Charles L. Cotton wrote:If so, them minimal physical proficiency is required, but mental preparation and willingness are critical. These cannot be measured in any CHL proficiency exam.
Chas.
TCOLE Rule 218.9(c) wrote:The minimum standards for the annual firearms proficiency course of fire shall be:
(1) handguns ‐ a minimum of 50 rounds, including at least five rounds of [duty] ammunition, fired at ranges from point ‐ blank to at least 15 yards with at least 20 rounds at or beyond seven yards, including at least one timed reload; . . .
This sort of reminds me of a conversation I had with a friend in regards to me teaching basic handgun proficiency skills to new shooters as a sideline. Not a CHL certification or defensive pistol class, but teach skills enough to pass a CHL proficiency test. He basically asked "what are your qualifications?" and said "you're not a Navy Seal or ex-military".
I thought to myself about him, "for a CHL with gun skills you sure are a dumb @$$". Does that mean that only ex-military operators can have CHL's or carry a gun or have 2A rights?
You don't have to be certified to be satisfied. You don't need an military operator resume to have skills or to teach them.
I have taught my wife and mother how to shoot and both have CHL's in TX and LA. 2 for 2, I'm batting a thousand so far.
As a proponent of Constitutional Carry I would agree with others that any licensing or testing is an undue burden on citizens. I do believe when you are born you should be given a bible and a rifle and all things guns should be taught in schools. So as an adult you would automatically achieve the pinnacle of tactical and defensive superiority.
" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
For the sake of argument TX CHL proficiency testing is sufficient IMHO, it is a basic proficiency test, not a training class.
This is not Seal Team Six Operator training class with HALO jumps, rappelling from helicopters or being launched out of a submarine, swimming through shark infested waters to make a beach landing, calling in air support, coordinating troop movement, taking out an enemy battalion. Then being extracted via skyhook surface to air human recovery to parachute into the water then swim back to an awaiting sub.
And unless you just don't want to look like a noob in front of the guys at the gun club or want be the cool kid in school, who really needs to know the latest whiz bang made up industry buzz words by every tacticool instructor who wants to overcomplicate and repackage tried and true methods into his or her own system and sell them as something new and different? Its the skill that counts. (ie "Critical Dynamic Situation", I call it when "..it" hits the fan.) See what I mean.
Think practical reality. This is average Joe protecting himself and family from the every day criminals.
If you can put the thing in the thing in the thing, make it go bang and put a hole in the right thing then that is a good enough start. Experience is something you gain with time. That means you took risks without being and expert and survived long enough so you could become an expert.
If you can put a bullet in the magazine, the magazine in the gun, make the gun ready to fire and be on target then what do you really expect SWAT/Seal performance from the average Joe? ? Are you really gonna think about semantics and terminology when stuff happens?
When you break it down to its most basic parts there is much less that is needed know to defend yourself than what most are led to believe. Every situation is different, you really can't teach judgment or combat experience, you can talk about it a lot but in that moment that it is put to the test it is up to the individual to decide what to do. And that experience is something they will have to build upon for future encounters. You can teach skills but not experience.
Sure, take all the additional training you can and practice often, but yes the current CHL proficiency test is a sufficient place to start.
