Renewal Class experience

[chewy555]

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.

I miss understood what you wrote. If that was the problem, lack of training with that weapon, then I am right with you.

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.

[eric]

I would have stepped off the line and asked the instructor if I could shoot alone. Would not like to be standing by reckless people. Was it one of those no pass, no pay classes?

[casingpoint]

If someone had to suppress one of these fumbling idiots firing wild shots while the later party was legitimately defending themselves, say, at the corner convenience store, would it be a justifiable self defense shooting? The incompetence with firearms on the part of some gun owners is pathetic. They're like a person behind the wheel who cannot drive. They should not be carrying, and are a menace-in-waiting to society. But they do have their rights. Do I have mine if push comes to shove?

[dukalmighty]

Carrying a gun for self defense that you cannot operate or shoot properly IMHO is irresponsible,I believe you should be able to show enough proficiency with a weapon you qualify with to pass a course,otherwise you need to go thru a firearms training course or select a handgun you can operate not pick a gun because it's big,in the case of the lady with the .380 she may be one of those people that don't carry a round in the chamber,where does that leave her in a SD situation ,you think the BG is gonna chamber a round for her and hand the gun back.I believe everybody law abiding has the right to carry,but for the sake of argument does that include a 7 year old or a 5 year old,which by the way I have seen some kids exhibit better gun safety and weapons handling than some adults,on the other hand if you kill or wound an innocent victim while trying to defend yourself you better get a good lawyer

[dac1842]

The CHL firing line is not the place to teach someone how to shoot. I believe and I may stir up the ire of some of the folks here, but it would not be the first time, that to get the CHL part of the firearm proficiency should be loading and unloading a weapon and field stripping and putting back together. During my firearms portion there were several individuals that it was painfully obvious had never handled a weapon before and probably have not handled once since either. I have no problem with folks buying a weapon for protection at home. But if they are going to carry it in public with CHL demonstrating they are not a bigger danger than the crooks is not asking too much.

[Liberty]

The CHL firing line is not the place to teach someone how to shoot.

Yup, a student should be able to demonstrate safe firearm handling and a good understanding how to use it.

I believe and I may stir up the ire of some of the folks here, but it would not be the first time, that to get the CHL part of the firearm proficiency should be loading and unloading a weapon and field stripping and putting back together. During my firearms portion there were several individuals that it was painfully obvious had never handled a weapon before and probably have not handled once since either. I have no problem with folks buying a weapon for protection at home. But if they are going to carry it in public with CHL demonstrating they are not a bigger danger than the crooks is not asking too much.

You are correct, you stirred me up
I won't go into the 2nd amendment right to keep and bare arms means we shouldn't need plastic at all.

I don't understand why it should be essential for some one to be able field strip their weapon or even be able to cock it, so that they can get permission from the state to be able to protect themselves. One of the best shooters I know, is also an instructor, while he still loads and cleans his weapons, he confided in me one day that it is a struggle sometimes because of arthritis. A lot of women I know have no interest at all in the inner workings of handguns, and gladly hand these tasks off to their significant others. It also helps make us feel more important. Requiring them to learn extra skills would be denying them the right to defend themselves. By insisting that these people have to learn extra skills we stand a chance of denying the ones who most need to carry.

A Marine Soldier or police police officer has other lives dependant on these skills, Having a CHL is about being able to protect oneself. The only ones they endanger is themselves when they can't perform these functions, and they would be in even more danger if we deny them the right to carry.

I understand that that we do not want people to endanger us or the public to be packing. I do not understand how a handicapped or arthritic or elderly person who can not physically charge their automatic would be a danger to the public. I don't understand why some ladys inability to field strip her 1911 makes her a danger to me.

[frankie_the_yankee]

I think someone should be able to safely load and unload the gun they choose to qualify with. There are tools that make it possible for anyone to load any magazine with very low effort. If someone is qualifying with a gun whose magazines they are not able to load easily, they should know about these tools and avail themselves of them.

I also think that people should be able to safely manipulate the slide of any gun they choose to qualify with.

Even more important, anyone goint to the line to qualify should be familiar with muzzle control. I was "muzzled" at my last renewal class, and had to push the muzzle off the line of my body myself. The person who muzzled me had a brand new gun that he had never fired. He obviously did not bother to read or comprehend the owner's manual either, because his problem was that he did not know how to lock the slide back. (It was a double action pistol with a decocker/safety, a slide lock, a mag release, and a takedown lever all on the left side of the gun.)

Since people can freely choose which gun they qualify with, I do not think it is too much to ask that they know the gun that they choose and choose a gun that they know. And they should certainly know and practice muzzle control at all times.

[Liberty]

I think someone should be able to safely load and unload the gun they choose to qualify with. There are tools that make it possible for anyone to load any magazine with very low effort. If someone is qualifying with a gun whose magazines they are not able to load easily, they should know about these tools and avail themselves of them.

I also think that people should be able to safely manipulate the slide of any gun they choose to qualify with.

I think I agree,
I believe every should be able to, but I don't believe their should be a legal requirement.
Would you rather folks that are physically inhibited from charging their weapons not be armed.?
Please keep in mind that the perceived recoil in an equivilant revolver can is harsher than their semautomatic cousins.
I also have been muzzled during a CHL class. I didn't like it at all, but I don't see where the lack of abilty to pull the slide back makes one less safe than not being to carry at all.

It is easy to expect someone to have the same abilitys we do? but as long as they don't create a danger for the rest of us we should make allowances. We don't require that people should be able to change a tire or their own oil to get a drivers license , and we all know how dangerous they are.

[frankie_the_yankee]

I think someone should be able to safely load and unload the gun they choose to qualify with. There are tools that make it possible for anyone to load any magazine with very low effort. If someone is qualifying with a gun whose magazines they are not able to load easily, they should know about these tools and avail themselves of them.

I also think that people should be able to safely manipulate the slide of any gun they choose to qualify with.

I think I agree,
I believe every should be able to, but I don't believe their should be a legal requirement.

I'm conflicted on this myself. I could see a relatively minor change in the specified course requirements as being helpful.

Would you rather folks that are physically inhibited from charging their weapons not be armed.?

Absolutely not.

But I think people should be knowledgeable enough to select a gun that they can properly manipulate, and to avail themselves of some of the nice tools that are out there that make the job easier. It's all a matter of knowledge.

Please keep in mind that the perceived recoil in an equivilant revolver can is harsher than their semautomatic cousins.

Somewhat, but not an awful lot. And I find the recoil of 38 spl rounds to be quite manageable in small revolvers. If I can figure it out, anyone can.

It is easy to expect someone to have the same abilitys we do? but as long as they don't create a danger for the rest of us we should make allowances. We don't require that people should be able to change a tire or their own oil to get a drivers license , and we all know how dangerous they are.

I have physical problems myself. The day may come when I may have to lay my semi-autos down in favor of my SP101. So I fully appreciate where "the infirm" (for want of a better term) are coming from.

I think a small improvement in the course requirements could work wonders.

But for all of that, I am not seeing any news reports of CHL's accidently shooting themselves of others due to poor gun handling, so whatever "problem" there might be can't amount to a heck of a lot out in the real world.

[Liberty]

[
But for all of that, I am not seeing any news reports of CHL's accidently shooting themselves of others due to poor gun handling, so whatever "problem" there might be can't amount to a heck of a lot out in the real world.

There are some tools that help load cartridges into the Mags. I use a tool that came with my Ruger. it also works on just about any double stack 9mm. I had a friend show me a fancier tool that simplified, and sped up loading even more.

I still don't understand why requiring someone to be able to load their weapon and charge it would make the rest of us any safer. An inabilty to do this doesn't make a CHL holder more dangerous to the population at large. It just seems to me that we should be encouraging folks to get their CHLs rather than make it more difficult.

Perhaps we get to thinking that we belong to to an exclusive club of some sort. Requiring more difficulty would make us more exclusive. I don't want CHLers to be exclusive, I want to be just one of many millions. Sure we want them to be safe. But mandating that CHL holders be capable of field stripping their weapons , loading their Mags or charging their weapons doesn't make them any safer. That being said, a student should be able demonstrate muzzle and trigger discipline.

[amber]

The tests are required in the law. People should have to pass the tests without help (cheating).

[longtooth]

I had this discussion once w/ an instructer. A lady in our church wanted her CHL but could not load her pistol the 10 times required during the proficiency test. She had a degenerative bone disease that made her weak & very stiff too.
He said she would have to be able to do it herself.
She could load a high cap 9mm mag at her house given 20 minutes. She could insert the mag & she could rack her slide once. When I explained that to him & reminded him that in her condition she was a more apparant victim than a healthy person. She has the right to protect herself too.
He agreed. She scored upper220's. I forgot evactly. 98 on her written test.

[chewy555]

The tests are required in the law. People should have to pass the tests without help (cheating).

I have never seen anything in the law that says that you have to load your own mags or rack the slide on the weapon during the test to pass the test. The only part that I remember the law saying is that you have to pass with at least a 75%. So to me, if it is not writen in the law then how is it "cheating"?

[bryang]

There was a gentleman in my CHL class that had never taken his new Glock 9mm out of the box. He didn't even know how many rounds the magazine held, much less, where it went. His two College age sons (who were shooters) thought he ought to be able to protect himself and his wife on an upcoming vacation trip, therefore, gave him the pistol. Our instructor took him aside and let him be last to shoot his proficiency test, in order to give him the help and extra instruction he needed. I, too, agree that we all have the right to protect ourselves and family and we are not all at the same level of proficiency, however, with the right comes responsibility and commitment to learn and practice.

[Charles L. Cotton]

The tests are required in the law. People should have to pass the tests without help (cheating).

If you are talking about the shooting proficiency portion of the CHL class, then you need to do some research on Texas law as well as the federal Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), before you label it "cheating." Assisting someone with loading magazines isn't cheating, in fact, it's something that was discussed during my last CHL Instructor renewal class. Further, Texas law does not require a CHL applicant to be able to repeatedly load a magazine for the proficiency test and as I mentioned, DPS expects instructors to make "reasonable accommodations" for such person, so as to comply with the ADA. The minimum shooting standard cannot be reduced or modified, but that's not what anyone is suggesting.

Chas.