Crosswind81
Member
I thought I would relay what I thought was a fairly disappointing experience that happened while attending a hunting safety course with my teenaged son recently here in Texas. Thought it might be a catalyst for some useful discussion. On that point, Thank you all for the many opinions and lessons shared as they are invaluable to me as I love to read and learn from you guys.
The 2 day course was being tought by a state certified firearms safety instructor who was as he let us know, also a certified concealed carry instructor. 10-15 persons were there of whom I believe that I must have been the only CHL holder other that the instructor.
During the process of discussing the actual material for the course, the instructor delved off into CHL territory for some reason 3 times at least but alarmingly, put out incorrect information everytime! The first 2 times I thought to be minor and not wanting to argue or correct the guy, I said nothing. Those two things were :
1. "As a CHL holder in Texas you never have to show your license to an officer period". Wrong. You do have to when carrying only but it is recommended you always do so as a courtesy.
2. "Yes you can carry in your POV even without a CHL but it must be unloaded and removed from the ammunition". Wrong. In Texas one can carry in their car, concealed, without a CHL, locked and loaded at all times where allowed of course. Otherwise what you have is a poorly designed, expensive hammer.
3. This is the one where I could no longer just sit and hold my tongue. He asked the class: "Do you know what your number one priority is while carrying with a CHL is in Texas"? No one said anything. He says "TO STOP CRIME". Whoa, Whoa, Whoa. I spoke up and respectfully informed him that that was patently incorrect but he would not hear it. He actually said the code dictated that we are OBLIGATED to intercede and stop crime. Yep OBLIGATED. "So if I witness a bank robberty, I am as a CHL OBLIGATED to stop it"? "Yes, absolutely" was the response. After not getting anywhere with him without the code in front of me, one non CHL in the class asked me: "Well, what do you have one for then"? That was my concern...he was putting out bad info, that uninformed people would take for the Gospel. I answered simply "To protect myself and my own, period". Furthermore I said that I have not had any law enforcement training, SWAT training and am not a police officer nor do I play one in and about Texas. The instructor said "What do you mean not trained? You have the CHL training!" I said shooting 50 rounds downrange and 12 hrs or so of class does not make me a firearms expert, Rambo, nor an officer".
At some point he also stated something to the effect of " If I see a person with a gun drawn on another in a parking lot I will immediately draw on him and ask one question...are you a CHL"? "If i do not get the right answer...BOOM". Scary and alarming again. What if the guy with the gun IS an actual police officer? That afternoon I called my CHL instructor to make sure that I was correct on these issues and not mistaken...I was correct on all 3 issues. I furthermore read the entire statute booklet again to ensure that I did have a working knowledge of the law.
The next morning my son asked me on the way in not to bring it up again as he just wanted to get in and get out. I agreed. The Instructor however came up to me, and always nice by the way, handed me a code book and asked me to start reading. He had it turned to a page that referenced general CHL laws...nothing to do whatsoever with being obligated to enforce criminal code of course. I flipped to the section on acting on the part of a third party and pointed out the key phrase "justified" to act under certain stringent conditions...not obligated. Then he presented the instructors test with which the first question being something along the lines of: "What is a CHL's primary consideration when using deadly force"? The answer choices were to: a. kill. b. maim. c. stop. d. harass or something along those lines with the correct answer being to stop of course. I pointed out that the reason one better have for using deadly force is to stop an aggresor from doing one of the criminal acts outlined in the code, but not to play the role of law enforcement.
The instructor made the leap from this question to inferring that I am now Batman. I do not think I was able to convince him of anything from what he "knows"... That night I even found information on a police forum where the discussion was whether they should get involved in a active crime activity while not in uniform. Seems that many would do what I was taught, and try to be a good witness. Of course there are many what ifs and not always would that be an option.
My CHL guy did have a good point however. He said that when you sign for that license, you the holder are agreeing that YOU understand the code and even if you are taught some bad info, that will not get you very far in a court situation under the law. With that said, he also said the instructor has also agreed to teach the correct information as well. I just thought it was alarming that an instructor woulf basically say 3 things about CHL and all 3 things said were incorrect. That attitude of his will also land you in a cell too, I think.
Thoughts?
The 2 day course was being tought by a state certified firearms safety instructor who was as he let us know, also a certified concealed carry instructor. 10-15 persons were there of whom I believe that I must have been the only CHL holder other that the instructor.
During the process of discussing the actual material for the course, the instructor delved off into CHL territory for some reason 3 times at least but alarmingly, put out incorrect information everytime! The first 2 times I thought to be minor and not wanting to argue or correct the guy, I said nothing. Those two things were :
1. "As a CHL holder in Texas you never have to show your license to an officer period". Wrong. You do have to when carrying only but it is recommended you always do so as a courtesy.
2. "Yes you can carry in your POV even without a CHL but it must be unloaded and removed from the ammunition". Wrong. In Texas one can carry in their car, concealed, without a CHL, locked and loaded at all times where allowed of course. Otherwise what you have is a poorly designed, expensive hammer.
3. This is the one where I could no longer just sit and hold my tongue. He asked the class: "Do you know what your number one priority is while carrying with a CHL is in Texas"? No one said anything. He says "TO STOP CRIME". Whoa, Whoa, Whoa. I spoke up and respectfully informed him that that was patently incorrect but he would not hear it. He actually said the code dictated that we are OBLIGATED to intercede and stop crime. Yep OBLIGATED. "So if I witness a bank robberty, I am as a CHL OBLIGATED to stop it"? "Yes, absolutely" was the response. After not getting anywhere with him without the code in front of me, one non CHL in the class asked me: "Well, what do you have one for then"? That was my concern...he was putting out bad info, that uninformed people would take for the Gospel. I answered simply "To protect myself and my own, period". Furthermore I said that I have not had any law enforcement training, SWAT training and am not a police officer nor do I play one in and about Texas. The instructor said "What do you mean not trained? You have the CHL training!" I said shooting 50 rounds downrange and 12 hrs or so of class does not make me a firearms expert, Rambo, nor an officer".
At some point he also stated something to the effect of " If I see a person with a gun drawn on another in a parking lot I will immediately draw on him and ask one question...are you a CHL"? "If i do not get the right answer...BOOM". Scary and alarming again. What if the guy with the gun IS an actual police officer? That afternoon I called my CHL instructor to make sure that I was correct on these issues and not mistaken...I was correct on all 3 issues. I furthermore read the entire statute booklet again to ensure that I did have a working knowledge of the law.
The next morning my son asked me on the way in not to bring it up again as he just wanted to get in and get out. I agreed. The Instructor however came up to me, and always nice by the way, handed me a code book and asked me to start reading. He had it turned to a page that referenced general CHL laws...nothing to do whatsoever with being obligated to enforce criminal code of course. I flipped to the section on acting on the part of a third party and pointed out the key phrase "justified" to act under certain stringent conditions...not obligated. Then he presented the instructors test with which the first question being something along the lines of: "What is a CHL's primary consideration when using deadly force"? The answer choices were to: a. kill. b. maim. c. stop. d. harass or something along those lines with the correct answer being to stop of course. I pointed out that the reason one better have for using deadly force is to stop an aggresor from doing one of the criminal acts outlined in the code, but not to play the role of law enforcement.
The instructor made the leap from this question to inferring that I am now Batman. I do not think I was able to convince him of anything from what he "knows"... That night I even found information on a police forum where the discussion was whether they should get involved in a active crime activity while not in uniform. Seems that many would do what I was taught, and try to be a good witness. Of course there are many what ifs and not always would that be an option.
My CHL guy did have a good point however. He said that when you sign for that license, you the holder are agreeing that YOU understand the code and even if you are taught some bad info, that will not get you very far in a court situation under the law. With that said, he also said the instructor has also agreed to teach the correct information as well. I just thought it was alarming that an instructor woulf basically say 3 things about CHL and all 3 things said were incorrect. That attitude of his will also land you in a cell too, I think.
Thoughts?
