On-Line LTC course and ATF Residental licenses

[grtday]

Dual ax's to grind...
1. As of 10-1-17, the Texas Legislature directed the DPS to make on-line LTC courses available. Unfortunatlely, the Texas Legislature gave the DPS little to no guidance as to what or how to do this. As an LTC instructor, I think it's a terrible dis-service to the citizens of Texas to arm someone who has simply passed an on-line course and shot at paper targets. What are our legislators thinking and whose pockets will they be lining? Your thoughts please.
2. I understand the ATF will no longer renew FFL licenses with a store-front, effectively limiting who and where we can buy/sell firearms. Is this true and again, your thoughts please.

 

[Younggun]

1. They will be lining the pockets of citizens who are paying for the cost of an instructor if they don't wish too and possibly saving money on the government side by not spending money to train instructors.

2. Are you saying that they won't let anyone with a gun store renew their FFL? If so, my first assumption is that this is incorrect but have no idea.

 

[Renegade]

Dual ax's to grind...
1. As of 10-1-17, the Texas Legislature directed the DPS to make on-line LTC courses available. Unfortunatlely, the Texas Legislature gave the DPS little to no guidance as to what or how to do this. As an LTC instructor, I think it's a terrible dis-service to the citizens of Texas to arm someone who has simply passed an on-line course and shot at paper targets. What are our legislators thinking and whose pockets will they be lining? Your thoughts please.

Agreed it is a disservice to require a class of any kind. Just go straight to CC, no class, no problem like so many other states.

Dual ax's to grind...
2. I understand the ATF will no longer renew FFL licenses with a store-front, effectively limiting who and where we can buy/sell firearms. Is this true and again, your thoughts please.

Presumably you meant "no longer renew FFL licenses withOUT a store-front"

Either way, both are incorrect. The simple sniff test of realizing Glock, Sig, RSR, Davidsons, etc., do not have storefronts should clue folks in to this phony internet rumor.

 

[Lost Spurs]

Dual ax's to grind...

2. I understand the ATF will no longer renew FFL licenses with a store-front, effectively limiting who and where we can buy/sell firearms. Is this true and again, your thoughts please.

My thoughts on this will probably be smug but I have no internet communication skills.

This can be discounted as a lie as the ATF just renewed my license today 11.02.2017. I am home based and have no storefront. I have also heard no scuttle from store front based dealers noting no renewals. For the record, distributors still send guns to my house also.

AdamT

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[txinvestigator]

Dual ax's to grind...
1. As of 10-1-17, the Texas Legislature directed the DPS to make on-line LTC courses available. Unfortunatlely, the Texas Legislature gave the DPS little to no guidance as to what or how to do this. As an LTC instructor, I think it's a terrible dis-service to the citizens of Texas to arm someone who has simply passed an on-line course and shot at paper targets. What are our legislators thinking and whose pockets will they be lining? Your thoughts please.

Then you think we should change the laws and require classes for people to be "armed" with shotguns or rifles?

Our legislators are "thinking" that we are in the year 2017.

 

[busykngt]

I’m for constitutional carry w/o the need to be “licensed” (i.e., taxed) on our God-given Right by the government!

 

[TAZ]

Dual ax's to grind...
1. As of 10-1-17, the Texas Legislature directed the DPS to make on-line LTC courses available. Unfortunatlely, the Texas Legislature gave the DPS little to no guidance as to what or how to do this. As an LTC instructor, I think it's a terrible dis-service to the citizens of Texas to arm someone who has simply passed an on-line course and shot at paper targets. What are our legislators thinking and whose pockets will they be lining? Your thoughts please.

Not quite sure what you mean here. It’s been a while since I’ve taken the full course, but if memory serves correct it was a joke. The guy read the DPS manual to us and answered questions by reading the manual to us again. We took a written test. We also spent some time wasting 50 rounds on a course of fire that is pretty simple. Nobody taught anyone anything. I would not say that I was better prepared to carry a gun after the class than before. But I did have to shed some cash for the class. Maybe I’m special and other classes devote time to teaching folks some skills and such.

My ONLY concern here is to insure that whatever licensing scheme the DPS comes up with is fair and objective and doesn’t cost any reciprocity agreements.

I’m also ok with keeping the BGC to get a license. I know it’s not considered PC, but I’m willing to accept that intrusion.

 

[benenglish]

Not quite sure what you mean here. It’s been a while since I’ve taken the full course, but if memory serves correct it was a joke. The guy read the DPS manual to us and answered questions by reading the manual to us again. We took a written test. We also spent some time wasting 50 rounds on a course of fire that is pretty simple. Nobody taught anyone anything.

Your recollection and mine are the same. Given the state requirements of what must be taught in how much time, I'd guess that 99% of license holders would say the same.

Like you, I'm a bit confused by the OP's concern.

As for the online courses, those are quite a ways off but when they finally show up at least the presentation of the material will have been vetted by the state as accurate. That would make the online course a better choice than some instructors, although for students it will inevitably increase the total cost of getting a license.

If I were an LTC instructor like the OP, I might be concerned about how this impacts my business model. However, with a little thought, instructors should be able to adapt. There have been some posts by instructors right here on TGT where they talk about how they'll handle it and I believe they'll do just that - handle it. See: https://www.texasguntalk.com/threads/online-ltc-course.82160/

 

[seeker_two]

Dual ax's to grind...
1. As of 10-1-17, the Texas Legislature directed the DPS to make on-line LTC courses available. Unfortunatlely, the Texas Legislature gave the DPS little to no guidance as to what or how to do this. As an LTC instructor, I think it's a terrible dis-service to the citizens of Texas to arm someone who has simply passed an on-line course and shot at paper targets. What are our legislators thinking and whose pockets will they be lining? Your thoughts please.

Yeah....they need to change that. And, while they're at it, they should make sure that people that only take online English courses don't go exercising their First Amendment rights either. Get enrolled in a real English class and line that professor's pocket or GTFO!



Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

 

[Shady]

I assume you both came into the class as experienced shooters.

Now imagine coming into that coarse as the guy that just picked up his first gun <one guy in our class had not even fired a weapon before> Had no Idea what any of the laws are no understanding of weapon safety.

The class was very basic and needs to be very basic if there is going to be one.

 

[Younggun]

The class is not intended to teach anyone how to shoot. That's not the purpose of the LTC course. It shouldn't be thought of as such.

 

[txinvestigator]

I assume you both came into the class as experienced shooters.

Now imagine coming into that coarse as the guy that just picked up his first gun <one guy in our class had not even fired a weapon before> Had no Idea what any of the laws are no understanding of weapon safety.

The class was very basic and needs to be very basic if there is going to be one.

A guy who never shot before should not be permitted to complete the shooting portion.

 

[pronstar]

A guy who never shot before should not be permitted to complete the shooting portion.

And by definition, should not get an LTC.

Do I need to take a class to exercise my right to free speech?

Not to be argumentative, but that's the slippery slope of 2A rights.

I don't have the answers.
And I'm torn between an inalienable right that shall not be infringed, and knowing people who I think should not own guns.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Mikewood]

A guy who never shot before should not be permitted to complete the shooting portion.

The shooting portion is only designed to display basic ability and not proficiency. With as little as a few words of instruction someone who has never picked up a gun before can pass it. I know I have taught a few people enough in just a minute or two to get them to the point they can pass it. That’s ok. People can take classes on their own time afterward.

 

[txinvestigator]

The shooting portion is only designed to display basic ability and not proficiency. With as little as a few words of instruction someone who has never picked up a gun before can pass it. I know I have taught a few people enough in just a minute or two to get them to the point they can pass it. That’s ok. People can take classes on their own time afterward.

I disagree that the shooting PROFICIENCY is not designed to display proficiency. If you want to teach beyond the LTC course for the cost of the course that's your business.

 

[txinvestigator]

And by definition, should not get an LTC.

Do I need to take a class to exercise my right to free speech?

Not to be argumentative, but that's the slippery slope of 2A rights.

I don't have the answers.
And I'm torn between an inalienable right that shall not be infringed, and knowing people who I think should not own guns.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

I agree that there should be no course required; however, there IS a course required. The shooting proficiency is a test, not a course of instruction. That should change. Until it does, I treat it like a test.

 

[Shady]

Slippery slope or not its the way it is.

Well I guess the teacher was not up to booting the guy with no shooting exp. And he did pass the shooting portion.

And by definition, should not get an LTC.

Do I need to take a class to exercise my right to free speech?

Not to be argumentative, but that's the slippery slope of 2A rights.

I don't have the answers.
And I'm torn between an inalienable right that shall not be infringed, and knowing people who I think should not own guns.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[TAZ]

I assume you both came into the class as experienced shooters.

Now imagine coming into that coarse as the guy that just picked up his first gun <one guy in our class had not even fired a weapon before> Had no Idea what any of the laws are no understanding of weapon safety.

The class was very basic and needs to be very basic if there is going to be one.

I was not a beginner, not an expert. There were folks there who were renting guns cause they didn’t have one available that met the requirements. If you came into the course as a beginner you left the course as a beginner. No instruction happened beyond those folks who were renting being shown the manual of arms for the particular gun they chose.

A guy who never shot before should not be permitted to complete the shooting portion.

Why? If he can safely handle a weapon and pass the course of fire why should they be restricted. I don’t remember there being any legal requirement for prior firearms training or experience.

I agree that there should be no course required; however, there IS a course required. The shooting proficiency is a test, not a course of instruction. That should change. Until it does, I treat it like a test.

I’m confused. Are you suggesting that the shooting proficiency portion should be reworked to a class like say Gunsite 250 or similar basic firearms handling and marksmanship course? Why would you want to force folks to jump more hoops?? Not sure I agree with that. I would LOVE it if people did so, but I’m not going to require it. If they can pass the objective shooting proficiency portion, who cares how they got there.

 

[benenglish]

A guy who never shot before should not be permitted to complete the shooting portion.

Back when the CHL first became law in Texas, I got mine. In the same class was a woman who had never fired a gun before. She had a POS revolver and couldn't hit the target. The course allowed re-shoots if you failed the first time.

While another group was at the line, I (I was just another student) took her aside to an area where the range owner said dry-fire was allowed. My sister loaned her a Glock 17 and I spent all of 3 minutes going through some basics of how to hold, aim, and press the trigger. She dry-fired maybe 5 times.

Then she went back on the line with the 3 or 4 other people who had failed to qualify the first time. She had no problem passing.

As referenced here:LE Training SUCKS (intentionally inflammatory title to get you to read)

At three to 15 feet, ... Expert shooters hit one of the major-damage zones on the target "with eight out of nine bullets they fired," the researchers found, while Novices hit "with seven of the nine bullets they fired"--a scant advantage for the trained recruits of just a single round.

...even "novices" (defined as people who had fired a gun at most twice in their life and including people who had never fired a pistol) can hit targets.

Given how easy the shooting proficiency test is, I can't see any reason to summarily refuse to administer it to a person who has never shot before. There's a decent chance that even someone with no experience could pass it.

Assuming they commit no safety violations, why would you deny them the opportunity to try?

 

[Tcruse]

I assume you both came into the class as experienced shooters.

Now imagine coming into that coarse as the guy that just picked up his first gun <one guy in our class had not even fired a weapon before> Had no Idea what any of the laws are no understanding of weapon safety.

The class was very basic and needs to be very basic if there is going to be one.

The class is not intended as a "shooting" class. It is intended to cover the legal aspects as to where and under what circumstances you are justified to use deadly force. Each state has some differences and even inside the state of Texas the "local" view of what is OK is colored by the DA and politics. So, being a "beginner" or "expert marksman" does not necessarily mean you understand the laws in Texas.
The shooting qualification is not to insure you are an expert but only that you have some basic understanding and can follow instructions while having a gun in your hand. People with some handicaps may never be able to get a 4" group at 15 yards, but they should still be able to have the tools necessary for self protection.