Laser on weapon during CHL proficiency testing?

[sjfcontrol]

Tritium sights do not "enhance" or in any way improve aiming capability in daylight.

Really? Having a dot to line up on the target so you can tell where your bullet will hit doesn't improve your aiming capability? Strange, I thought that was how all sights worked. Whether that dot is projected to the target or is on your gun, you are still using a device to improve your aiming capability. It really doesn't matter whether that dot is glowing or not, it's still a dot.

There are several definitions of the word optical. The problem is that whichever definition you choose, either lasers don't fit the definition (i.e. scopes with magnification), or they do fit, but then iron sights fit too. Therefore, under a system where iron sights are acceptable, this clearly means that the definition that excludes lasers must be the one meant by the rules and that lasers are acceptable too.

In addition, based on the phrase "optical enhancer" I can't see how eyeglasses are allowed.

I gather you are a lawyer. If not, you should be.

In the absence of a specific definition in the law, words are intended to be interpreted by their common meaning (or something of that nature). I think most people would consider the following as "optical enhancement" for the purpose of firearm proficiency testing.

1) a scope, magnifies the target
2) a laser, put the projected dot on the target point
3) One of those devices that project a dot onto a screen attached to the gun -- same effect as #2
4) Cyborg eyesight, like the terminator or Steve Austin giving mechanical/computer enhanced targeting skills

Most people would NOT consider the following as "optical enhancement"...

1) iron sights (nothing projected or magnified)
2) iron sights with white dots (nothing projected or magnified)
3) Tritium sights not at night -- same as #2 (at night is arguably an enhancement)
3) Eyeglasses/contacts -- compensation for human eyesight defects. Used in everyday life.

Now you might not agree, but I believe the above is a reasonable conclusion for laymen (and jurors).

[tbrown]

Really? Having a dot to line up on the target so you can tell where your bullet will hit doesn't improve your aiming capability? Strange, I thought that was how all sights worked.

Bullseye competitors care about accuracy and many use plain black sights without dots.

[wgoforth]

Title pretty much says it all. I'll be taking my CHL course this weekend, and I plan to use my Glock 22. I do have a Crimson Trace laser grip installed on it. Will I be allowed to use this during the course? Is that up to the instructor or is it up to the DPS? I don't mind removing it, but I just got it sighted just right, and don't want to have to do it again if I don't have to.

I have one on the gun I used for my test. The instructor said there is no rule or law against using it but he would prefer I didn't. Since it was a CT Laserguard and I didn't want to remove it, we just put a piece of electrical tape loosely over the front. He was happy and my score was still almost perfect.

Jeff

There is...we were told in instructor training no sight enhancers were permitted.

[GWE Chally]

Since the question was raised about "personal feelings"...

It is not a personal feeling that I would not let you use laser sights. And true, I was not familiar with the obscure admin reg. But, I would not want you to use the laser because I want you to prove that you can safely handle the gun and hit your target. How do I know, other than your word, that you will be carrying the handgun you are qualifying with? For that matter, how do I know it is even your gun? Laser sights are cool, but like anything else, they are not 100% reliable, if you are relying on it and it fails, I need to know that you can still hit your target and not everything else around your target because you didn't have the laser. I guarantee if you are in court facing negligence charges, "Your Honor, I wasn't able to hit the BG because my laser sights didn't come on" would not save you.

[wgoforth]

Since the question was raised about "personal feelings"...

It is not a personal feeling that I would not let you use laser sights. And true, I was not familiar with the obscure admin reg. But, I would not want you to use the laser because I want you to prove that you can safely handle the gun and hit your target. How do I know, other than your word, that you will be carrying the handgun you are qualifying with? For that matter, how do I know it is even your gun? Laser sights are cool, but like anything else, they are not 100% reliable, if you are relying on it and it fails, I need to know that you can still hit your target and not everything else around your target because you didn't have the laser. I guarantee if you are in court facing negligence charges, "Your Honor, I wasn't able to hit the BG because my laser sights didn't come on" would not save you.

Texas Administrative Code Chapter 6:
Rule 6.11(a) wrote:The proficiency demonstration course will be the same for both instructors and license applications...
Rule 6.73 wrote:...No optical enhancers will be allowed.

I'd be careful on anyone saying they wouldn't allow something because they want you to prove something if the state doesn't require you proving it. I know of some instructors who say they require 90% or above for proficiency, or won't allow a .32 because they don't think it is enough gun as well. Since this one is "on the books" you are safe, but should anyone complain about instructors being more restrictive than state....well, just remember Crockett Keller

[GWE Chally]

Texas Administrative Code Chapter 6:
Rule 6.11(a) wrote:The proficiency demonstration course will be the same for both instructors and license applications...
Rule 6.73 wrote:...No optical enhancers will be allowed.

I'd be careful on anyone saying they wouldn't allow something because they want you to prove something if the state doesn't require you proving it. I know of some instructors who say they require 90% or above for proficiency, or won't allow a .32 because they don't think it is enough gun as well. Since this one is "on the books" you are safe, but should anyone complain about instructors being more restrictive than state....well, just remember Crockett Keller

Ok, poor choice of words, but point taken. Thanks.

[recaffeination]

DPS doresnt allow them, so you think more instructors would know the rule.

[sjfcontrol]

DPS doresnt allow them, so you think more instructors would know the rule.

How does that follow? Although wgoforth says he remembers them mentioning it in his instructor's class, I don't remember it from mine.
So if it wasn't mentioned in a class, and you didn't try to use one and have them tell you not to, how is an instructor to know?

[wgoforth]

DPS doresnt allow them, so you think more instructors would know the rule.

How does that follow? Although wgoforth says he remembers them mentioning it in his instructor's class, I don't remember it from mine.
So if it wasn't mentioned in a class, and you didn't try to use one and have them tell you not to, how is an instructor to know?

By the code perhaps?
Texas Administrative Code Chapter 6:
Rule 6.11(a) wrote:The proficiency demonstration course will be the same for both instructors and license applications...
Rule 6.73 wrote:...No optical enhancers will be allowed

[sjfcontrol]

DPS doresnt allow them, so you think more instructors would know the rule.

How does that follow? Although wgoforth says he remembers them mentioning it in his instructor's class, I don't remember it from mine.
So if it wasn't mentioned in a class, and you didn't try to use one and have them tell you not to, how is an instructor to know?

By the code perhaps?
Texas Administrative Code Chapter 6:
Rule 6.11(a) wrote:The proficiency demonstration course will be the same for both instructors and license applications...
Rule 6.73 wrote:...No optical enhancers will be allowed

And other than reading about it here, how is an instructor supposed to know that the administrative code even exists? If DPS expected instructors to be familiar with the Admin Code, it should be listed in the CHL-16. Or perhaps there should be an instructor's addendum to the CHL-16.

Have you read the Administrative Code in it's entirety to see if there are any other jewels in there for us?

Recaffiniated's comment regarded that more instructors should know about the regulation because DPS doesn't allow them (enhanced optics). I don't see that logic, and said so.

[wgoforth]

DPS doresnt allow them, so you think more instructors would know the rule.

How does that follow? Although wgoforth says he remembers them mentioning it in his instructor's class, I don't remember it from mine.
So if it wasn't mentioned in a class, and you didn't try to use one and have them tell you not to, how is an instructor to know?

By the code perhaps?
Texas Administrative Code Chapter 6:
Rule 6.11(a) wrote:The proficiency demonstration course will be the same for both instructors and license applications...
Rule 6.73 wrote:...No optical enhancers will be allowed

And other than reading about it here, how is an instructor supposed to know that the administrative code even exists? If DPS expected instructors to be familiar with the Admin Code, it should be listed in the CHL-16. Or perhaps there should be an instructor's addendum to the CHL-16.

Have you read the Administrative Code in it's entirety to see if there are any other jewels in there for us?

Recaffiniated's comment regarded that more instructors should know about the regulation because DPS doesn't allow them (enhanced optics). I don't see that logic, and said so.

I would tend to agree with Recaffinated. We were told no enhancements. I will look in our instructors book and see if it is stated in there. Nope, haven't read all of the code but google pulled it up quickly.

[wgoforth]

Just checked the instructor material we were given at class. One sheet is called "Mandatory Equipment" which lists acceptable caliber sizes also states "No optical enhancements." I would be glad to scan this in if anyone needs it. I notice it is different than the one on the DPS website that gives and updated date of 2010.

[sjfcontrol]

Just checked the instructor material we were given at class. One sheet is called "Mandatory Equipment" which lists acceptable caliber sizes also states "No optical enhancements." I would be glad to scan this in if anyone needs it. I notice it is different than the one on the DPS website that gives and updated date of 2010.

Well, I just checked mine, same form from a 2010 class. It does not have that statement on it. Besides, that document was sent, as I recall, with the class notification information, and regards what the instructor is to bring to class. It does not necessarily apply to CHL student classes. For example, it also states "No shorts will be allowed on the pistol range for safety purposes". Do you enforce that with your students? Do you now believe we must enforce that rule because the student requirements are supposed to be the same as that for the instructors? (Except, I guess, for number/type of guns, and passing scores.) Is the shorts restriction mentioned in the Administrative Rules? IDK.

However, I think we're getting off-track. I believe you that the statement is there, and that they mentioned it in YOUR class. I understand what the regulation says and means, and I am not arguing against it (regarding enhanced optics, not shorts).

Furthermore, I thought I had heard that lasers were not allowed before this thread started, but couldn't find any mention of it in the CHL-16 -- which is pretty much supposed to be our "CHL bible". I couldn't remember where I'd seen/heard it before this thread.

My complaint is that instructors are expected to abide by rules that are not clearly and universally known and disseminated. Furthermore, students are complaining because instructors don't have the firm knowledge of those rules, and resort to statements like "I won't allow those in my class", rather than the simpler "it's not allowed". And furthermore, as the rules change over time, this information may be incorporated in the classes for new instructors, but there is no organized dissemination for current instructors. Its difficult enough to keep up with changing laws, but pretty much impossible to keep up with changing Administrative Rules (which can change at any time).

[alvins]

ive seen many people at the range with those lasers.90% still cant hit what they aimed for.i find them incredibly annoying in an indoor range.if you need a laser and cant use the sights then you need to practice more.

[steve817]

So it looks like several people won't allow it. These same folks also admit they know of no rule prohibiting it. What gives?
If there's no rule against it, first, why wouldn't you allow it, and second, by what authority are you not allowing it?

This is a very good question. Personal feelings shouldn't be coming into play when it comes to state-sanctioned testing. If there is no rule or law that Texas specifically does not allow lasers on the testing, why should the instructors be able to make up their own additional restrictions?

Heh, my instructor wanted me to de-cock my pistol and take my first shot using the double action trigger after every reload.