TexasCHLforum.com

MasterofNone. I love your response. Clear and to the point and easy to verify with Google.

When a student asked many years ago when lasers were just beinning to become popular, I called DPS and got a firm "no" from gal at range office. (She had to put me on hold and ask around first.) And suspect that call and others like it prompted clarification in the admin. rules.

As an aside, on training pistols for special uses in Handguns 101, I've gone thru at least 3 cheap lasers that simply did not hold up to hard use. Semi-recently mounted ($130) Crimson Trace "Railmaster" on XD9M that frequently gets rode hard and put up wet, with and without the laser being turned on. So far, so good.

Removed

Thank you. At least you're not going off of personal opinion.

Having said that, define "optical enhancers". I can see that as excluding scopes, as those actually enhance what you see. But I don't see that as excluding laser sights; unless you also consider it to exclude normal sights. Perhaps sigts without dots are ok, but if you have paint on your posts, then it's not ok. Certainly tritium sights are excluded...

According to the DPS instructors at the instructor course, a laser is an optical enhancer. When conducting the proficiency test for instructors, they do not allow lasers. And rule 6.11 states that the proficiency demonstration course will be the same for both instructors and license applications.

MasterOfNone wrote:Administrative rule 6.73 prohibits optical enhancers during the proficiency test. So it is not an arbitrary decision by instructors.
And I suggest just a piece of tape over your laser.

http://info.sos.state.tx.us/pls/pub/rea ... ch=6&rl=73" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

No optical enhancers will be allowed for instructor applicants or for applicants of concealed handgun licenses.

Tritium sights do not "enhance" or in any way improve aiming capability in daylight.

Thank you for this information. I wasn't impressed by my instructor but didn't want to write DPS because I wasn't sure he broke any rules. But he let a married couple use lasers on the test so now I can write DPS and sight a rule he broke and use that as a springboard for my other complaints.

Happily Ever After wrote:Thank you for this information. I wasn't impressed by my instructor but didn't want to write DPS because I wasn't sure he broke any rules. But he let a married couple use lasers on the test so now I can write DPS and sight a rule he broke and use that as a springboard for my other complaints.

I don't know what your other complaints are, but this "regulation" is not in the CHL-16, but in an obscure administrative reg. As far as I remember, I don't believe it's even mentioned in the instructor's class. If you have other complaints, feel free to bring them up --- but this seems to me to be a minor infraction of a rule that most instructors probably don't even know about. Seriously, if you can't pass the test without a laser sight, I doubt you could pass it with one, either. There are enough instructors out there mis-teaching the law to be concerned about without worrying about one that isn't aware of the administrative rules. IMO, of course...

Thanks for your advice. My original complaints were about him teaching the law but couldn't find a rule he violated because he spent the required amount of time. I will mail the letter tomorrow and if my complaints don't matter to DPS they can round file it.

In my opinion when a instructor signs a f-100
he is saying you are proficient with said weapon.
I would not allow it if it was optional, how would I claim and sign
To the fact that person is proficient if laser goes down, after the test was passed with laser.

Happily Ever After wrote:Thanks for your advice. My original complaints were about him teaching the law but couldn't find a rule he violated because he spent the required amount of time. I will mail the letter tomorrow and if my complaints don't matter to DPS they can round file it.

Why would you complain about him teaching the law? That's part of what he's supposed to do.

sjfcontrol wrote:

Happily Ever After wrote:Thanks for your advice. My original complaints were about him teaching the law but couldn't find a rule he violated because he spent the required amount of time. I will mail the letter tomorrow and if my complaints don't matter to DPS they can round file it.

Why would you complain about him teaching the law? That's part of what he's supposed to do.

He's supposed to teach current Texas law, not what it used to be years ago, and definitely not what he wishes it was. Anyway, the letter is in the mail and I trust DPS to decide what to do about it.

Happily Ever After wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:

Happily Ever After wrote:Thanks for your advice. My original complaints were about him teaching the law but couldn't find a rule he violated because he spent the required amount of time. I will mail the letter tomorrow and if my complaints don't matter to DPS they can round file it.

Why would you complain about him teaching the law? That's part of what he's supposed to do.

He's supposed to teach current Texas law, not what it used to be years ago, and definitely not what he wishes it was. Anyway, the letter is in the mail and I trust DPS to decide what to do about it.

That is a valid complaint, IMO. I trust you mentioned that, too.

Tritium sights do not "enhance" or in any way improve aiming capability in daylight.

Really? Having a dot to line up on the target so you can tell where your bullet will hit doesn't improve your aiming capability? Strange, I thought that was how all sights worked. Whether that dot is projected to the target or is on your gun, you are still using a device to improve your aiming capability. It really doesn't matter whether that dot is glowing or not, it's still a dot.

There are several definitions of the word optical. The problem is that whichever definition you choose, either lasers don't fit the definition (i.e. scopes with magnification), or they do fit, but then iron sights fit too. Therefore, under a system where iron sights are acceptable, this clearly means that the definition that excludes lasers must be the one meant by the rules and that lasers are acceptable too.

In addition, based on the phrase "optical enhancer" I can't see how eyeglasses are allowed.