TexasCHLforum.com

Ameer wrote:

Purplehood wrote:- Should there be a mandatory requirement (for those that have no LEO or Military experience for example) to go through a free seminar on handgun shooting, safety and related subjects prior to the CHL class?

NO!

I think there should be a way to test out of the full 10-15 hour class, based on actual skills and knowledge, but I don't think a piece of paper from somewhere else should get people out of the Texas requirements.

It's like some of my classes at UH. There are students who need remedial help. The answer is to fail them if they can't do the work to pass this class. Then they can go take a remedial class if they need it. Forcing me to waste my time taking remedial classes because other students struggle is unfair when I have an A average.

While I do wholeheartedly agree with what you're saying, I will say that it's kind of scary to be on the CHL qualification line with folks who are holding a gun for the first time in their lives. I had a GREAT instructor and trusted everyone was safe. But from the feedback I've heard from some of the others here about the quality of the their instructor, that may not always be the case. I guess the bottom line is to make sure you have a quality instructor.

T.

If they're unsafe they should be DQ and taken off the line. Even if they're ex military or LEO.

Ameer wrote: I think there should be a way to test out of the full 10-15 hour class, based on actual skills and knowledge, but I don't think a piece of paper from somewhere else should get people out of the Texas requirements.

I don't think that's a good idea. For one thing, it would require that the test be made MUCH harder. As it is, with a requirement of merely 70%, I dare say most reasonably intelligent people could pass that test without attending the class at all. The test is a joke.

The most important part of the class is Chapter 9, the next would be Chapter 46. Unless a person is a lawyer, he isn't going to be aware of these issues unless he attends a class.

So, to "test out" of the class, the test would have to be packed full of questions regarding CHs 9 and 46, making it MUCH harder for the less, umm "learning enabled"(?) person even after attending the class.

I'm trying to say here that there is a broad range of learning abilities in any class. In order to properly test an individual in order to allow him to "test out", the test would have to be made so hard, that many of those that attend the class would have problems passing it.

Furthermore, it would raise the premium for stolen test copies for those that would rather cheat their way into a license.

I just don't think it's a good idea.

Ameer wrote:If they're unsafe they should be DQ and taken off the line. Even if they're ex military or LEO.

That also goes for rich or poor CHL students.

Everything is bigger in Texas, especially CHL fees. Normal people in many other states pay less to the government for their license than the "discount" price Texas charges veterans, old people and poor people. The full price Texas license for people who work and pay taxes is way too expensive and the problem isn't instructors, it's the government.

wally775 wrote:You are required to qualify with X caliber minimum.
You can carry, not that I recommend it, any caliber. = Low cost ammo

Unless you shoot a lot of people, carry ammo is not a big cost.

WildBill wrote:

Ameer wrote:If they're unsafe they should be DQ and taken off the line. Even if they're ex military or LEO.

That also goes for rich or poor CHL students.

Everyone should have to pass the same tests.

I'm convinced the reason certain groups lobbied to get exempt from parts of the test are because they're worried they won't pass, or they have fragile egos and don't want to get "beaten" by an average person. Especially if the average person is female!

In a perfect world we shouldn't be having to get a CHL in the first place.

You are right. I tell folks in my class that I will vote myself out of a job in a heartbeat when Constitutional Carry is on the ballot.

What happened to the thread last night? It got severely truncated!

terryg wrote:What happened to the thread last night? It got severely truncated!

I think they got moved to the Texas Foodstamp Forum.

Crossfire wrote:

Hoi Polloi wrote:

CompVest wrote:My response sounds like a good idea, but how would an instructor decide or know if the person is "deserving" of the cost break? Instructors have no way to do the background check necessary to know if the person is financially in need.

Good point. How does a person currently qualify for the indigency rate? I didn't read anything about a background check--just sending in documentation with the application. Have you handled one before? Do you know the process?

Yes, they have to send in a copy of their previous year's income tax return.

My point is that I don't think that I or most instructors have the expertise to decide who is deserving and who isn't (unless the instructor knows the person personally). And if a person is deserving of a break due to their financial situation what is the point of giving them the class at a reduced rate? Even if they get the money to get the CHL, at a reduced rate or not, where are they going to get the money for a gun or the ammunition for it? Are the instructors supposed to supply them with these as well?

As a means of determining who are the 'qualifying' folks for the indigent rate, have them apply for and get approved for the indigent license fee, bring their paperwork to the class. That way you can let the state pre-qualify who is truly indigent and your will know that they are motivated and have met other basic requirements.

If they qualify for the state's indigent rate and have gone to the effort to complete the application (online or by mail), that could be the basis for offering the reduced rate for the class. If they cannot do this, then they are not really interested and would just waste your time and generosity.

CWOOD wrote:As a means of determining who are the 'qualifying' folks for the indigent rate, have them apply for and get approved for the indigent license fee, bring their paperwork to the class. That way you can let the state pre-qualify who is truly indigent and your will know that they are motivated and have met other basic requirements.

If they qualify for the state's indigent rate and have gone to the effort to complete the application (online or by mail), that could be the basis for offering the reduced rate for the class. If they cannot do this, then they are not really interested and would just waste your time and generosity.

If an instructor wants give scholarships for their classes, that's a great idea for qualifying students. It puts the burden of income verification on DPS (they have to do it anyway) and helps make sure the students are really serious.

CWOOD wrote:As a means of determining who are the 'qualifying' folks for the indigent rate, have them apply for and get approved for the indigent license fee, bring their paperwork to the class. That way you can let the state pre-qualify who is truly indigent and your will know that they are motivated and have met other basic requirements.

If they qualify for the state's indigent rate and have gone to the effort to complete the application (online or by mail), that could be the basis for offering the reduced rate for the class. If they cannot do this, then they are not really interested and would just waste your time and generosity.

This is good. I am putting this in my memory bank.
LT

WildBill wrote:

Ameer wrote:If they're unsafe they should be DQ and taken off the line. Even if they're ex military or LEO.

That also goes for rich or poor CHL students.

Unsafe is unsafe.