TexasCHLforum.com

gigag04 wrote:They don't have to take the course.

Haven't had a chance to go back and read every post. Who said they do?

I was taught they can apply under special circumstances with the right paperwork or they can apply like anybody else which requires the class and normal fee.

Keith B wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

Keith B wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

I had to take a 12hr hunter safety course at 25 because I was born after 1972, how is that fair that the older folk didn't have to take it but I did?

Thats unfair too. However because "A" is bad doesn't equate to "B" being good.

This is probably sliding off topic so lets just agree to disagree here.

Life's unfair. Get over it.

I am over it. I still don't have to agree to favoritism. If the instructor doesn't want to charge him (?) fine thats his call. His loss, not mine.

So, let's say you are pilot for a large airline. if you moved to anotehr airline adn were flying the exact same aircraft, do you think you should have to go through all of the basic training for that aircraft again or should you be grandfathered?

If the pilot was taking a CHL you betcha. If Zombie President Roosevelt wanted one he should have to pay and take the class just like everyone else. And he would pass, despite being dead, because Teddy Roosevelt invented manly.

Its a principle thing. In no way am I saying cops are bad at shooting or otherwise qualified. But all citizens must be held to the same standard.

Zombie President Roosevelt

This thread just jumped the shark!

sjfcontrol wrote:

Zombie President Roosevelt

This thread just jumped the shark!

Tell me about it

Never go full retarded.

When did LEO become exempt from taking the CHL course. For about the first fifteen years of Texas CHL they took the class to get a license. It was really interesting when I had a class with civilians, LEO's, and lawyers all in the same long ten (10) hour class when we covered weapons, non-violent dispute resolution, and use of force.

Mike

Vol Texan wrote:I wonder: If his department requires him to carry his duty weapon when off duty, so he gets his CHL so he can carry other guns...does that mean he has to obey the same laws as us (e.g. disarm before going into a school) when carrying his off-duty weapon?

Back on topic now...

VMI77 wrote:
I understand where you're coming from and in most regards I'd agree. But in the case of CHL the class is redundant, since they've been through the police academy and usually have some training with their department. That essentially makes the CHL course for a cop a punishment instead of a qualification. What I would be against is CHLs for law enforcement if the rest of us can't get one, and the carry restricted areas for the rest of us. I understand why the law is that way and accept it as a necessary compromise.

VMI, I usually agree with most of your writings, but on this one I'd like to respectfully offer a challenge.

From what I've read on here in other postings (example here), the academy doesn't teach you enough about CHL - rather it's a quite perfunctory explanation. If he wants to have a CHL, then I don't see a problem with an additional four hours of training to teach the things that the academy doesn't teach.

Sure, give the license free or at a reduced price (as done with other groups), but we cannot assume that the training he has as the academy covers all the things he needs to know about CHL. Just because both the academy and CHL class touch on the subject of guns does not automatically guarantee that the CHL course knowledge is fully encompassed within the academy's program.

Besides, learning is a good thing. I appreciate a LEO (or anyone else, for that matter) who challenges himself to learn more about the things that are periphery to his immediate job.

For the math geeks among us, I submit the following Venn diagrams. I think the reality is probably better described in the lower of the two (although the red part in the lower diagram is greatly exaggerated for effect).

[ Image ]

To me, what should happen, is that all law enforcement in Texas should be trained and know the law for CHLs since they're going to be encountering people with CHLs in the performance of their duties (including Feds based in Texas). I have had several encounters, including local, BP, DPS, and Sheriffs, and have yet to have a problem, so either those officers were trained or they didn't care that I was carrying a gun. We could argue about how well people who take CHL classes actually understand the law, and my guess is not all that well. I'm way more concerned about how an officer is going to interact with me than whether he understands the ins and outs of CC when he's off duty and carrying --and he doesn't have to get a CHL to pull me over in a traffic stop.

I'm also a little biased against classroom instruction. In my life, including being an instructor in the military, I've found classroom lecturing to be nearly useless, and especially where the application being instructed is a practical, and not merely theoretical one. Or, to put it another way, where the instructional intent is to teach someone how to do something, hands on training is much more efficient than theoretical instruction. To me, the shooting part of the CHL class is the only functional part. The theory/law part of the class could be accomplished individually with a CHL "textbook" and a comprehensive online exam (in instruction would be more uniform that way as well). So, while I understand your argument, I'm inclined to think the average police officer is not really less informed about CHL than the average person with a CHL, though perhaps less informed than people who come to this forum regularly.

As I think about you're argument and my response I'm inclined to think that we're seeking the same goal by different methods. I just want police trained on CHL either at the academy or by their departments instead of taking the CHL class.

Encountering CHLs constitutes < 0.5 % of the contacts that an LEO makes during his career (educated guess).

My academy class was over 700 hours, include 2 weeks on penal code, and multiple days on use of force in self defense.

I assure you the information in the CHL class is 100% redundant to the state mandated training that LEOs are required to pass in the academy.

I still encounter cops and chls that do not understand some of the basics regarding CHL law and the motorist protection act.

mojo84 wrote:I still encounter cops and chls that do not understand some of the basics regarding CHL law and the motorist protection act.

Same here. Sometimes its downright scary.

VMI77 wrote:
To me, what should happen, is that all law enforcement in Texas should be trained and know the law for CHLs since they're going to be encountering people with CHLs in the performance of their duties (including Feds based in Texas). I have had several encounters, including local, BP, DPS, and Sheriffs, and have yet to have a problem, so either those officers were trained or they didn't care that I was carrying a gun. We could argue about how well people who take CHL classes actually understand the law, and my guess is not all that well. I'm way more concerned about how an officer is going to interact with me than whether he understands the ins and outs of CC when he's off duty and carrying --and he doesn't have to get a CHL to pull me over in a traffic stop.

I'm also a little biased against classroom instruction. In my life, including being an instructor in the military, I've found classroom lecturing to be nearly useless, and especially where the application being instructed is a practical, and not merely theoretical one. Or, to put it another way, where the instructional intent is to teach someone how to do something, hands on training is much more efficient than theoretical instruction. To me, the shooting part of the CHL class is the only functional part. The theory/law part of the class could be accomplished individually with a CHL "textbook" and a comprehensive online exam (in instruction would be more uniform that way as well). So, while I understand your argument, I'm inclined to think the average police officer is not really less informed about CHL than the average person with a CHL, though perhaps less informed than people who come to this forum regularly.

As I think about you're argument and my response I'm inclined to think that we're seeking the same goal by different methods. I just want police trained on CHL either at the academy or by their departments instead of taking the CHL class.

Now I see why we disagreed in the first place. Your focus is on 'does the LEO have enough knowledge about CHL to interact with us?'. I do agree that is an important topic, but that's not what this thread is about. This thread is about whether the LEO should have to take a CHL class to receive a piece of plastic in his/her pocket that says they have a Texas Concealed Handgun License.

The CHL does grant some things that LEO status does not. For instance, it grants us some reciprocity in other states. I do not know conclusively that LEO status does that...although it may be the case. It grants us a simpler process when purchasing a gun from a dealer. LEOs still have to go through the background checks.

On your side topic, I agree with you: I think it would be great if all LEOs received enough training to fully understand their interaction with CHL holders. From the data I've seen, that may not be the case. Whether we improve the training at the academy or provide it via CHL courses is for someone else to decide.

But on the original topic, I remain convinced...if they want the benefits of a CHL, then they should receive the same training that we have. What's covered in the academy is broad, much broader than we learn in CHL training, but it does not fully encompass what we know and do. They shouldn't claim to have a CHL unless they learn at least the same things we do.

And yes, original training is just the beginning. Like you, I have only so much faith that the training will get all the info across...but at least it is a start.

Actually, the topic of the original post is whether or not the instructor should "let" the leo take the class as a civilian. It was verified with DPS that the class was not required.

gigag04 wrote:Encountering CHLs constitutes < 0.5 % of the contacts that an LEO makes during his career (educated guess).

My academy class was over 700 hours, include 2 weeks on penal code, and multiple days on use of force in self defense.

I assure you the information in the CHL class is 100% redundant to the state mandated training that LEOs are required to pass in the academy.

If LEO training isn't sufficient to "cover" CHL law for obtaining a CHL, I would be concerned about their status as a LEO and their interactions with the public regarding CHL law and not whether or not they have a CHL based on their LEO credentials. Since the CHL laws apply equally to LEO/non-LEO, I don't think they should be required to take the class (they aren't 'more equal'). Of course they still can if they think it is advantages to them, but that's their call. I have to believe their training covers CHL stuff sufficiently. I realize an officer can't memorize the entire GC, PC, TABC stuff, etc., but I would assume they know how to look up what they don't know, just like a non-LEO like me should do. Personal responsibility. This is a non-issue to me.