Is The CHL Proficiency Test Sufficient?

[Charles L. Cotton]

As jmra stated, the proficiency requirement was necessary to pass SB60 in 1995. Yes, it is very easy, but it is also much like the minimum standards required of peace officers in Texas, except they must qualify annually. (See below.) (Many/most departments require more frequent range qualifications and often more stringent that TCOLE Rule 218.9(c).) I believe we could repeal the need for demonstrating range proficiency without diminishing public or individual safety. I've never had a person fail the proficiency test, but I've had 4 students have to shoot a second time and one who passed on her third attempt. However, we would risk reciprocity with some states, but probably not many. If it were a big issue, then I would have expected it to have caused problems when we repealed the renewal class requirement in 2013.

A key element in assessing the efficiency of the current proficiency exam is the fact that we don't have a problem with accidental injuries or death with well over 840,000 Texas CHLs. Yes, there have been a few incidences, but very few and they are statistically insignificant. I can tell if a student practices on a regular basis and those that do not are not going to start after they complete the CHL class. Yes, I stress it heavily, even to the point that I sound like a Baptist preacher. (Baptist I am, preacher I'm not.) Nevertheless, I know I'm not changing anyone's mind. Those that practice will continue to do so and those that do not will no start because of anything I say.

Every person who carries a gun should practice to maintain proficiency, but more importantly, to maintain the confidence that they can perform under the stress of a deadly attack. Those who study the art of self-defense know that 90% of the battle is in the mind, not the hand. If you believe that you cannot, then you will not. I presume the "Rule of Threes" still applies to most shooting; three rounds in three seconds from three feet. 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.

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; . . .

[LSUTiger]

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.

[LSUTiger]

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.

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; . . .

What he said

[mojo84]

This topic makes me wonder if some think the driving tests we have to take to get our licenses proves we are good safe drivers.

[sawdust]

Personally, I would like to see on-going proficiency training highly encouraged.. At my original CHL range test, there was one more bullet hole in my target than the number of shots I had fired. Some people do go on to be students of the [process]; others have to be externally motivated to do the minimum.

Stray shots:
1] I do not want to have to consort with DWG's - Doofusses With Guns. At gun ranges, I have been muzzle-swept more than once. I also see atrocious handling; in one instance, a college-age lady was trying to rack the slide and eventually had the pistol pointed at her foot. So yeah, I want lots of proficiency around me.

1A] It seems, that for the most part, guns ranges and stores only cater to the choir. There should be much more after-market efforts on their part. After one becomes a CHL'er, that range/instructor could promote follow-up lessons, training, or practice. If one makes a 1st-time visit to a range or a store, there should be the same sort of promotional effort made for proficiency training. If one buys from a store/range, same thing.

2] As regards the proficiency level after successfully completing a CHL course, there are paralells in other areas which require training and licensing, and yet there is little- to-no hue and cry about government intrusion. To be licensed as a Private Pilot, one has to have had a minimum of 40 hours of flight time under the supervision of a Flight Instructor and pass a flight test. That minimum training and testing qualifies you as a licensed pilot. But it doesn't make you a proficient pilot. Only addional hours, experience, and training creates the additional proficiency and concurrent safety.

3] What if all automobile drivers were required to be proficient? The vehicular death rate would plummet, accidents would greatly diminish, highway congestion would disappear, insurance companies would either go broke (because their income from premiums would disappear) or the profits would soar to unimaginable heights (because the claims would virtually disappear. The term "traffic congestion" would become an archaic phrase.

[LaUser]

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.

I agree. There is not enough training. What we currently have is a joke. There should be more classroom time, safety handling training and yearly range qualification.

Years ago on another forum, someone was complaining because he could not carry like LEO's do. Among other things, like extensive training and retraining, they are required to qualify at the range yearly, at least where I come from. I think if you want to carry a pistol, you have to show proficiency on a yearly basis. LEOSA requires this.

[TexasCajun]

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.

I agree. There is not enough training. What we currently have is a joke. There should be more classroom time, safety handling training and yearly range qualification.

Years ago on another forum, someone was complaining because he could not carry like LEO's do. Among other things, like extensive training and retraining, they are required to qualify at the range yearly, at least where I come from. I think if you want to carry a pistol, you have to show proficiency on a yearly basis. LEOSA requires this.

The CHL class is not training and was never designed to be. Most CHL instructor websites even go so far as to state that the CHL class is not where you want to be if you've never handled a gun before or want to learn how to effectively use one. The CHL class is and always has been simply proof that a person can perform to a minimum required standard. As it should be, proficiency and training are the responsibility of the individual. Any government-mandated training level would be minimum at best so as not to unduly burden or exclude a large number of people. So even then, the mandated training wouldn't accomplish any of the goals that some have advocated for here.

[K5GU]

I agree and remember, the code in 411.188 "..part must be range instruction and an actual demonstration by the applicant of the applicant's ability to safely and proficiently use a handgun. An applicant must be able to demonstrate, at a minimum, the degree of proficiency that is required to effectively operate a handgun of .32 caliber or above...". I don't think the law makers ever intended to make the class a training class.

As far as what happens in the actual CHL class, I can only speak from my experiences and observations in my first class. One of the first things the instructors said at the beginning of class was that while complying with the minimum rules, they exceed that by assessing both visually and verbally the actions and responses by the students as they went through the class (maximum class size of 18 people). They said the technical score requirements were one thing, but other than simply looking at holes put on the paper target, they intended to also assess your ability to take instructions, safely load, unload and clear the handgun by going around the room and testing every student. The instructors, who are both veteran and active police officers, also said they did NOT claim a 100% pass rating for their classes. I think this meant they were serious, and this day it was proven to be true as you'll read below.

On the outdoor range, they continued to assess how each student was handling the firearm, finger away from the trigger, loading between firing rounds, only pointing down range, etc. The instructors said they only would give two warnings before disqualification. Two students were dismissed and politely told to go get training before coming back, and one student was disqualified because of belligerence when given instructions. We asked the instructor about that after our range test and he said that was the 2nd time the belligerent person had appeared in class. Only difference this time - a disapproval affidavit was filled out and sent to the DPS for that person.

I would not hesitate to recommend that kind of class to someone.

[ScottDLS]

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.

I agree. There is not enough training. What we currently have is a joke. There should be more classroom time, safety handling training and yearly range qualification.

Years ago on another forum, someone was complaining because he could not carry like LEO's do. Among other things, like extensive training and retraining, they are required to qualify at the range yearly, at least where I come from. I think if you want to carry a pistol, you have to show proficiency on a yearly basis. LEOSA requires this.

I don't. Even the TCLEOSE training is a joke. I have yet to see the training requirement in the 2nd amendment. How come I can buy and carry an AR15 at 18 without any required training? Shouldn't we require everyone buying a gun to take training in that specific firearm and then register the gun to their license so we know they are proficient? That way they (presumably) wouldn't sweep me/us the range.

I'm special, I'm military trained in M14 and M16 rifle, .45 pistol, and M60 LMG. I really don't know what all these 22 year old college girl wannabe SEAL/SWAT people are doing with CHL's. Only highly trained tacticool professionals like me should have a CHL. I also think there should be a fitness test, 20 pull ups, 80 situps (in 2min), and run 3 miles in 22 min.

[K5GU]

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.

" 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 totally agree. I have a nephew who retired after 3 tours in the middle east and whom I would NOT take handgun advice from!

[CleverNickname]

Personally, I would like to see on-going proficiency training highly encouraged..

OK, but how exactly do you write the law to encourage ongoing training without making it a requirement? The only way I can think of would be to give discounted or even free renewals to licensees who take ongoing training. But that's not a total solution either. Likely problems:
1. DPS takes in less money, CHL program doesn't pay for itself any more.
2. Most classes cost more than the CHL renewal fee, so the money saved by a person getting a renewal fee would only pay for part of a class.
3. DPS would have to come up with a curriculum or at least some sort of oversight to determine what's a qualifying class.
4. It would only encourage the licensee to take a class every 5 years, when their renewal is due.

[K5GU]

As jmra stated, the proficiency requirement was necessary to pass SB60 in 1995. Yes, it is very easy, but it is also much like the minimum standards required of peace officers in Texas, except they must qualify annually. (See below.) (Many/most departments require more frequent range qualifications and often more stringent that TCOLE Rule 218.9(c).) I believe we could repeal the need for demonstrating range proficiency without diminishing public or individual safety. I've never had a person fail the proficiency test, but I've had 4 students have to shoot a second time and one who passed on her third attempt. However, we would risk reciprocity with some states, but probably not many. If it were a big issue, then I would have expected it to have caused problems when we repealed the renewal class requirement in 2013.

A key element in assessing the efficiency of the current proficiency exam is the fact that we don't have a problem with accidental injuries or death with well over 840,000 Texas CHLs. Yes, there have been a few incidences, but very few and they are statistically insignificant. I can tell if a student practices on a regular basis and those that do not are not going to start after they complete the CHL class. Yes, I stress it heavily, even to the point that I sound like a Baptist preacher. (Baptist I am, preacher I'm not.) Nevertheless, I know I'm not changing anyone's mind. Those that practice will continue to do so and those that do not will no start because of anything I say.

Every person who carries a gun should practice to maintain proficiency, but more importantly, to maintain the confidence that they can perform under the stress of a deadly attack. Those who study the art of self-defense know that 90% of the battle is in the mind, not the hand. If you believe that you cannot, then you will not. I presume the "Rule of Threes" still applies to most shooting; three rounds in three seconds from three feet. 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.

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; . . .

Excellent post Chas. BTW, do you think the proposed caliber change to .22 cal. for proficiency will better enable folks with less-than-full use of their hands when loading a semi-auto magazine? The only experience I have with a .22 is rifle, revolver, and a Ramset hammer.

[ShootDontTalk]

I think Charles summed things up very nicely. I would like to respond to this on a personal, not legislative, basis. This is my personal definition of CHL proficiency.

1. Safety. I started shooting under my father's tutelage 57 years ago. He taught me diligently and forcefully about handling, loading, shooting, unloading, and storing all kinds of guns. He taught me the four safety rules and made sure I knew them and practiced them. He taught me hunting safety and lots of useful things. I would not have guns around me without knowing most of this. For me, this is bedrock stuff. I've tried to follow my father's lead in teaching my family. That keeps me sharp and you might say, keeps me scared of the consequences of my not teaching well.

2. Proficiency. I learned to shoot first from my father, from thousands of rounds shot in thousands of hours of NRA competition and practice in Bullseye, High Power, and other sanctioned events. I learned by participating in long range rifle matches. I maintain proficiency by practice and "mind" practice - I think you guys know what I'm talking about here. I hope I'll never stop learning.

3. CHL. I didn't expect the class to teach me either safety or proficiency any more than I expected to come away with a full understanding of Texas law. I welcomed the shooting portion of the class - not to prove I could handle a gun safely, or shoot proficiently to the class or instructor, but to myself. It may just be me, but I want to know that, God forbid, should the need ever arise I can protect myself, my family, or others to the best of my ability.

Maybe I didn't say it very well, but this is just me.

[Cedar Park Dad]

I think Charles summed things up very nicely. I would like to respond to this on a personal, not legislative, basis. This is my personal definition of CHL proficiency.

1. Safety. I started shooting under my father's tutelage 57 years ago. He taught me diligently and forcefully about handling, loading, shooting, unloading, and storing all kinds of guns. He taught me the four safety rules and made sure I knew them and practiced them. He taught me hunting safety and lots of useful things. I would not have guns around me without knowing most of this. For me, this is bedrock stuff. I've tried to follow my father's lead in teaching my family. That keeps me sharp and you might say, keeps me scared of the consequences of my not teaching well.

2. Proficiency. I learned to shoot first from my father, from thousands of rounds shot in thousands of hours of NRA competition and practice in Bullseye, High Power, and other sanctioned events. I learned by participating in long range rifle matches. I maintain proficiency by practice and "mind" practice - I think you guys know what I'm talking about here. I hope I'll never stop learning.

3. CHL. I didn't expect the class to teach me either safety or proficiency any more than I expected to come away with a full understanding of Texas law. I welcomed the shooting portion of the class - not to prove I could handle a gun safely, or shoot proficiently to the class or instructor, but to myself. It may just be me, but I want to know that, God forbid, should the need ever arise I can protect myself, my family, or others to the best of my ability.

Maybe I didn't say it very well, but this is just me.

good words there.

[Charles L. Cotton]

As jmra stated, the proficiency requirement was necessary to pass SB60 in 1995. Yes, it is very easy, but it is also much like the minimum standards required of peace officers in Texas, except they must qualify annually. (See below.) (Many/most departments require more frequent range qualifications and often more stringent that TCOLE Rule 218.9(c).) I believe we could repeal the need for demonstrating range proficiency without diminishing public or individual safety. I've never had a person fail the proficiency test, but I've had 4 students have to shoot a second time and one who passed on her third attempt. However, we would risk reciprocity with some states, but probably not many. If it were a big issue, then I would have expected it to have caused problems when we repealed the renewal class requirement in 2013.

A key element in assessing the efficiency of the current proficiency exam is the fact that we don't have a problem with accidental injuries or death with well over 840,000 Texas CHLs. Yes, there have been a few incidences, but very few and they are statistically insignificant. I can tell if a student practices on a regular basis and those that do not are not going to start after they complete the CHL class. Yes, I stress it heavily, even to the point that I sound like a Baptist preacher. (Baptist I am, preacher I'm not.) Nevertheless, I know I'm not changing anyone's mind. Those that practice will continue to do so and those that do not will no start because of anything I say.

Every person who carries a gun should practice to maintain proficiency, but more importantly, to maintain the confidence that they can perform under the stress of a deadly attack. Those who study the art of self-defense know that 90% of the battle is in the mind, not the hand. If you believe that you cannot, then you will not. I presume the "Rule of Threes" still applies to most shooting; three rounds in three seconds from three feet. 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.

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; . . .

Excellent post Chas. BTW, do you think the proposed caliber change to .22 cal. for proficiency will better enable folks with less-than-full use of their hands when loading a semi-auto magazine? The only experience I have with a .22 is rifle, revolver, and a Ramset hammer.

Yes. Not only can instructors help people with disabilities, DPS reminds us that the ADA requires us to make "reasonable accommodations."

Chas.