TexasCHLforum.com

The target question was added for the benefit of instructors. When DPS changed the approved target, many instructors did not change to the new B-27 in one of 4 approved colors (which are red, green, black, blue). Having the question on the student test forces the issue.

And, I agree, the current test is only an indicator of how well a student can decipher badly worded, double negative, questions.

The test is there simply because the general mindset is that every course of instruction must have a test. This ignores the fact that continuing education courses required/taught for every profession in Texas do not require a test as part of the course. (At least the ones of which I am aware; i.e. attorneys, CPS's, doctors.) Also, a test is not required by statute.

The excellent track record CHL's have earned shows there is no problem to be solved by a more stringent test. (2009: 15 times less likely to commit a crime than the general population.) It would be easy to write a test that a significant percentage of people would fail, but that would be both unnecessary and, in my view, unconstitutional. We are talking about the exercise of a constitutional right and requiring a training course of any kind is already pushing the limits.

I think the CHL course should be treated like continuing education courses, i.e. no test. At a minimum, this is the way it should be treated for renewals. If this procedure is sufficient for most if not all professionals in practice, it should be sufficient for someone wanting to exercise their constitutional right to self-defense and their Second Amendment rights.

I am also opposed to the shooting requirement, and I know I'm in the minority on this. Even though the range requirement is not difficult, it ignores the fact that most self-defense shootings occur at contact distance, so anything beyond the 3 yd. portion of the shooting proficiency exam is unnecessary. Every range owner and instructor with access to a range will oppose this for obvious reasons.

The goal needs to be simplification of the CHL application procedure and reduction of costs.

Chas.

You certainly have a valid point. A physician who can prescribe drugs with possibly fatal side effects or cut people open has to pass boards only once in his career (unless called up on some serious malfeasance or incompetence charges).

However, I don't mind spending 15 minutes on the test if that is what it takes. At least I get a degree of bragging rights. The few occasions when I have been involved in discussions of the CHL in real life, I can explain that a CHL holder has taken 10 hours of instruction and passed a written test and shooting proficiency qualification.

We can only wish it was that difficult to get a marriage license and have kids.

I'm also aware that the 20-some states where it is easier to get a shall-issue license and the three that don't require a license at all have no significant problem.

- Jim

Charles L. Cotton wrote:It would be easy to write a test that a significant percentage of people would fail, but that would be both unnecessary and, in my view, unconstitutional.

I don't think anyone is advocating for a more difficult test - just a more appropriate one. Ideally there would be no such thing as a CHL because we would not need it. But if they insist on testing, it should be more useful and meaningful knowledge that is tested.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:The test is there simply because the general mindset is that every course of instruction must have a test. This ignores the fact that continuing education courses required/taught for every profession in Texas do not require a test as part of the course. (At least the ones of which I am aware; i.e. attorneys, CPS's, doctors.) Also, a test is not required by statute.

The excellent track record CHL's have earned shows there is no problem to be solved by a more stringent test. (2009: 15 times less likely to commit a crime than the general population.) It would be easy to write a test that a significant percentage of people would fail, but that would be both unnecessary and, in my view, unconstitutional. We are talking about the exercise of a constitutional right and requiring a training course of any kind is already pushing the limits.

I think the CHL course should be treated like continuing education courses, i.e. no test. At a minimum, this is the way it should be treated for renewals. If this procedure is sufficient for most if not all professionals in practice, it should be sufficient for someone wanting to exercise their constitutional right to self-defense and their Second Amendment rights.

I am also opposed to the shooting requirement, and I know I'm in the minority on this. Even though the range requirement is not difficult, it ignores the fact that most self-defense shootings occur at contact distance, so anything beyond the 3 yd. portion of the shooting proficiency exam is unnecessary. Every range owner and instructor with access to a range will oppose this for obvious reasons.

The goal needs to be simplification of the CHL application procedure and reduction of costs.

Chas.

I agree. I always read where something is so simple or that it does not meet real life situations, concerning CHL tests or classes. Someone is always better trained at something than someone else, who is to decide where the line is marked? Should someone be required to take the test if they are retired Military or Law Enforcement? I have seen individuals who have never served in either capacity shoot better and are far more articulate than those who have spent a majority of their lives in the profession of arms. Is the 2nd Amendment a right or not? I personally don't care if individuals are trained or not when they receive their CHL, this due mostly to the question what is trained mean? Who decides when someone is fully trained to carry?
My take only...

Another caveat to what I wrote previously. I have learned more about the use and care of firearms since I have received my CHL. This through reading different Blogs about firearms, especially this one, than I learned my entire time in the Military/L.E. Military was all about ROE, while L.E. was about getting the bad guy. Simplified I know, but I have been around firearms my entire life, 50 plus years. My father gave me what he knew and we kept only rifles, no one I knew even owned a pistol in the rural Panhandle of Texas. The Military taught me the Army way to shoot, one example is, I was never castigated for having my finger on the trigger, the safety switch was what counted. This during multiple combat deployments as well. So if one is to carry, there is a responsibility to continue one's education, no matter what a Test might contain. If one does not, than even if someone developed a test that contained what a majority of individuals felt it should, it will not make an iota of a difference in the end run to some individuals.

The missions of the military, police, and civilian CHL holders are entirely different, of course. The first two groups literally are tasked with looking for trouble. The CHL holder is supposed to avoid trouble. Probably 90% or more of CHL holders will never fire a shot in self defense. That's one of the reasons CHL holders have such a good record.

- Jim

If we don't need a class to renew a DL we shouldn't need a class to renew a CHL. Politicians who think logically and aren't anti-gun agree, as shown by the renewal process in those states.

ELB wrote:
AND... I have never been impressed with the "de-escalation" portion either.

de-escalation ? People spend years studding it. Volumes have been written. What are you expecting in a couple hours? Some kind of magic spell?

bkj wrote:

ELB wrote:
AND... I have never been impressed with the "de-escalation" portion either.

de-escalation ? People spend years studding it. Volumes have been written. What are you expecting in a couple hours? Some kind of magic spell?

"Expelliarmus!"

seamusTX wrote:It's a true/false question. Four colors are allowed. (Don't ask me what they are.)

This is the kind of thing that's quite difficult to study for. You have to dig into the DPS regulations for instructors to find it. I never would have expected a question like that.

- Jim

Yep it is a little crazy to have that question but just remember Stopping at the light (stop lights are red and green) keeps you from getting black and blue. I just cover this on a slide in the PPT I use to explain the qualification requirements.

KaiserB wrote:

seamusTX wrote:It's a true/false question. Four colors are allowed. (Don't ask me what they are.)

This is the kind of thing that's quite difficult to study for. You have to dig into the DPS regulations for instructors to find it. I never would have expected a question like that.

- Jim

Yep it is a little crazy to have that question but just remember Stopping at the light (stop lights are red and green) keeps you from getting black and blue. I just cover this on a slide in the PPT I use to explain the qualification requirements.

Red and Green like Christmas Tree lights, Black and Blue like a bruise.
Usually covered in class. The test does not require you to know what the four colors are.