Worst LTC Student?

[twomillenium]

Personally I think it should be the X circle is 5 points, drop 1 point per ring out of that. So the 10 ring would be 4, the 9 ring a 3, the 8 ring a 2, the 7 ring 1. On the paint would be 0, on paper off paint would be -5, and off target would be -10. Keep the same course of fire, and same score to pass. If you can't pass on a well lit range, shooting at known distances, while standing still, and a stationary target. You shouldn't be carrying out where you can so easily hit innocent people.

I would like to see competency beyond the hear thunder, see lightning level.

I think the scoring system is fine, the scoring rewards center mass as the most feasible way to stop the threat. However, I would not be upset if the passing score was changed from 175 (70%) to 200 (80%).

[Liberty]

Personally I think it should be the X circle is 5 points, drop 1 point per ring out of that. So the 10 ring would be 4, the 9 ring a 3, the 8 ring a 2, the 7 ring 1. On the paint would be 0, on paper off paint would be -5, and off target would be -10. Keep the same course of fire, and same score to pass. If you can't pass on a well lit range, shooting at known distances, while standing still, and a stationary target. You shouldn't be carrying out where you can so easily hit innocent people.

I would like to see competency beyond the hear thunder, see lightning level.

Marksmanship has little to do with safety. If it was we would all be required to have 5 inch barrels and not carry the pocket rockets. I scored a 100 on my CHL renewall. I assure you I wouldn't do as well with an LC9 or other heavy triggered short barreled high powered hand gun.

[zmcgooga]

[/quote]
I disagree .. We don't need more red tape. [/quote]


I agree 100% with that, I think the process of getting a RIGHT back takes too long as it is and the laws of when/where you can carry are foolish. But take the Texas Hunter's Education class for example, back when I took it they covered more firearm safety than the LTC course.

I think you do have a point with the instructors as well, my instructors made a comment that they had classes of 30+ students for two instructors. With that large of a class it is hard to keep an eye on everyone.

But would it be a bad idea to add an extra hour to the course where when you first get to the range you have to show some level of competency? Load a magazine, keep the muzzle in a safe position, clear a malfunction, hit the broad side of a barn ,etc.? But again this would still come down to the instructor actually being a instructor and not just in it for the money.

[aero10]

When I took my class 4 years ago I was amazed at the number of people that needed to borrow a gun. My wife took the class with me and didn't have a pistol, so we shared my pistol and shot in different rounds. To this day, she has yet to carry even once. You really should already have a pistol before getting your LTC; how else are you going to practice before carrying?

It also really amazed that the guy standing next to me passed. When we were shooting the longer ranges, I would see two flashes when he shot. One was the muzzle flash and the other was the bullet striking the concrete on the ground at the end of the course. He passed because they scored by assuming a perfect score and then deducting points from there; well, if you completely miss the target you can't deduct points because you don't know it missed at the end.

[The Annoyed Man]

I just think that maybe there should be a prerequisite class of basic firearm safety, that stresses the safety and proper handling of a firearm.

I disagree .. We don't need more red tape. Lots of us know how to shoot, and do so safely before we ever took a formal course. I had was hunting as a 15 year old, shot recreationaly, and served in the army long before I applied for my CHL. Although I have taken a few gun courses and safety courses since receiving my CHL. My point is that the courses can help those who are unfamiliar with guns, there are many of us have achieved proficiency and learned safety with out a formal certifiable course.
I think the problem we are seeing mostly here lies with the instructors. Many are running classes that are way too big. The instructors mentioned here with the "special" students are being extremely negligent in letting these students continue, and fraudulent for letting students pass with only 15 hits on the target. Most instructors have a prerequisite. of a Basic Safety course. but they will bypass this requirement if the potential student has explained their proficiency and and experiance. I think it used to be that most of the older old school instructors became instructors because they believed in the CHL program, and wanted to make it work. It seems to me that a lot of the newer instructors are into it because its a living and not as highly motivated about the program itself.

I don't think the state ought to require a basic firearms class in order to take an LTC class. (Actually.....I think that firearms safety and shooting skills should be taught in the public schools, but that's a whole different argument.) But nobody in their right mind should take the class to learn how to handle a firearm and shoot one, and no instructor in his/her right mind should pass a student who is demonstrably dangerous (to the innocent) with a firearm in their hands. The curriculum as written by the state was not designed to teach that. Philosophically, I would rather there be no licensing requirement at all. In my perfect world, we'd have Constitutional Carry. But also in my perfect world, people would have had an opportunity somewhere along the line to satisfactorily demonstrate to themselves and others the most basic proficiency with the manual of arms for the weapon they choose to carry. But we don't live in my perfect world, and the reality is that we have LTC law which we have to contend with.

The LTC class range requirements exist expressly for the purpose of a student demonstrating to the instructor his or her proficiency with that particular gun, and the requirements DO NOT EXIST for the purpose of the instructor teaching the student that proficiency. Anybody who argues otherwise is plainly mis-stating the legislative intent of the law. You are required to take the written test to prove that you understand the things your were taught in the classroom, and you are required to take the range test to prove that you can safely handle the pistol, and shoot it with enough skill to score a minimum amount of points on a B27 target. The B27 target is chosen very specifically for it's silhouette, and there is a reason for that. Otherwise, it would be perfectly OK to use any old bullseye target you wanted to use. But the idea is to keep the bullets inside a human-shaped silhouette. The degree to which you can do that is the degree to which you prove to your instructor a minimal level of competence at not shooting unintended victims. And it ought to be made plain to the student that every single bullet that failed to land inside that silhouette is a bullet that cannot be recalled, and that might well have hit an innocent bystander.

If you cannot pass the written test, you fail the class—and you should not be issued the LTC under the guidelines of the law. The teacher cannot answer the questions for you. You either have to know the answers, or know where to find them, or to at least make educated guesses based on what you remember from the class. But you HAVE TO PASS based on your score. If an instructor passes you anyway by falsifying your score, that instructor is breaking the law. The same standards apply for the range qualification. There is a REASON we call it a "qualification". To qualify, you have to shoot a minimum score, and you have to demonstrate safe gun-handling. If you can do neither, or even if you can do one but not the other, YOU DO NOT QUALIFY. Both are necessary to passing. If you do not qualify, you should not pass. If the instructor passes you anyway by falsifying your shooting score, the instructor has broken the law. If the instructor passes you anyway by OK'ing your demonstrably negligent gun handling, then he or she has at least violated the spirit of the law, if not the actual letter of it.

As a libertarian leaning person, I believe that a truly free society is not without risks, and I totally get that. But as long as the law exists, we cannot call ourselves law-abiding people if we treat the process with a wink-wink nudge-nudge and fudge the requirements. People who cannot pass either portion of the class - the written test, and the range qualification - should be failed. I don't want the state to give its official imprimatur to people who are demonstrably not qualified, so long as the state demands qualification. If the state doesn't demand qualification, then neither the state or the instructors can be blamed for passing and licensing people who seriously have no business carrying a firearm. But as long as the state DOES demand qualifications, then the state and the instructors assume at least the moral liability whenever they churn out license holders who probably shouldn't ever handle, let alone carry a firearm.

In other words, this is a fish or cut bait issue. If the state insists on the controls, then it must enforce the controls; and that means busting instructors who cheat the system. If the state doesn't want to enforce the controls and bust the instructors, then it should remove the controls entirely. Otherwise, it's just another example of a law kept on the books for the purposes of harassing and controlling people only when it is convenient to the state. We have enough of that crap already.

[RoyGBiv]

I would be fine with an enhanced proficiency requirement (including safety) if I could trust the government to not use it in the future as a slippery slope toward limiting LTC issuance.

You might convince me this is ok IF (big if) the enhanced proficiency requirement came with an enhanced list of places I could carry. Like schools.

Overall, I'm not in favor of making it harder for anyone legally allowed to own a firearm to get a carry permit. An MS patient in a wheelchair should still be able to protect themselves safely at contact/near distance. I wouldn't be in favor of anything that would take that right away from them.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Back on topic.... When I took my NC class the instructor was checking guns for operational condition (you'd be surprised) before heading to the range. One guy was unable to open the slide on his old-looking .32 (yes, .32) semi auto. When the instructor (Sheriff) finally levered the slide back the entire weapon was filled with pocket lint... I made sure to stand on the far end of the line from that guy, so I don't recall how well he shot.

When I took my TX class, it was just me and two retired couples. I sat in the back of the room, knowing that there'd be at least one of them that would muzzle the room. I wasn't disappointed. That guy got a gentle warning from me and I tried to help him with his poor grip. He had his support hand thumb over the top of his strong hand. I warned him that would bite him on the range.

When we got to the range I shot first. No problems. The two older guys went next. As I stood in the lobby the two older ladies were literally shaking. Turns out they had both been to the range exactly once and felt like they did ok. I reminded them that it's not a contest, just have to meet the standards, and that nobody would be judging them. That they should focus on being safe and if at any time they didn't feel safe to simply put their gun down on the counter, muzzle pointed downrange. They calmed a bit and both shot pretty well. Both passed on the first try.

The guy with the incorrect grip, however, came out of the range bleeding from the back side of his thumb. He passed, but paid in skin. Sometimes pain is the only way some folks will learn.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Any instructor that passes a student that only achieved 15 rounds on target falsified a government document and they have committed a felony. I would hope that someone in the class would report it to DPS and help maintain the integrity of Texas' excellent LTC program.

Every now and then we see a thread on the proficiency test being too easy. My response is always the same. Please point to a problem that has resulted. The program is 20 years old, we have over 1 million licensees and I haven't seen or heard of a single incident involving a Licensee based upon incompetence at arms. Whenever we attack anti-gun legislation, the first question is always, "show us the problem you are trying to fix." There's never a legitimate response.

As for kicking students out of a class, instructors can't set their own standard. The DPS gives every student three attempts at the written exam and the range portion of the class. I've never had a student fail the written exam. Four have failed to pass the proficiency portion on the first attempt. Three passed on the second attempt and the fourth passed on the third and last attempt. I tell all of my students that, if they sweep anyone with their muzzle, or if I have to warn them more than once or twice that they are getting close so sweeping someone, I'll ask them to stand down and they will shoot with me after the class is over. I have never had to have a student stand down. I've never had someone grossly incompetent on the range, but if I do, I'll have them shoot at the end of class and I will give them the three opportunities to which DPS states they are entitled.

As to liability asked by one Member, the answer is no, instructors are not liable for the bad acts of former students. We have immunity from such liability as does the state. My online registration form makes it abundantly clear that the LTC class is not a firearms training class. They agree with that acknowledgement, or they cannot register. DPS correctly points out that the proficiency portion of the class is the student's opportunity to show us that they can shoot the course mandated by the DPS. It's not a shooting class.

Chas.

[RossA]

I totally understand the need for safety, and some of my students get a little upset about how rigorously I enforce the four basic rules.
HOWEVER, to those who say that you should have to take basic classes, pass more stringent proficiency tests, etc. before you can carry, please answer the following question:
Where does the Constitution say that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed "as long as you pass a test", or "as long as you meet certain standards" or "as long as you have taken a class"?
Maybe I am the lone wolf here who believes that the Constitution means what it says, and once we allow the government to tell us that we have to meet its standards before they will allow us to exercise our God given rights, them we have no rights at all.

[zmcgooga]

Any instructor that passes a student that only achieved 15 rounds on target falsified a government document and they have committed a felony. I would hope that someone in the class would report it to DPS and help maintain the integrity of Texas' excellent LTC program.

Every now and then we see a thread on the proficiency test being too easy. My response is always the same. Please point to a problem that has resulted. The program is 20 years old, we have over 1 million licensees and I haven't seen or heard of a single incident involving a Licensee based upon incompetence at arms. Whenever we attack anti-gun legislation, the first question is always, "show us the problem you are trying to fix." There's never a legitimate response.

As for kicking students out of a class, instructors can't set their own standard. The DPS gives every student three attempts at the written exam and the range portion of the class. I've never had a student fail the written exam. Four have failed to pass the proficiency portion on the first attempt. Three passed on the second attempt and the fourth passed on the third and last attempt. I tell all of my students that, if they sweep anyone with their muzzle, or if I have to warn them more than once or twice that they are getting close so sweeping someone, I'll ask them to stand down and they will shoot with me after the class is over. I have never had to have a student stand down. I've never had someone grossly incompetent on the range, but if I do, I'll have them shoot at the end of class and I will give them the three opportunities to which DPS states they are entitled.

As to liability asked by one Member, the answer is no, instructors are not liable for the bad acts of former students. We have immunity from such liability as does the state. My online registration form makes it abundantly clear that the LTC class is not a firearms training class. They agree with that acknowledgement, or they cannot register. DPS correctly points out that the proficiency portion of the class is the student's opportunity to show us that they can shoot the course mandated by the DPS. It's not a shooting class.

Chas.

Thank you Mr. Cotton, that clear up a lot.

I was under the impression that if an instructor felt that a student was "unqualified" to handle a firearm that that could result in a failure of a test. As I mentioned in my OP they did hold this student after class and allow them to shoot again, so they may/may not have passed, but what they did sounds similar to your process. I figured that students like this would probably be a very small percentage and that's why I started the thread to see how other's instructors had handled the student.

[Medley86]

My instructor spent about 45 min going over safety before driving over to the range, didn't count as part of class time but it was nice knowing everyone had at least heard it. He also let everyone who wanted shoot a few strings before the actual test for warm up and for anyone who was uncomfortable. I only shot i believe 5 rounds of warm up, first time I ever went to an actual range and didn't enjoy the forced 1-2 round per minute rof. It was helpful to a few in the class who were novice shooters.

[TexasTornado]

When I took my class 4 years ago I was amazed at the number of people that needed to borrow a gun. My wife took the class with me and didn't have a pistol, so we shared my pistol and shot in different rounds. To this day, she has yet to carry even once. You really should already have a pistol before getting your LTC; how else are you going to practice before carrying?

It also really amazed that the guy standing next to me passed. When we were shooting the longer ranges, I would see two flashes when he shot. One was the muzzle flash and the other was the bullet striking the concrete on the ground at the end of the course. He passed because they scored by assuming a perfect score and then deducting points from there; well, if you completely miss the target you can't deduct points because you don't know it missed at the end.

When I got my LTC I had to rent a weapon. I rented a glock 19 which was the weapon I learned with and the weapon my mom was requalifying with right beside me. My dad was beside her with his glock .357 sig. Our instructor required us to each have our own individual weapons and at the time the only other handgun we owned was a .22. It was about 3 months after that when I purchased my P238.

[Jusme]

I just think that maybe there should be a prerequisite class of basic firearm safety, that stresses the safety and proper handling of a firearm.

I disagree .. We don't need more red tape. Lots of us know how to shoot, and do so safely before we ever took a formal course. I had was hunting as a 15 year old, shot recreationaly, and served in the army long before I applied for my CHL. Although I have taken a few gun courses and safety courses since receiving my CHL. My point is that the courses can help those who are unfamiliar with guns, there are many of us have achieved proficiency and learned safety with out a formal certifiable course.
I think the problem we are seeing mostly here lies with the instructors. Many are running classes that are way too big. The instructors mentioned here with the "special" students are being extremely negligent in letting these students continue, and fraudulent for letting students pass with only 15 hits on the target. Most instructors have a prerequisite. of a Basic Safety course. but they will bypass this requirement if the potential student has explained their proficiency and and experiance. I think it used to be that most of the older old school instructors became instructors because they believed in the CHL program, and wanted to make it work. It seems to me that a lot of the newer instructors are into it because its a living and not as highly motivated about the program itself.

I don't think the state ought to require a basic firearms class in order to take an LTC class. (Actually.....I think that firearms safety and shooting skills should be taught in the public schools, but that's a whole different argument.) But nobody in their right mind should take the class to learn how to handle a firearm and shoot one, and no instructor in his/her right mind should pass a student who is demonstrably dangerous (to the innocent) with a firearm in their hands. The curriculum as written by the state was not designed to teach that. Philosophically, I would rather there be no licensing requirement at all. In my perfect world, we'd have Constitutional Carry. But also in my perfect world, people would have had an opportunity somewhere along the line to satisfactorily demonstrate to themselves and others the most basic proficiency with the manual of arms for the weapon they choose to carry. But we don't live in my perfect world, and the reality is that we have LTC law which we have to contend with.

The LTC class range requirements exist expressly for the purpose of a student demonstrating to the instructor his or her proficiency with that particular gun, and the requirements DO NOT EXIST for the purpose of the instructor teaching the student that proficiency. Anybody who argues otherwise is plainly mis-stating the legislative intent of the law. You are required to take the written test to prove that you understand the things your were taught in the classroom, and you are required to take the range test to prove that you can safely handle the pistol, and shoot it with enough skill to score a minimum amount of points on a B27 target. The B27 target is chosen very specifically for it's silhouette, and there is a reason for that. Otherwise, it would be perfectly OK to use any old bullseye target you wanted to use. But the idea is to keep the bullets inside a human-shaped silhouette. The degree to which you can do that is the degree to which you prove to your instructor a minimal level of competence at not shooting unintended victims. And it ought to be made plain to the student that every single bullet that failed to land inside that silhouette is a bullet that cannot be recalled, and that might well have hit an innocent bystander.

If you cannot pass the written test, you fail the class—and you should not be issued the LTC under the guidelines of the law. The teacher cannot answer the questions for you. You either have to know the answers, or know where to find them, or to at least make educated guesses based on what you remember from the class. But you HAVE TO PASS based on your score. If an instructor passes you anyway by falsifying your score, that instructor is breaking the law. The same standards apply for the range qualification. There is a REASON we call it a "qualification". To qualify, you have to shoot a minimum score, and you have to demonstrate safe gun-handling. If you can do neither, or even if you can do one but not the other, YOU DO NOT QUALIFY. Both are necessary to passing. If you do not qualify, you should not pass. If the instructor passes you anyway by falsifying your shooting score, the instructor has broken the law. If the instructor passes you anyway by OK'ing your demonstrably negligent gun handling, then he or she has at least violated the spirit of the law, if not the actual letter of it.

As a libertarian leaning person, I believe that a truly free society is not without risks, and I totally get that. But as long as the law exists, we cannot call ourselves law-abiding people if we treat the process with a wink-wink nudge-nudge and fudge the requirements. People who cannot pass either portion of the class - the written test, and the range qualification - should be failed. I don't want the state to give its official imprimatur to people who are demonstrably not qualified, so long as the state demands qualification. If the state doesn't demand qualification, then neither the state or the instructors can be blamed for passing and licensing people who seriously have no business carrying a firearm. But as long as the state DOES demand qualifications, then the state and the instructors assume at least the moral liability whenever they churn out license holders who probably shouldn't ever handle, let alone carry a firearm.

In other words, this is a fish or cut bait issue. If the state insists on the controls, then it must enforce the controls; and that means busting instructors who cheat the system. If the state doesn't want to enforce the controls and bust the instructors, then it should remove the controls entirely. Otherwise, it's just another example of a law kept on the books for the purposes of harassing and controlling people only when it is convenient to the state. We have enough of that crap already.

I fully agree, the argument about whether or not we should prove proficiency, to exercise a Constitutional right is a whole different argument. For now, the State has set up requirements to be met to obtain an LTC. If instructors are not enforcing those requirements, then they need to be removed as certified instructors. There should also be no prerequisite requirements. If a person wants to obtain their LTC, then they need to prepare themselves, or expect to fail. The entire LTC range course requirements are available on line, and a person should take the time to make sure they can meet these minimums before signing up for the class. I would know my limitations and would take whatever steps necessary to be sure I was at least as proficient as the State requires.JMHO

[rotor]

I had some "special" students firing next to me when I took my CHL but the instructor made sure that they were safe. Fortunately I brought several spare boxes of ammo as some of the students did not come prepared and this was when ammo was very tight. I find it amazing that people can load a magazine with the cartridges backwards. I have to use a mag loader to load my Taurus magazine in the normal direction. I can't imagine doing it backwards. When my wife took her CHL she practiced with a Beretta 92FS and became quite proficient. She outscored me.