TexasCHLforum.com

I took my CHL renewal class this weekend. What I witnessed during the qualifying portion of the class was interesting to be kind and unnerving to be honest. The class had 16 students that had folks of both genders and all ages.

While waiting my turn, I watched the first group of students shoot. All of them seemed proficient with their pistols, and shot fairly well. I was in the second group, and boy was I in for an eye opening experience. The first thing I noticed was one of the students having trouble loading his magazine. I was in the bay next to him and looked over to see if I could assist. The Lord as my witness, he was trying to load .38 special ammo in his .380 auto!! The instructor pulled him aside and explained that he had the wrong ammo and would need to buy some in order to qualify.

Next, on my right side was a small statured lady who was shooting a very nice 1911. This impressed me at first, but after the first string I was nervous. She limp-wristed every shot, causing several failures. She fumbled around with the gun, but to no avail. The instructer assisted her with clearing the gun each time she had a failure. She had no idea how to clear a misfeed.

To the credit of our instructor, he did ask both of these individuals to stay after class to discuss some things with them. He also commented that some of the students were shooting weapons that they were unable to operate properly, and all of the students should ask themselves if they would be able to handle a shooting situation. He was obviously concerned. This being said, both of them passed.

Please don't get me wrong. I am no Massad Ayoob, and don't claim to be. But what I watched really disturbed me. In my opinion it comes down to taking the responsibility of being a CHL holder seriously, and at a minimum be familiar with the weapon you carry. I am curious if this is a common occurrence during CHL classes. Oh and by the way, this was a RENEWAL class!!!! Every student in this class was a current CHL holder. This was my first renewal, and I may be overreacting, but two folks like this was two too many for me! My original class had only three students including myself, and it went very smoothly. I had no idea of what I was in for....

So what do the people who favor VT / AK style carry (i.e. no CHL required, OC and CC OK, etc.) think of the above? With no license or proficiency requirement, do you think there would be more incompetent people carrying guns in public, or fewer? Would this be a good thing or a bad thing?

frankie_the_yankee wrote:So what do the people who favor VT / AK style carry (i.e. no CHL required, OC and CC OK, etc.) think of the above? With no license or proficiency requirement, do you think there would be more incompetent people carrying guns in public, or fewer? Would this be a good thing or a bad thing?

It doesn't seem to be a problem for them up North.

Anyway,

Bevotex wrote:This being said, both of them passed.

boomerang wrote:

frankie_the_yankee wrote:So what do the people who favor VT / AK style carry (i.e. no CHL required, OC and CC OK, etc.) think of the above? With no license or proficiency requirement, do you think there would be more incompetent people carrying guns in public, or fewer? Would this be a good thing or a bad thing?

It doesn't seem to be a problem for them up North.

That's well and good, but I'd be interested to see some answers to the questions I posed, especially #2 and #3 that seem to have been ignored.

i have said before, and will say again

I wash the CHL was harder to get with zero restrictions

frankie_the_yankee wrote:So what do the people who favor VT / AK style carry (i.e. no CHL required, OC and CC OK, etc.) think of the above? With no license or proficiency requirement, do you think there would be more incompetent people carrying guns in public, or fewer?

Obviously, if anyone could carry with no requirement to prove any proficiency, there would be more people carrying who are not familiar with firearms. Putting it that way, I can avoid the agurment over the definition of competence.

Would this be a good thing or a bad thing?

It would be a thing, neither good or bad. I tend to think it would be better for society to allow people to carry and over time more people would take responsibility for themselves, but I cannot prove it. And for the direct effect of more people who do not know their own weapons carrying, I don't see it as particularly good or bad.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:So what do the people who favor VT / AK style carry (i.e. no CHL required, OC and CC OK, etc.) think of the above? With no license or proficiency requirement, do you think there would be more incompetent people carrying guns in public, or fewer? Would this be a good thing or a bad thing?

First, let me clarify that I believe the second amendment of our constitution applies to every citizen of the United States of America. I also believe that every individual is responsible for their own actions. I can't speculate to the number of citizens who are incompetent regarding the use of firearms. I can say the rights guaranteed by the constitution is a good thing. I would like to think that regardless of a person's proficiency with a gun, they realize the consequences of their actions. Therein lies the basis of a person's rights and responsibilities. The latter seems to be brought to question more often the former.
Off my high horse now..... I honestly didn't intend to start an argument, but it all boils down to responsibility. Personally, I have learned not to sign checks that I can't cash.

I too believe that the RKBA is for every LAC. And I also believe that most people are raised with a decent knowledge of right and wrong, which in my book is the most important qualification for carrying a gun in public.

But it is also true that, unlike in times past, many people are not raised with the knowledge of safe gun handling taught at the family level. For all too many, all they know about guns is what they see in TV and movies - about 99% of which is wrong and/or dangerous.

Maybe having a course in safe gun handling as a requirement for public schools would be a remedy, but I don't see anything like this happening, especially in the "anti" states.

The shooters mentioned don't sound like they were a threat to either themselves or others. It sounds like the guns they had sound like they may have been borrowed.
Some folks want to get their CHL so that they can freely buy and take their handguns to the range. While most of us know that we can now transport our weapons with minimal risk of arrest. but the General public may not be aware of this. This is why we have CHL classes.

We occasionally hear of some folks who cannot physically charge their weapons. Usually these are older people with arthritic hands. We've seen complaints that some folks (usually the elderly) barely seem to be able to qualify. These are exactly the folks that we need to get to arm themselves. We can only hope that after they get their CHL they will buy a suitable firearm, and get lots of practice.

I think the CHL requirements should be altered to include a short proficiency test of safe handling and shooting B4 anything else is done.

I remember in my first class that there were a lot of peeps that had never held a pistol and were pretty dangerous to themselves and others.
Also, in my recent renewal there was a lady back for her renewal and she could not even load her .380 mags or pull the slide back to chamber the first round! I had a brief conversation with her afterwards and she told me that she had never been to a range or shot since she first qualified 4 years earlier!

Really I think all instructors should do the Range portion of the course FIRST and weed out any that are that bad. They should require them to take a handgun training (familiarization) course b4 continuing with their CHL class.

AEA wrote:I think the CHL requirements should be altered to include a short proficiency test of safe handling and shooting B4 anything else is done.

I remember in my first class that there were a lot of peeps that had never held a pistol and were pretty dangerous to themselves and others.
Also, in my recent renewal there was a lady back for her renewal and she could not even load her .380 mags or pull the slide back to chamber the first round! I had a brief conversation with her afterwards and she told me that she had never been to a range or shot since she first qualified 4 years earlier!

Really I think all instructors should do the Range portion of the course FIRST and weed out any that are that bad. They should require them to take a handgun training (familiarization) course b4 continuing with their CHL class.

Maybe 100 years ago this would not have been necessary, but the way people are (not) educated these days it sounds like a good idea to me.

AEA wrote:
Also, in my recent renewal there was a lady back for her renewal and she could not even load her .380 mags or pull the slide back to chamber the first round!

I think that we need to look at another side of this. Just because she could not load the mags or pull the slide back, does that mean that she can not have the gun to protect herself? If she needed the weapon for self defence, chances are that it is already loaded and ready to fire. Why is it so wrong that someone else help her to make the weapon ready? To me a lady like that is in more need of a CHL then someone who can do it all on their own.
Just something to think about.

I never meant to say that she shouldn't have the same rights as anyone else.....I only meant to highlight that I thought new persons (and especially those at a renewal) should have some familiarity with handguns. Her problem was not physical. It was lack of knowledge and practice.

My only hope is that some of these people are only using a semi-auto so they can get the option to carry one if they want. As in they carry a 5 shot revolver or something normally.

Quite possible.........good catch.........