Hey fellas, im thinking about getting my chl and im hoping some of you might be able to steer me in the right direction on where to go. The 1 day classes would be convinient but im not sure if you learn as much, also would I need to buy a certain caliber hand gun if so what would be a good concealed carry hand gun? How dificult is it to do the application and finger printing? Im in plano and would like to take the class close to home if possible.

Thanks guys I appreciate all of your help......

This is where i went. I think bullet trap in plano does classes too.

http://www.texashandgunacademy.com/

a friend of mine used to teach it and did not register to teach again, he said with Texas Castle law, there is very little need for CHL unless you just got to have it, will be easier,faster to purchase firearms. there are liabilties like DWI and having a firearm in vehicle if you got a CHL. you can carry a loaded pistol in your vehicle legally anyway, but if you feel you got to carry one....

I don't understand how the castle law changes anything. We have had a right to keep guns in our house since 1791.

If I'm not mistaken... The change to the castle law is that your automobile is now considered part of your castle. Thus the "what is traveling" debate is eliminated. As a result you can now legaly have a concealed handgun in your auto in addition to your home. Many folks only "carry" in their auto which prior required a CHL if not Traveling. Now those folks don't need/want/get a CHL.

The Castle Doctrine simply defines our right to protect ourselves without retreat in a location we are supposed to be in, not just your own home, as long as you're not doing anything wrong or provoking the attack.

The change in the law regarding the carrying of a handgun in your car has to do with who has the responsibility of proving whether your are, or are not, in deed a traveler.

The old wording put the responsibility of proof on the carrier which allowed crooked cops to arrest anyone and everyone carrying a handgun and caused all kinds of issues in the court system since the majority of the cases have been weak at best.

The new wording forces the officer to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, at the scene, that the carrier was not a traveler, by state definition.

This is my understanding of it all. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

The one day class should cover the same amount of material as the multi-day classes.

The State requires 10 hour min. class time. The instructors went to a 4 day class to learn the material to present to the students. A one day class is long but you only give up one day. I find the preferrable as a student and instructor.

You can register online with the DPS. You'll get your fingerprints taken at L-1 Identity Solutions ($10). Your instructor may provide photos or you can get them taken at
CVS or Walgreens (one is running a $8 offer).


Some instructors provide lunch. Shop around and compare features and prices. You shouldn't have to pay for prints or paperwork since you will do those yourself.

As for firearms it is your choice. Pretty "standard" is Glock, XD, or MP, with 1911 thrown in ...and just about every other gun you can think of. 9mm, 40, and 45 are the typical flavors. You must qualify with a .32 or larger, preferably a semi-auto as this will allow you to carry both semi and revolvers.

Any other questions, just ask, I'm not close enough for you to take my class but I'll be more than happy to help as I can.

Mike
www.talonchl.com

Mike, thank you very much I couldnt have asked for a better response!

I've used The Bullet Trap in Plano for all of my classes. A good value. $100 and everythings included.

carrywithconfidence.org or .com
its at bass pro in grapvine.

mytxchl.com $65 one day and everything included. Enough said went there was a good class.

The current wording in the law has nothing to do with traveling. I just establishes that a person carrying a handgun in their vehicle only commits an offense if the gun is in plain view or the person is committinng any offense other than a class C traffic offense, is a member of criminal street gang, or is prohibited from possessing a firearm.

That sounds exactly like the old wording. I need to look this up.

From the TX Penal Code:

Sec. 46.02. UNLAWFUL CARRYING WEAPONS. (a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or her person a handgun, illegal knife, or club if the person is not:
(1) on the person's own premises or premises under the person's control; or
(2) inside of or directly en route to a motor vehicle that is owned by the person or under the person's control.
(a-1) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or her person a handgun in a motor vehicle that is owned by the person or under the person's control at any time in which:
(1) the handgun is in plain view; or
(2) the person is:
(A) engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic;
(B) prohibited by law from possessing a firearm; or
(C) a member of a criminal street gang, as defined by Section 71.01.
(a-2) For purposes of this section, "premises" includes real property and a recreational vehicle that is being used as living quarters, regardless of whether that use is temporary or permanent. In this subsection, "recreational vehicle" means a motor vehicle primarily designed as temporary living quarters or a vehicle that contains temporary living quarters and is designed to be towed by a motor vehicle. The term includes a travel trailer, camping trailer, truck camper, motor home, and horse trailer with living quarters.
(b) Except as provided by Subsection (c), an offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.
(c) An offense under this section is a felony of the third degree if the offense is committed on any premises licensed or issued a permit by this state for the sale of alcoholic beverages.

LOL, we're talking about the wording of the castle doctrine, not the CHL laws.

Here's the Castle Doctrine with the pertinent wording changes highlighted in red:

"Below is a copy of the Texas Castle Doctrine also known as Texas Castle Law or as Texas Castle Bill
______________________________________

AN ACT

relating to the use of force or deadly force in defense of a person.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:

SECTION 1. Section 9.01, Penal Code, is amended by adding Subdivisions (4) and (5) to read as follows:

(4) “Habitation” has the meaning assigned by Section 30.01.

(5) “Vehicle” has the meaning assigned by Section 30.01.

SECTION 2. Section 9.31, Penal Code, is amended by amending Subsection (a) and adding Subsections (e) and (f) to read as follows:

(a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor [he] reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor [himself] against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor’s belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor’s occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor’s habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;

(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section.

(f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

SECTION 3. Section 9.32, Penal Code, is amended to read as follows:

Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

(1) if the actor [he] would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and

(2) [if a reasonable person in the actor's situation would not have retreated; and

[(3)] when and to the degree the actor [he] reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to protect the actor [himself] against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or

(B) to prevent the other’s imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

(b) The actor’s belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor’s occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor’s habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);

(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used [requirement imposed by Subsection (a)(2) does not apply to an actor who uses force against a person who is at the time of the use of force committing an offense of unlawful entry in the habitation of the actor].

(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.

(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

SECTION 4. Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, is amended to read as follows:

Sec. 83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY [AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE]. A [It is an affirmative defense to a civil action for damages for personal injury or death that the] defendant who uses force or[, at the time the cause of action arose, was justified in using] deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9 [Section 9.32], Penal Code, is immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the defendant’s [against a person who at the time of the] use of force or deadly force, as applicable [was committing an offense of unlawful entry in the habitation of the defendant].

SECTION 5. (a) Sections 9.31 and 9.32, Penal Code, as amended by this Act, apply only to an offense committed on or after the effective date of this Act. An offense committed before the effective date of this Act is covered by the law in effect when the offense was committed, and the former law is continued in effect for this purpose. For the purposes of this subsection, an offense is committed before the effective date of this Act if any element of the offense occurs before the effective date.

(b) Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, as amended by this Act, applies only to a cause of action that accrues on or after the effective date of this Act. An action that accrued before the effective date of this Act is governed by the law in effect at the time the action accrued, and that law is continued in effect for that purpose.

SECTION 6. This Act takes effect September 1, 2007."

Dang if this thread didn't get high jacked.

What type of guns do you guys recommend for a first timer to carry for CHL?

hunter_josh,

Do you have a budget and what is your main concern with carrying?

Here is a decent article on recommended pistols.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=40414

If it is your first gun, I'd go with the 9mm.

Why not just get the Utah CHL. I think all you have to do is sign up for it online and they'll send you one. No shooting or real education required.

I'm kidding of course. We live in Texas so get a Texas CHL. I did mine at the Texas Handgun Academy. I think I'm up for a renewal this July so probably heading back there again.

I took mine at Texas Handgun Academy. $100 and everything is included. You don't have to go elswhere to get pictures/finger prints made etc. They made the paperwork very simple and straight foward. Instructor was great too.

To me, the extra $20-30 was definately worth not having to run around Dallas Co like chicken with my head cut off to get the necessary paperwork done.

I believe they offer two day classes as well.

As for the handgun, like above mentioned, you are going to get the typical Glock(dang I hate that word), XD, S/W M&P, and 1911 answer. They all make good stuff, you just need to figure out what you are comforatable with (i.e. safeties, accessories, price).

Once you pick the handgun, you will need a quality holster. Be it IWB or OWB, don't go cheap. You need something that was made for the exact model of the gun so it fits nicely. You don't want you gun falling out.

Then, just as importantly, you need a good quality gun belt. A regular dress belt does not have the backbone to hold up gun. You will find your self constanly having to pull your pants up without having a good stiff gun belt.

Best of Luck!!

reeder05, you DO have to go elsewhere to get your fingerprints. Rules have changed. Texas DPS will only accept fingerprints from 1 place & that's L-1. This is a relatively new change but it is what it is. No need to pay extra for the "all-inclusive" classes anymore. Do online app., fingerprints @ L-1, photo @ Walgreens, class wherever you want. App. is $140, class about $75, fingerprints are $10, photos are $8.

I'm not familiar with the instructors he is referring to, but I do know that a few of them have become L-1 providers.

Well, I guess I stand corrected. I haven't seen any L1 certified instructors & was completely unaware it was even possible!

I do believe that some of the instructors (Texas Handgun Academy included) are L-1 certified. Don't hold this too me...

I took mine at TX Hangun Academy about 2 months ago. They did the "L-1" electronic fingerprints, but they did mention that the fingerprint regs were going to change again so it is best to call ahead and check.

There are alot of places and almost all of the places that hold classes regularly once a month that will have the electronic finger printing.