Failing the shooting portion of the CHL Class

[Gutshot]

I humbly agree!!!!

 

[Greg_TX]

The 2nd Amendment doesn't make an exception for people that can't shoot worth a damn. The point of the 2nd is to guarantee the right of citizens to protect life and liberty, but I have to wonder how well someone could do that when they can't hit a large target less than 10 feet away or can't operate their weapon correctly. Some might be more of a danger to themselves and innocent bystanders than they might be to a BG.

 

[Roscoe]

I recently took the CHL class at Champion Firearms in College Station. Both the range sesion and classroom instruction were conducted in an extremely professional manner. No one failed the range portion of the training from shooting a low score. Several students were pulled from the range for not following instructions; ie, shooting too many rounds, shooting before the fire command was given, firing after the cease fire command etc.

The class instructor state several times that range officers were not permitted to give instruction during the qualification exercise. They offered people the option of coming in before the qual and receiving help on the range. They also offer shooting classes to those interested. The qualification itself is just that, and coaching is not permitted during testing.

I agree that there are a lot of people carrying weapons who are not really qualified to use them. However, I'm surprised that an CHL instructor can set requirements and standards different that those required by the State of Texas without losing his training permit. I'm not saying this should happen, just surprised that no one has gone to the DPS and complained.

 

[jsimmons]

I don't like the fact that we have to get a license (essentially buying our rights back) to carry any more than anyone else, but as long as we do, I think they should at least require a certain level of proficiency and understanding of the pistol on the part of the applicant. We all know nothing will change, that's just how I feel.

I don't agree with the CHL instructors that can set their own requirements for the shooting portion (they should stick to the DPS stated requirements), but the classroom session should include a segment such as what I've already described.

 

[Mark F]

I agree with "most" of the posts here, but there a few things that are questionable.

I have had my CHL since its beginning. I didn't like it then, and I don't like it now. I view my CHL as nothing more than the state making money off of our 2nd ammendment. As far as qualifying... that's a JOKE! Most of these "classes" almost guarantee your passing. You'd have to be a total brain-dead sack of rat-dung not to qualify. I have seen way too many people get their CHL that... "really" shouldn't have a weapon of any type. They are going to accidentally hurt themselves, their family, and possibly some innocent bystander.

 

[TexasRedneck]

...and if they DO hurt themselves or others, there are legal remedies available to their victims. In the meantime, do NOT take ANY action to restrict/control MY personal rights.

 

[DoubleActionCHL]

The class instructor state several times that range officers were not permitted to give instruction during the qualification exercise. They offered people the option of coming in before the qual and receiving help on the range. They also offer shooting classes to those interested. The qualification itself is just that, and coaching is not permitted during testing.

The "coaching is not permitted" is simply a policy of the instructors you used. There is nothing in the statute that addresses helping or not helping the student.

And to address the comments regarding the proficiency test being a joke and some instructors practically guarantee a passing grade, this isn't a result of shoddy instructors. This is the way the CHL program was created by our legislators and maintained by DPS. It was made easy purposely! Our legislators knew that anything less than a license which included a shooting proficiency test, classroom training and written exam, would never have passed. We have what we have with a wink and a nod. It's politics, plain and simple.

 

[DirtyD]

The "coaching is not permitted" is simply a policy of the instructors you used. There is nothing in the statute that addresses helping or not helping the student.

And to address the comments regarding the proficiency test being a joke and some instructors practically guarantee a passing grade, this isn't a result of shoddy instructors. This is the was the CHL program was created by our legislators and maintained by DPS. It was made easy purposely! Our legislators knew that anything less than a license which included a shooting proficiency test, classroom training and written exam, would never have passed. We have what we have with a wink and a nod. It's politics, plain and simple.

Exactley, the CHL qualifications were put in place here to pacify the morons that feel that Rights should be licensed and regulated. Any oone who has been to Austin and talked to the staff at the CHL branch of DPS will agree.....

 

[navyguy]

The "coaching is not permitted" is simply a policy of the instructors you used. There is nothing in the statute that addresses helping or not helping the student.

And to address the comments regarding the proficiency test being a joke and some instructors practically guarantee a passing grade, this isn't a result of shoddy instructors. This is the way the CHL program was created by our legislators and maintained by DPS. It was made easy purposely! Our legislators knew that anything less than a license which included a shooting proficiency test, classroom training and written exam, would never have passed. We have what we have with a wink and a nod. It's politics, plain and simple.

Very well put, and a prospective I have heretofore have not considered.

 

[TexasRedneck]

That's been what I've said in several strings lamenting the "lack" of proficiency "testing".....

Ain't none of their business. If I screw up, I'll answer for it in the courts. Leave my rights alone - just as we must leave the rights alone of the guy we've got on tape kidnapping/raping/killing - we STILL gotta put 'em on trial - until then, they're "innocent".

 

[GM.Chief]

I don't like the fact that we have to get a license (essentially buying our rights back) to carry any more than anyone else, but as long as we do, I think they should at least require a certain level of proficiency and understanding of the pistol on the part of the applicant.

That is an extremely contradictory statement. What you're saying is that you don't agree with having test, but since we do have one it should be more difficult . Give me a break. You either believe that it's a RIGHT or you believe you are priveleged. We may have to take a test and sit in a class for 10 hrs, but why should the class be more difficult? Because the person who didn't study might hurt an innocent bystander instead of the bad guy being you're only reason, does that mean that we should then also force them to show proficeincy before they can purchase a gun and take it home for HD. After all they may hurt a family member or shoot through a wall and hurt their neighbor instead of the bad guy at home as well as in public. Don't get me wrong, I don't want any innocent's hurt anymore than anyone else here, but that doesn't mean that we should infringe anyone's rights more than is already being done. Should people be encouraged to become proficient? Absolutely, but personal responsibility is key. Please do not try to encumber the rest of us because you want more government intervention. If you really want to save a life, perhaps we should be looking to require drivers to go in and take a physical driving test with DPS yearly.