LEO Firearms Proficiency Requirements - Texas

[matefrio]

From the most recent handbook I can find on TCLEOSE - Texas Commission on Law Enforcement Officers Standards and Education - Home Texas Commission on Law EnforcementOfficer Standards and Education.

http://www.tcleose.state.tx.us/publications/publications_gen/rules_handbook.pdf

§217.21. Firearms Proficiency Requirements.

(a) Each agency or entity that employs at least one peace officer shall:
(1) require each peace officer that it employs to successfully complete the current firearms proficiency requirements at least once each year;
TCLEOSE Rules Handbook as of October 28, 2010 Page 36 of 95
(2) designate a firearms proficiency officer to be responsible for the documentation of annual firearms proficiency. The documentation for each officer shall include:
(A) date of qualification;
(B) identification of officer;
(C) firearm manufacturer, model;
(D) results of qualifying; and
(E) course(s) of fire.
(3) keep on file and in a format readily accessible to the commission a copy of all records of this proficiency.
(b) The annual firearms proficiency requirements shall include:
(1) an external inspection by the proficiency officer, range officer, firearms instructor, or gunsmith to determine the safety and functioning of the weapon(s);
(2) a proficiency demonstration in the care and cleaning of the weapon(s) used; and
(3) a course of fire that meets or exceeds the minimum standards.
(c) 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;
(d) The minimum passing percentage shall be 70 for each firearm.
(e) The executive director may, upon written agency request, waive a peace officer's demonstration of weapons proficiency based on a determination that the requirement causes a hardship.
(f) The effective date of this section is January 14, 2010.

 

[Texan2]

That is the qualification requirements. They are pretty easy.


So.....was there something particular that you wanted to point out?

 

[M. Sage]

That's not really above and beyond the CHL requirements. Reading the description reminds me a lot of the CHL test...

 

[Tejano Scott]

I think it's safe to say, depend on no one but yourself. For all these gun control nuts who think cops are going to save them, like Sage said these requirements are pretty close to the CHL exam. Surely, there must be more or this is the MINIMUM standard!?!?! I'd like to believe each department invests and requires more from their officers, but some jurisdictions just use them as tax collectors. So... Who knows. Either way, I will continue to rely on myself, first and foremost, when the SHTF.

 

[matefrio]

That is the qualification requirements. They are pretty easy.


So.....was there something particular that you wanted to point out?

In another thread:

I think the shooting test should be more rigorous. I think that a static controlled environment is easy to pass, but unlike a situation that could occur.

I would want a test that required shooting at moving targets, friend/foe analysis, and shooting after drawing.

Just my 2 cents...

I am not a fan of chls that require no test. I am not a fan of people taking advantages of loop holes and going to other states to get a chl.

 

[matefrio]

That's not really above and beyond the CHL requirements. Reading the description reminds me a lot of the CHL test...

I remember that the first draft of CHL law the practical test was tough and only getting harder as liberals were taking swings at it. At one point someone pointed out the course of fire should be no more difficult than this test but I've lost that reference.

 

[ChunkyMonkey]

Maybe you should have pointed that out in your original post. Keep in mind that's a MINIMUM standard. My agency does much more beyond that, including other than static targets and varying ranges. Now, you can't expect every officer to be sharp shooters, just as I don't expect every CHL holder to be 100% versed in their abilities/firearm. We're not on the streets to run around shooting.
We have numerous other range days than the standard qualification.

How about asking what kind of shooting we experience/endure rather than just opening a thread with what seems like a negative intent. just my .02

 

[matefrio]

Maybe you should have pointed that out in your original post. Keep in mind that's a MINIMUM standard. My agency does much more beyond that, including other than static targets and varying ranges. Now, you can't expect every officer to be sharp shooters, just as I don't expect every CHL holder to be 100% versed in their abilities/firearm. We're not on the streets to run around shooting.
We have numerous other range days than the standard qualification.

How about asking what kind of shooting we experience/endure rather than just opening a thread with what seems like a negative intent. just my .02

I don't see how my intent could be seen as negative at all and it was not. Just pointing out that the CHL proficiency test is very much like the minimum required for Texas LEOs. At the same time showing some here, who'd like to see a more difficult course of fire, where our test came from as a point of reference.

Any additional requirements your department has to pass a proficiency test I'd like to see here as well as welcome input.

 

[Chrs2fer23]

My neighbor is a local police officer whom works directly with a federal agency locally. He says that he is required to meet the federal standard of proficiency rather than our local LE requirements. He says the local requirements are up to 25 yrds whereas the federal are out to 50 yrds. I don't know how true this is, but was just talked about one day in passing conversation. Just thought it was interesting.

 

[Texan2]

I know of no agencies that use the minimum requirements as their standards.
I would rather see departments use their training time and budgets to make officers better versed in report writing and verbal judo than making them marksman.

They use their speaking and writing skills daily....shooting skills rarely if ever.

That having been said, while the state has a weak requirement, most agencies I know of will shoot from 200-400 pistol rounds during a visit to the range and 100-200 rifle rounds. The courses of fire difer drastically.

 

[txinvestigator]

There are differences in the MINIMUMS for LEOs and CHLers. The main difference is one timed reload. These are Minimums.

My department required one hand, weak hand, barricade and over a barrier. We shot kneeling. When I was first on, we had to qualify monthly. They changed that to quarterly later.

Many departments are now doing shooting on the move, much tighter times, prone and supine, malfunction drills, etc.

Keep in mind, most LEOS will never fire their weapons. The firearm is but ONE skill among many a LEO must be proficient.

The CHL test is completely adequate for what it is. For those who want more rigid standards; careful what you ask for. The state could easily make it so difficult that YOU couldn't pass. Do we really want that?

 

[majormadmax]

If you saw the minimum standards for most folks in the military, you would be underwhelmed as well!

I don't expect all law enforcement officials to be sharpshooter but I do believe that most are very proficient from what I have seen.

Just like folks with CHL, there are some that feel that meeting the minimum standards is sufficient, and others who are diligent in ensuring that their shooting skills are as sharp as they can be!

Cheers! M2

 

[ChunkyMonkey]

Sounds similar to my department, also going quarterly with some kind of shoot. I go at least once a month going through about 300 rounds with my duty weapon and who knows how much through the other "toys."

There are differences in the MINIMUMS for LEOs and CHLers. The main difference is one timed reload. These are Minimums.

My department required one hand, weak hand, barricade and over a barrier. We shot kneeling. When I was first on, we had to qualify monthly. They changed that to quarterly later.

Many departments are now doing shooting on the move, much tighter times, prone and supine, malfunction drills, etc.

Keep in mind, most LEOS will never fire their weapons. The firearm is but ONE skill among many a LEO must be proficient.

The CHL test is completely adequate for what it is. For those who want more rigid standards; careful what you ask for. The state could easily make it so difficult that YOU couldn't pass. Do we really want that?

 

[matefrio]

Sounds similar to my department, also going quarterly with some kind of shoot. I go at least once a month going through about 300 rounds with my duty weapon and who knows how much through the other "toys."

Training and qualifying are two different things. Would you mind listing what the qualifying course of fire is for your department?

 

[Texan2]

Training and qualifying are two different things. Would you mind listing what the qualifying course of fire is for your department?

It will typically be shoooting from the 7, 15, and 25 yard line. Strong/weak handed with failure drills.

I am still not sure what you are trying to get at?

 

[ChunkyMonkey]

Same as above along with shotgun. Qualification is one thing, that is correct. Fortunately my department adds onto that with further training and practice. As Texan2 asked, what are you really wanting to know. Your thread intro and other response sound as though they're skirting around an unknown/implying thought. Just ask whatever you want directly.

Or, better yet, give a description on what you feel a Qualification "standard" should be. Keep in mind there has to be a set stand which has to be the same for all to comply with. Departments can always add onto the basic requirement. Like the Standardized Field Sobriety Tests, there is a minimum set standard to which the tests must be conducted and assessed to achieve given results. There are other tests one can perform during the course of investigation, but they are not part of the standardized tests which have been documented per say to yield "x" results.

Now, holding officers to a higher standard? We dont run around pointing our pistols everywhere looking to shoot the tips off q-tips. I would hope anyone in a shoot situation would perform as they train. But, just like a chl holder, an officer's skills are further developed outside of minimum required qualifications.

 

[Bithabus]

I thought this was common knowledge. Of course, any decent agency will have higher standards than the minimum. Do you know the criminal history requirement to get a Texas CHL is stricter than the minimum standard to become a new Peace Officer?

 

[matefrio]

The topic and discussion objective I have is put a point of reference out there for a few on this forum for those who would like to see more stringent qualification requirements and hopefully end that debate or setup a more realistic picture.

Personally? Texas should not have any qualification course for having a firearm or any other weapon concealed or open carry. I believe it is a right.

That said there should always be a minimum license offered that keeps reciprocity with other states and allows the purchase of a handgun without a call.

 

[Texan2]

The topic and discussion objective I have is put a point of reference out there for a few on this forum for those who would like to see more stringent qualification requirements and hopefully end that debate.

Personally? Texas should not have any qualification course for having a firearm or any other weapon concealed or open carry. I believe it is a right.

That said there should always be a minimum license offered that keeps reciprocity with other states and allows the purchase of a handgun without a call.

Understood....I just didnt know what our goal was.

 

[Bithabus]

I think since CHL holders must pass a course of fire similar to the TCLEOSE minimum, and we must pass a stricter criminal history check (42.01 in past 5 years is a DQ for CHL but not TCLEOSE), CHL holders should be allowed to carry anywhere LEOs may carry.