TexasCHLforum.com

I have a few answers:

As far as the CHL program goes, the proficiency test is an undue obstacle to citizens wanting to exercise their right to self defense. There could be somebody who only intends to use their firearm for point-blank range defense, why should they have to shoot at 40'? We should know our abilities, act within them, and be accountable for the results.

As a test of real firearm proficiency, no, the CHL test should not be used for LEO certification, armed forces training, or as a mark of having demonstrated mastery of firearms. I don't think anybody imagines it to be so, but that's one way to answer the question.

In a word, it doesn't prove anything, so it might as well be done away with; and it shouldn't be an obstacle to our rights, so it should be done away with.

I'd like to see it done away with.

ScooterSissy wrote:

K5GU wrote:

ScooterSissy wrote:

steveincowtown wrote: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.

I agree, but have to say I didn't like the title of the thread (or the question posed). Sufficient for what? Is the test "sufficient" to prove that candidate is a highly capable shooter? Nope, it's not. But then, a harder accuracy test that one has to take one time wouldn't really do that either.

Frankly, I passed the proficiency test and it was the first time I had ever fired a handgun. I got better after I got my CHL (and my own handgun). It's probably worth noting that the guy sharing a lane with me was a deputy sherrif (I won't say what county), and I did better on the test than he did.

It really is about personal responsibility, and making a stricter requirement won't make anyone more responsible; at least, not for any longer than it takes to pass the test.

Let me try to address your question.."Sufficient for what?" I think in the context of CHL class, one of the reasons you're taking the test is to show you're proficient enough for getting the instructor(s) to sign off on your application, and whether or not the handgun proficiency requirements are sufficient enough to meet the instructor's (and the DPS) law requirements to do that while also staying in compliance with the Texas Constitution.

Then the answer would be yes. You answer is circular to the question. If a person passes the test, then they have met the legal requirement, thus the test is sufficient to prove they met the legal requirement.

Therefore you see no reason to change the CHL proficiency requirements as they are today, right?

Personally I think you should have to show you can operate the gun you bring safely. Several people in my class were obvious they never handled a gun or that type of gun. People had to be shown how to load the gun they brought. The chl class is not the place you learn this stuff. I think if you come to a chl class and you cant show that you know how to handle the gun you brought you should be given the option to come back later or fail the class.

One excuse I heard was this gun operated differently then my gun at home. No, semi autos all operate basically the same as do revolvers. The main difference is how you safely disarm the gun with a bullet in the chamber.

I know people use the excuse that police go through hours of gun training and whatever. Based on the news and how many bullets someone gets shot with I would argue its obviously not enough.

As has been said before, it all depends on what is meant by the term sufficient in the question. The CHL Proficiency test is sufficient to meet the dictates of the law. It is not sufficient to guarantee any real-world proficiency in time of need (nor is any other test short of a real-world need to use your handgun). Given that guns are simply tools, such a test is an affront to the Liberty-minded and to the clear meaning and purpose of the Second Amendment. You don't see any requirement for proficiency testing if you choose to carry a hammer or use a nail-gun or chainsaw, so why is a handgun any different? A person can do a good deal of damage with any of these in a short period of time.

I firmly believe that everyone should become proficient in the use of their tools, and in using them safely, but this test proves very little and the arguments against it seem as numerous and compelling as the arguments for it.

K5GU wrote:

ScooterSissy wrote:

K5GU wrote:

ScooterSissy wrote:

steveincowtown wrote: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.

I agree, but have to say I didn't like the title of the thread (or the question posed). Sufficient for what? Is the test "sufficient" to prove that candidate is a highly capable shooter? Nope, it's not. But then, a harder accuracy test that one has to take one time wouldn't really do that either.

Frankly, I passed the proficiency test and it was the first time I had ever fired a handgun. I got better after I got my CHL (and my own handgun). It's probably worth noting that the guy sharing a lane with me was a deputy sherrif (I won't say what county), and I did better on the test than he did.

It really is about personal responsibility, and making a stricter requirement won't make anyone more responsible; at least, not for any longer than it takes to pass the test.

Let me try to address your question.."Sufficient for what?" I think in the context of CHL class, one of the reasons you're taking the test is to show you're proficient enough for getting the instructor(s) to sign off on your application, and whether or not the handgun proficiency requirements are sufficient enough to meet the instructor's (and the DPS) law requirements to do that while also staying in compliance with the Texas Constitution.

Then the answer would be yes. You answer is circular to the question. If a person passes the test, then they have met the legal requirement, thus the test is sufficient to prove they met the legal requirement.

Therefore you see no reason to change the CHL proficiency requirements as they are today, right?

The answer to that would also be "yes", but deserving of additional information.

I don't think the current "proficiency test" really proves that a shooter is very proficient, but I don't think it was meant to do that. I think it was meant to weed out the folks that would be "scary dangerous" shooting a weapon. Like I said, I was able to pass the test without ever having previously fired a pistol. I would not not have called myself a "proficient" shooter at that point. I didn't own a gun (yet), and likely would have had trouble locking the slide back, and probably would have been nervous if someone asked me to ensure the chamber and action were cleared.

However, I did walk out with enough knowledge to know that those were things I needed to become familiar with when I owned a gun (and have). I also knew that I I could stand on a range with minimal pressure and hit a target no more than 15 yards away. Did that instill enough confidence that I could go out and safely protect myself in a firefight? Nope. But, it did get me my CHL, which contributed to my desire to own a handgun (without my CHL, I doubt I would have bought my gun), which allowed me to get better. I never had to to spend a dime or a day at the range to keep my CHL, but I did.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that even a harder test wouldn't work if all someone wanted to do was meet their minimum requirements for a CHL. Someone with that attitude would just practice enough to pass the test, then continue to do the "minimum" (which is nothing) to keep it.

Middle Age Russ wrote:As has been said before, it all depends on what is meant by the term sufficient in the question. The CHL Proficiency test is sufficient to meet the dictates of the law. It is not sufficient to guarantee any real-world proficiency in time of need (nor is any other test short of a real-world need to use your handgun). Given that guns are simply tools, such a test is an affront to the Liberty-minded and to the clear meaning and purpose of the Second Amendment. You don't see any requirement for proficiency testing if you choose to carry a hammer or use a nail-gun or chainsaw, so why is a handgun any different? A person can do a good deal of damage with any of these in a short period of time.

I firmly believe that everyone should become proficient in the use of their tools, and in using them safely, but this test proves very little and the arguments against it seem as numerous and compelling as the arguments for it.

Yeah - what he said (and did so much better than I).

Proficiency at what and by who? I've seen video of a police officer accidentally shooting himself in front of a class. I've seen another where a seemingly well trained person shoots himself while drawing. How would you "draw the line" when deciding who is proficient?

The current firing portion of chl class is fine in my opinion.

I don't know it for a fact but my assumption is the only reason that the class and range requirements were included in the bill in the first place was because it was the only way to get it passed. Of course I could be wrong about that.
I often wonder why people who believe we need tougher requirements for CHL classes are not fighting to pass legislation that would require training prior to purchasing a firearm. After all these same untrained people have guns in their homes and their cars without any training requirements. I often wonder why they only became such a danger to themselves and society when they decided to get a CHL but weren't before that.
Just to be clear, I don't support any additional training requirements.

jmra wrote:I don't know it for a fact but my assumption is the only reason that the class and range requirements were included in the bill in the first place was because it was the only way to get it passed. Of course I could be wrong about that.
I often wonder why people who believe we need tougher requirements for CHL classes are not fighting to pass legislation that would require training prior to purchasing a firearm. After all these same untrained people have guns in their homes and their cars without any training requirements. I often wonder why they only became such a danger to themselves and society when they decided to get a CHL but weren't before that.
Just to be clear, I don't support any additional training requirements.

California has such a law for purchasing a handgun. I don't think we want to follow their lead.

WildBill wrote:

jmra wrote:I don't know it for a fact but my assumption is the only reason that the class and range requirements were included in the bill in the first place was because it was the only way to get it passed. Of course I could be wrong about that.
I often wonder why people who believe we need tougher requirements for CHL classes are not fighting to pass legislation that would require training prior to purchasing a firearm. After all these same untrained people have guns in their homes and their cars without any training requirements. I often wonder why they only became such a danger to themselves and society when they decided to get a CHL but weren't before that.
Just to be clear, I don't support any additional training requirements.

California has such a law for purchasing a handgun. I don't think we want to follow their lead.

Oh, I agree 100%, I was just wondering how someone could support one but not the other.

How about this?

After taking and passing the CHL class and range qualification, the DPS sends the CHL holder a PIN number to join the TexasCHLForum.

After joining the forum and making 50 useful posts, the member can activate the CHL to make it valid.

jmra wrote:I don't know it for a fact but my assumption is the only reason that the class and range requirements were included in the bill in the first place was because it was the only way to get it passed. Of course I could be wrong about that.
I often wonder why people who believe we need tougher requirements for CHL classes are not fighting to pass legislation that would require training prior to purchasing a firearm. After all these same untrained people have guns in their homes and their cars without any training requirements. I often wonder why they only became such a danger to themselves and society when they decided to get a CHL but weren't before that.
Just to be clear, I don't support any additional training requirements.

I think the difference is that the chl allows you to carry a gun with you where the others would have you leave the gun secured somewhere.

TexasCajun wrote:

jmra wrote:I don't know it for a fact but my assumption is the only reason that the class and range requirements were included in the bill in the first place was because it was the only way to get it passed. Of course I could be wrong about that.
I often wonder why people who believe we need tougher requirements for CHL classes are not fighting to pass legislation that would require training prior to purchasing a firearm. After all these same untrained people have guns in their homes and their cars without any training requirements. I often wonder why they only became such a danger to themselves and society when they decided to get a CHL but weren't before that.
Just to be clear, I don't support any additional training requirements.

I think the difference is that the chl allows you to carry a gun with you where the others would have you leave the gun secured somewhere.

Gun ranges..public and plenty of other people around.

Texas_Blaze wrote:
Gun ranges..public and plenty of other people around.

Having seen the many shenanigans at public ranges I can point to many people who should not be allowed anywhere near a firearm, or heavy machinery for that matter.

Legally I'm fine with the standard as it is. Its ridiculously easy, and persons could retake the test if they failed it after class (in both I attended before the rules changed). It was sufficient to show that the testee knew (at least theoretically) which end to point away from your face. I would not want heavier legal requirements though other than state you have the right to carry, and now you have a duty to be proficient in that carry and use.

If we were changing things, personally I'd want more focus on conflict avoidance/management, and a few minutes on safe carry gear.

jmra wrote:

WildBill wrote:

jmra wrote:I don't know it for a fact but my assumption is the only reason that the class and range requirements were included in the bill in the first place was because it was the only way to get it passed. Of course I could be wrong about that.
I often wonder why people who believe we need tougher requirements for CHL classes are not fighting to pass legislation that would require training prior to purchasing a firearm. After all these same untrained people have guns in their homes and their cars without any training requirements. I often wonder why they only became such a danger to themselves and society when they decided to get a CHL but weren't before that.
Just to be clear, I don't support any additional training requirements.

California has such a law for purchasing a handgun. I don't think we want to follow their lead.

Oh, I agree 100%, I was just wondering how someone could support one but not the other.

"Money talks" ? i.e., lobbyists, business donors, etc. etc. Similarly to automobile, boat, aircraft markets. Bad drivers of motor vehicles can be potentially as dangerous as a firearm user, but very few dealers will screen them at the point of sale.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

Texas_Blaze wrote:
Gun ranges..public and plenty of other people around.

Having seen the many shenanigans at public ranges I can point to many people who should not be allowed anywhere near a firearm, or heavy machinery for that matter.

Legally I'm fine with the standard as it is. Its ridiculously easy, and persons could retake the test if they failed it after class (in both I attended before the rules changed). It was sufficient to show that the testee knew (at least theoretically) which end to point away from your face. I would not want heavier legal requirements though other than state you have the right to carry, and now you have a duty to be proficient in that carry and use.

If we were changing things, personally I'd want more focus on conflict avoidance/management, and a few minutes on safe carry gear.

When I listened to the conference committee hearing held in 1995, discussing the original CHL bills, the panel actually touched on this briefly, but was overruled by majority. She said her intent was to prevent things like when the CHL holder placed a loaded gun where a child might mess with it. This was in 1995 !