substances, or any other substance into the body; or
(B) having an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more.

So, if you are impaired by the alcohol or other substance, you do not have the 'normal use' of your faculties and thusly are intoxicated. Period.

[switch]

If you are impaired because you are angry, 49.01 would not apply. :)

[Keith B]

If you are impaired because you are angry, 49.01 would not apply. :)

That is unless your wife poisoned you.

[Charles L. Cotton]

. . . As they pointed out, the original bill would allow CHL's to carry on an expired license IFF they had already submitted a renewal app. (How would you prove you have started the renewal process.) Some were concerned that would mean the TX CHL would NOT exempt from a NICS check. I disagree. I think that is a misinterpretation and an over-reaction.

It wasn't an over-reaction at all. Had HB48 passed in its as-filed form, an expired CHL would have allowed you to carry a handgun in Texas when it would otherwise be a violation of TPC §46.02. That would have been sufficient to lose our NICS exemption. Whether or not an FFL would still have to run a NICS check is not relevant.

Chas.

[switch]

My understanding is BATF will not approve a state CHL serving in lieu of a NICS check if the license is issued for more than 5 years.

My interpretation is the TX license expires in 5 years. Actually, the background check is more than 5 years old because they have to run it (up to 6 months) before the license is issued. I'd say the license 'expired'. Administratively, TX would be granting a 3 week 'grace' period.

How is that different from AZ, WY or AK where you can get a license (I don't know if theirs exempt their residents from NICS checks), but can still carry with (or without) an expired license.

I believe an expired license would NOT exempt you from a NICS check. Whether you still carried - legally or not, should be immaterial. The unexpired license, (less than 5 years old) should still work.

I don't see where TPC 46.02 has anything to do w/this.

Seems like this issue could be addressed by contacting BATF.