What do yall think about the CHL shooting test?

[Morgan]

I have about that vision without correction.

Which is why 20/200 is NOT the definition of legally blind. I believe the definition of legally blind now hinges on how bad your vision is after correction. For example, prior to having PRK laser surgery (like lasik but different) a few years ago, my vision was HORRIBLE. It was immeasurable in the 20/whatever scale... it would have been something like 20/800 or something. Over 12 diopters of correction. But with contact lenses, I was correctable to 20/15. So I wasnt' legally blind. The 20/200 definition of legally blind changed back in the 70s. So in the 1970s, I was legally blind, but the changed that definition as advances in lense technology came into being.

And while it sucks from a practical standpoint, we cannot afford to be "snobs" at who is ALLOWED to carry... Shall Not Be Infringed isn't a convenience that we get to judge and decide WHO shall not be infringed, it means EVERYONE. We can only hope and pray fervently, and use our FIRST amandment rights to SPEAK OUT and TELL people that they need to get training.

 

[40Arpent]

And while it sucks from a practical standpoint, we cannot afford to be "snobs" at who is ALLOWED to carry... Shall Not Be Infringed isn't a convenience that we get to judge and decide WHO shall not be infringed, it means EVERYONE. We can only hope and pray fervently, and use our FIRST amandment rights to SPEAK OUT and TELL people that they need to get training.

Your point gets at what I was wondering after reading several posts in this thread...how can you fully support the 2nd Amendment and criticize the CHL process as being too easy? Doesn't make sense to me.

 

[tex45acp]

After reading how easy it is in other states to get a concealed carry permit, though I too think both the written test and range qualification are both inadequate, we are at least requiring them to show some sort of knowledge and ability to hit a target at different distances.

Some states simply require you to go to a LEO's office and apply and then walk out the door with a permit in hand. Oh I am sure they run some sort of check on the applicant, but to just give carte blanche because of a clean record????

I do believe that CHL instructor's should give some basic one on one with less than knowledgeable persons. It would lengthen the class somewhat, but I believe it would better prepare the shooter.

 

[txinvestigator]

After
I do believe that CHL instructor's should give some basic one on one with less than knowledgeable persons. It would lengthen the class somewhat, but I believe it would better prepare the shooter.

That is not a bad idea; however, that would cause other students to sit around being bored while the instructor takes that one-on-one time.

I do offer such time, but outside of class time, and at additional expense.

That said, I had a woman in Saturday's class who was an accomplished hunter, but she had not shot a handgun. She paid close attention in class when we covered marksmanship, and with just a little extra attention that took nothing away from the others, she shot a 244.

Best shot was a woman who had shot very little. She had no bad habits to break and shot a 249.

I do what I can to help those that need it, but I won't do so at the expense of the other student's time.

Remember, it is not an advanced or even a tactical class. The state wants me to see if you can safely handle the firearm and demonstrate BASIC marksmanship. Thats it.

 

[DoubleActionCHL]

Please keep in mind that we have a great deal of material to cover in a relatively short period of time. If I can't get my shooting done in a reasonable period of time, it makes the entire class run long. I have my presentation down to an almost exact 10 hours, so poor shooters or long-winded students can easily push us over. We also have to maintain a high level of safety, which is difficult to do with a group of novice shooters.

On the other hand, I do take time with some students, when necessary. Before we go shooting, I'll ask if we have any first time shooters or students who are uncomfortable or unsure of their ability to operate the weapon. We're not supposed to have first time shooters, by the way. Usually, nobody will raise their hand. Then I'll say, "Ok, but if you can't operate your weapon well enough to keep up, you'll likely fail." Then I'll have two or three raise their hands. I'll set them aside and test them separately. They (no offense, ladies) are usually women and, after a bit of personal assistance, they do very well.

I've also refused to teach students that I believed were incapable of understanding basic handgun safety, incapable of manipulating the weapon (at all!), or incapable of understanding the most basic of concepts that they'd find on the written test. That's my prerogative as an instructor. I have to weed out the potentially dangerous students before we get to testing. If I let them get through the testing AND they pass, but I'm still not comfortable, I can send a letter to DPS and they'll investigate further.

Now, understand that these 'rejections' comprise less than one percent of my students. It almost never happens. I'm a firm believer that the 2nd Amendment isn't just for those of us who "know what we're doing." I use my class as an opportunity to show these students that, for most of them, their training is in its infancy. I throw a little guilt on them and explain that with rights come responsibility. It's THEIR responsibility to train and learn to be a safe, responsible gun owner.

Sadly, we see very few of them return for additional training.

 

[JKTex]

Hmmm, I'm still pondering the 2nd Amendment rights thing.

I support 2A rights 100% but this is for a State issued license, like to operate a car. A license to exercise a right in and of itself might make the 2A argument moot. If the state is going to require payment and education in order to exercise a right, I'm going to look to the State to be held accountable to make sure the person knows how to safely handle a car, or gun, or whatever they are requiring a license to operate. The "right" has already been encumbered and is no longer at issue.

Just kind of thinking out loud......hmm.

 

[DoubleActionCHL]

Hmmm, I'm still pondering the 2nd Amendment rights thing.

I support 2A rights 100% but this is for a State issued license, like to operate a car. A license to exercise a right in and of itself might make the 2A argument moot. If the state is going to require payment and education in order to exercise a right, I'm going to look to the State to be held accountable to make sure the person knows how to safely handle a car, or gun, or whatever they are requiring a license to operate. The "right" has already been encumbered and is no longer at issue.

Just kind of thinking out loud......hmm.

I just read over the Bill of Rights and didn't find "Driving a car" in there anywhere!

Despite what our government would like us to believe these days, owning a gun and carrying that gun is a right. Driving a car would be a privilege. The entire concept of a Concealed Handgun License is an infringement upon our rights, but we do what we've gotta do until we can change the law.

 

[JKTex]

I just read over the Bill of Rights and didn't find "Driving a car" in there anywhere!

Despite what our government would like us to believe these days, owning a gun and carrying that gun is a right. Driving a car would be a privilege. The entire concept of a Concealed Handgun License is an infringement upon our rights, but we do what we've gotta do until we can change the law.

That kind of became my point, as I got going. That once we accept that we need a license to carry, we've accepted it as a privilege and put the "right" aside. Therefore, we must expect the same of the licensing authority as we do for any licensed privilege. That one who qualifies to be licensed, must also qualify as proficient in the use of. So car or gun, it doesn't matter since we're operating under the pemise that both are privileges.

It's all just rambling at this point, but it's something to consider when you're bored.

 

[accordingtoome]

whats the test? sorry im still new.

 

[JKTex]

The proficiency (shooting) test for a CHL.

 

[accordingtoome]

The proficiency (shooting) test for a CHL.

I know that much. But what do you have to do?

 

[JKTex]

I know that much. But what do you have to do?

Shoot a target.

 

[JKTex]

I took this from a Training provider's site. From memory, this sounds correct.





CHL SHOOTING TEST

3 yards, 20 rounds

• 1 shot, 2 seconds, 5 times
• 2 shots, 3 seconds, 5 times
• 5 shots, 10 seconds, 1 time

7 yards, 20 rounds

• 5 shots, 10 seconds, 1 time
• 2 shots, 4 seconds, 1 time
• 3 shots, 6 seconds, 1 time
• 1 shot, 3 seconds, 5 times
• 5 shots, 15 seconds, 1 time

15 yards, 10 rounds

• 2 shots, 6 seconds, 1 time
• 3 shots, 9 seconds, 1 time
• 5 shots, 15 seconds, 1 time

Scoring

8,9 and 10 rings = 5 points
7 ring = 4 points
on target, outside rings = 3 points



All strings start from 'low ready'. All shooting may be done with one or two hands. Until 2006, the test was shot using the TXPT target shown in the photos. The 5 point area on the target is approximately 12" across. Starting in 2006 the traditional B27 target will be used for CHL qualification. Both the older TXPT and B-27 targets are of similar size and the scoring zones are roughly the same, with the main difference that the B-27 zones are mid-torso whereas the TXPT 5 point ring was more correctly placed upper-torso where vital organs on a human are actually located. (In our opinion thedecision to go backward to the older, less anatomically correct B-27 target is a bad idea). There is no requirement to qualify with the gun you intend to carry. If you qualify with a semi-auto (SA category) you will be allowed to carry either a revolver or semi-auto of any caliber. If you only qualify with a revolver (non-semiauto/NSA category) you cannot legally carry a semi-auto. You get three attempts to pass. A 70% score (175 points) is a passing score, but in our opinion anyone that cannot pass with a 90% score on the first try should seriously consider additional training to improve shooting ability.

 

[wayneside]

very easy...

 

[txinvestigator]

I took this from a Training provider's site. From memory, this sounds correct.





***SNIP***





Both the older TXPT and B-27 targets are of similar size and the scoring zones are roughly the same, with the main difference that the B-27 zones are mid-torso whereas the TXPT 5 point ring was more correctly placed upper-torso where vital organs on a human are actually located. (In our opinion thedecision to go backward to the older, less anatomically correct B-27 target is a bad idea).

Whose opinion is "ours"?



To add, one must qualify with a .32 or larger caliber.

 

[Texas1911]

I think it's far too easy, and that harder testing would force people to train with their firearms more. It may limit CHLs because people think it's "too hard" but honestly, they are just as much a detriment to those around them than the attacker if they cannot hit a target consistently, and that's without the 6'2" rapist / crack dealer trying to kill you.

I believe people have a right to carry, but that through testing we can enforce the responsibility that comes with it. It's the same as driving, we should have far higher driving standards and actually force teenagers to drive.

 

[txinvestigator]

I think it's far too easy, and that harder testing would force people to train with their firearms more. It may limit CHLs because people think it's "too hard" but honestly, they are just as much a detriment to those around them than the attacker if they cannot hit a target consistently,

If there was evidence of that I would agree.

I believe people have a right to carry, but that through testing we can enforce the responsibility that comes with it. It's the same as driving, we should have far higher driving standards and actually force teenagers to drive.

Apples/oranges

Rights/Privileges


But I respect your POV

 

[jgon281]

Too easy... The end.

 

[40Arpent]

That once we accept that we need a license to carry, we've accepted it as a privilege and put the "right" aside. Therefore, we must expect the same of the licensing authority as we do for any licensed privilege. That one who qualifies to be licensed, must also qualify as proficient in the use of. So car or gun, it doesn't matter since we're operating under the pemise that both are privileges.

I am kinda coming around to some of the points made about responsibilities and 2nd Amendment rights, but this correlation to driver licenses begs another question. You have to pass a test before you can get a driver license. Based on your stance, I can't help but wonder if you'd support having to pass a test before you can buy a gun. The mere fact that you are purchasing a gun, even without having a CHL, implies that you might use it to defend yourself at some point. So, playing devil's advocate, why would you not support a testing process for purchasing a gun?

 

[elmer fudd]

CHL Test

I have mixed emotions about the "right" to carry a concealed weapon.

The state demands a test among other things.

The so called test as described in this forum is just like the one where I live. It is a joke. The course stinks more then one of Hilliary's pant suits. It is not enough training.

If you can hold your hand up, close your eyes, and jerk the trigger, at 7 yards you will hit the large target. In other words, if you can fog a mirror you can carry a Glock.

A modern firearm is more then capable of taking lives.

Several other vocational, as well as avocational qualification tests come to mind.

Ram set guns. Driving cars, operating Forklifts, Operating cranes, flying airplanes, scuba diving, performing surgery, dentistry, and other endeavors require that you demonstrate that you are qualified to operate something potentially hazardous.

Where I live, the hunter safety course is about 15 hours and covers firearm safety, and understanding of Gun 101. The CHL, CCW course covers staying alive, and staying out of jail.

I suggest a longer CHL course. Longer times operating, and understanding firearms. Safety. Safety. Safety. Load, unload. Cleaning, and care. Shoot .22's.

Many people after shooting a centerfire handgun never carry. Why? because they are intimated from something that is loud, mysterious, dangerous and everything they know, they have learned on TV.

What if the husband isn't home to load the wife's gun? Why didn't that couple learn that a revolver might of been a better gun for their situation?

Because one of the chest thumping, greedy, macho gun store salesman said, Get a .45, anything else is putting your life in harms way.

Isn't this pushing people away from the shooting sports?

More intensive training will cost more. However, I believe it will pay large dividends.

Shooters, we are are own worse enemy.

When introducing someone to the sport, do it gently.

Start them on a .22, not a .357.