Is The CHL Proficiency Test Sufficient?

[K5GU]

I've heard the Texas legislators arguing both sides on the required hours for the CHL class - too many, not enough, etc., but I've not heard any discussion of why the DPS wants, or don't want, better handgun instruction on the management and safe handling of the handgun. I remember back in 2004 (my first CHL class), part of the classroom AND on the range, the instructors had time to present safe handling. But what about today?

[TVGuy]

Negative, no handling skills were taught.

I know I'm going to get hardcore flamed on this, but I don't think there is nearly enough training. Yes, it is your right to carry. The safety and proficiency levels of MANY people with CHLs is extremely low.

I've been to renewal classes (when that was still around) that multiple people had not fired their weapon since the last CHL proficiency test. That's completely irresponsible. I hate to say it, but I think there are more of those than people who go out even every six months...which is still not enough.

[steveincowtown]

100% sufficient. In the states where no CHL is required and proficiency test is required there has zero problems relating to "proficiency."

The Texas CHL course will not make you a student of the law or a good shot. Participating in forums like this, keeping up on pending legislation, and practicing often at the range and at home will. The odds that you will ever use your weapon are slim, and the statistics show that if you do have to use it it will be a very close range. Plinking a few round done range, and a stationary target, which is at eye level, which you are shooting under very little pressure, while standing in the perfect position, is in no way representative of a real world scenario.

[steveincowtown]

The safety and proficiency levels of MANY people with CHLs is extremely low.

As they are with some LEOs as well (who are trained).

My value set tells me Freedom and Liberty are more important than legislating to the lowest common denominator.

[K5GU]

I keep having flashbacks of talking to CHL holders who don't even know what is meant by a "round in the chamber". One of these conversations was while sitting in the class for CHL renewal several years ago when we were talking during a break, the person said, "..What's a chamber?..". And these folks are carrying a loaded gun in public? Whew!

[K5GU]

The safety and proficiency levels of MANY people with CHLs is extremely low.

As they are with some LEOs as well (who are trained).

My value set tells me Freedom and Liberty are more important than legislating to the lowest common denominator.

Yes, and I love freedom and liberty too. Just want to stay alive to enjoy it!

[WildBill]

I am not going to flame anyone, but it's strange how many people on the forum say that they support "constitutional carry", i.e. no license required, but think the proficiency test is too lenient.

I think that it is every person's responsibility to become safe and proficient with their particular firearm, but that is their own personal choice.

A person who doesn't learn and practice with their firearms will find this out too late.

[RPBrown]

It is not up to the instructors to teach you how to shoot or the safety rules (although they should be covered prior to going to the range). It is up to each individual to know how to shoot prior to taking the class AND to remain proficient as long as you are carrying. I practice at least once a month but usually every other week.

[steveincowtown]

Yes, and I love freedom and liberty too. Just want to stay alive to enjoy it!

I'll use the tip hat here so you know I am being polite.




Could you site any examples of problems with proficiency in any of the states that require no CHL or "formal" training? With as liberal as the news media is these days they should be easy to find.

[K5GU]

I am not going to flame anyone, but it's strange how many people on the forum say that they support "constitutional carry", i.e. no license required, but think the proficiency test is too lenient.

I think that it is every person's responsibility to become safe and proficient with their particular firearm, but that is their own personal choice.

A person who doesn't learn and practice with their firearms will find this out too late.

It could be that folks don't see a CHL as necessary if they believe the certification process doesn't prove anything anyway?

[K5GU]

Yes, and I love freedom and liberty too. Just want to stay alive to enjoy it!

I'll use the tip hat here so you know I am being polite.




Could you site any examples of problems with proficiency in any of the states that require no CHL or "formal" training? With as liberal as the news media is these days they should be easy to find.

This topic is about Texas CHL proficiency test, not unlicensed handgun proficiency in other states. Or am I misunderstanding your post?

[WildBill]

I am not going to flame anyone, but it's strange how many people on the forum say that they support "constitutional carry", i.e. no license required, but think the proficiency test is too lenient.

I think that it is every person's responsibility to become safe and proficient with their particular firearm, but that is their own personal choice.

A person who doesn't learn and practice with their firearms will find this out too late.

It could be that folks don't see a CHL as necessary if they believe the certification process doesn't prove anything anyway?

The CHL is not a certification. The written and shooting portions of the class are minimum standards that must be met to issue a CHL.

[RoyGBiv]

Mark me on the side of "proficiency should not be a requirement".

Yet another infringement on liberty.
Should training be undertaken? Absolutely.
A prerequisite to exercising a Right? No.

Should training/licensing be required to publish a newsletter? Speak in public?

[K5GU]

I am not going to flame anyone, but it's strange how many people on the forum say that they support "constitutional carry", i.e. no license required, but think the proficiency test is too lenient.

I think that it is every person's responsibility to become safe and proficient with their particular firearm, but that is their own personal choice.

A person who doesn't learn and practice with their firearms will find this out too late.

It could be that folks don't see a CHL as necessary if they believe the certification process doesn't prove anything anyway?

The CHL is not a certification. The written and shooting portions of the class are minimum standards to issue a CHL.

Okay. How about this then. It could be that folks don't see a CHL as necessary if they believe the minimum standards don't prove anything anyway?

The reason I said "certification" was because the "Certificate of Training Form - TR-100" I signed said, "This is to certify that"...etc. I think that form was replaced by the CHL-100 and they replaced "certify" with "verify that".

[ScottDLS]

Honestly guys...it's not that hard. I taught myself at 18 rifle and pistol at 20. Later I was in the military and got basic pistol, automatic rifle, and light MG training. It wasn't that hard other than to keep the gunny from ruining my hearing by screaming in my ear that my M-16 bolt was dirty.

Later I became a NRA Basic Pistol instructor. The training mainly emphasized what most of us know by observation/common sense. As R. Lee Ermey says, "Keep your booger hook off the bang switch, till you're ready to shoot".

The average person that goes to the trouble of buying a handgun and getting a CHL would be able to use it in the vast majority of situations they are likely to face. I don't propose a test for exercising your 2nd amendment rights any more than I propose a literacy test to exercise your right to vote... Why do I need a writ from "His Lordship on High the Governor of my Colony" to own a musket? He already puts a tax on my tea.

I don't think you ought to have to run through the Infantry Basic Course to buy an AR15 either (or an M16 for that matter).