Can of worms to open here

[yahoshua]

A frequent problem I come across with CHL holders (and customers in general) is that customers and CHL holders generally do not know how to field strip their sidearms, are unsure of how the sidearm even functions, and/or have horrible range accuracy. The worst ones are those who have a hard time figuring out which end the cartridge faces in the magazine or of how to clear a malfunction in their sidearm, or they are puzzled when I tell them their sidearm is dirty and needs to be cleaned and they look at me like I'd just slapped them in the face. It then comes out that they'd NEVER field-stripped their firearm nor have they ever cleaned it. I found this to be both frustrating and infuriating all the same (and keep in mind that these peoples' vote counts just as much as mine or yours does).


Sadly, I find Law Enforcement Officers to be lumped into this group as well and have chewed out (on more than one occasion) that LEOs' will be depending on their sidearm for emergency situation that they are likely to find themselves in. And if they weren't willing to be proficient with their duty weapon and are incapable of passing the dept. qualification test the first time around then they obviously need to be practicing more or riding a desk or to get out of the force.


I tried to think of ways to efficiently correct this problem and the solution I came up with was two-fold.

1. Make cleaning and field-stripping a firearm part of the New/Renewal CHL courses and drive it into these peoples' skulls so they'll get it the first time around and not from me when I hand them the repair bill.

2. Make range qualifications, at a minimum, an annual event in order to drive the concept into these people that if you want to keep your CHL you WILL be proficient with your sidearm. A double-whammy would be an exam in which the applicant will field strip the firearm in front of the instructor and re-assemble it.

This would help (though not necessarily guarantee) ensure that people are aware of HOW to maintain their firearm and that they are willing to invest the time necessary to be proficient with it.


As much as I hate the idea of "mandating" a requirement like this, I'm coming from the perspective that I expect people to know the basics of handling their sidearm and how to maintain it. So am I being reasonable in what I'm asking for or is this considered "too much" for the average person to handle? (I better shutup before I go off on a tangent)


What's your opinion?

[Calabash-kid]

I see no role of state or federal government in anything such as this.

I understand your frustration but passing a law is not a solution to everything.

This is not intended to cause a flame war --- just my opinion.

Jerry

[Kerbouchard]

Field strip? Are you serious? Last time you bought a car or renewed your DL, did they make you demonstrate you knew how to change the oil? Or parallel park?

Nope, you pay the small fee, you might take a new picture, and you're on your way.

That's the way it should be for our CHL's(or at least our renewals). Should take about 10 minutes at the local DPS.

[mr.72]

No. Frankly I think this whole line of thought is ridiculous. The current range qualification is an infringement of your 2A rights to begin with, why invite even further infringement? Maybe while we are at it we should increase the fee to $1,000 and make it renewed once per year so only the people with means to have a professional maintain their firearms and hire a personal instructor will be running around with guns? Or maybe the guns should be owned by the government, so they can ensure they are maintained correctly, and they can validate that the operator is qualified each time a gun is issued.

As was pointed out, we don't do this with cars and I can assure you that a poorly-maintained car being operated by a driver is far more dangerous than a dirty or improperly loaded gun in the hands of a CHL holder. Likewise, even though we have a huge pile of laws, active enforcement, engineered traffic control systems, well-designed roads and everything else to stack the deck in favor of safety, lack of driving skills cause tens of thousands of deaths every year.

[Fixintu]

While I believe every CHL holder SHOULD be familiar AND comfortable with all aspects of their gun and be proficient on the range I think mandating the things you suggest would not solve the problem. You cannot fix stupid any more than you can legislate morality. I think the fees and requirements should not be MORE burdensome than a state driver's license. In fact, obtaining a driver's license should be MORE difficult and should have more frequent proficiency exams than currently required. Before anyone gets out their flame throwers please look at the statistics on deaths involving vehicles and compare them to deaths involving firearms.

[The Annoyed Man]

First of all, I don't buy a gun but I field strip it at soon as I get home so that I can both learn how and make sure that it's clean inside. Furthermore, I do range practice pretty regularly.

Secondly, I believe that most people who go to the extent to obtain their CHL also make the effort to know their guns, and to get in some range practice at least a few times a year.

Government has no place ensuring anything. If you can justify that government has a place in ensuring your continued qualification to carry by means of exams, then you can justify government's authority to make you pass an annual parenting exam, or an annual religious exam, etc., etc., etc.

[tbranch]

While I can understand where you are coming from, more regulation is not the answer. I'm sure the experience levels of CHL holders vary from those of us with military / police experience and avid shooters through those who purchase a weapon, load it (maybe) and drop in in the holster / purse / glove box and only shoot every 4 years to qualify.

Since we do not appear to be having a problem with the system why would we want to create more regulation?

Tom

[Charles L. Cotton]

Although I strongly encourage training, I don't think the current range proficiency requirement serves a purpose. I think it should be deleted from the statute, unless it would cause a problem with reciprocity. If we look to states that don't require a demonstration of shooting proficiency as part of their licensing process, we don't see any problems with injuries or deaths because of poor gun handling. I know that in theory a CHL instructor can take poor gun handling skills into consideration, but I don't know if it's ever done and I'm not at all sure it would pass a court challenge. We have a "shall issue" statute and if you can't point to a specific requirement that was not met, then I believe a court is going to order the CHL issued.

I'm against making the test more challenging.

BTW, we may see an effort to change the "one class every ten years" provision in the statute, since DPS really doesn't like it. It will be interesting to see if the bill would return to classes on each 5 year renewal, or if it will propose something more frequent.

Chas.

[mr.72]

I agree that the current test does not serve any purpose except to lengthen the amount of time spent in the training. Perhaps it serves some political purpose, or has something to do with reciprocity. Perhaps it achieves this veneer that CHL holders have been tested and found to qualify as safe shooters, which may convince those who don't know any better.

Likewise requiring the class to take 10 hours is ridiculous. There is about 2 hours max worth of information required in the class. The last few hours of hour class were very much like the scenes from The Breakfast Club. There is no reason that you couldn't study on your own and show up at DPS office and take the test and achieve the same result. So the whole class requirement, IMHO, serves no real purpose.

However I know many people earn extra money or even a whole living conducting the class. I assume I will not get their support in removing the class requirement. Firing range owners are not likely to get on board with removing the range qualification. I suspect many of our own "pro gun rights" people are these same people.

[isa268]

I see no role of state or federal government in anything such as this.

I understand your frustration but passing a law is not a solution to everything.

This is not intended to cause a flame war --- just my opinion.

Jerry

^^^ This.

[tbranch]

So the whole class requirement, IMHO, serves no real purpose.

The classroom portion is clearly important. While I have been licensed to carry in a number of states and received formal military training, the classoom portion was critical to understanding Texas Use of Deadly Force laws and when/where one can legally carry.

The range test I took was minimal at best. The school provided the weapons, loaded magazines, and even loaded the magazines / charged the weapons. My only role was to fire on command. If there's a place to improve the existing range test, simply force students to handle, load, clear, and shoot. If they cannot do it properly or safely, fail them. Once they acquire the appropriate skills, let them take the range portion of the test so they can move forward with the CHL process.

Tom

[pedalman]

In my class, we had to lock open our pistols (no revolvers were present) to show they were clear. We were also responsible for loading and unloading our pistols. Happily, nobody in the class had trouble with this. I'm also sure that it gave our instructor the opportunity to see if we were confident with our handguns.

[mr.72]

The classroom portion is clearly important.

Are you sure the classroom format is important, or is it more that acquiring the information contained in the class is clearly important?

I think it could be accomplished with a study guide and you deal with it yourself. Just giving each applicant the instructor material, and then requiring them to take the test at DPS at their convenience would accomplish the same goal without mandating the time required drumming your fingers on the desk in class.

Just MHO.

[tbranch]

Are you sure the classroom format is important, or is it more that acquiring the information contained in the class is clearly important?

I think it could be accomplished with a study guide and you deal with it yourself. Just giving each applicant the instructor material, and then requiring them to take the test at DPS at their convenience would accomplish the same goal without mandating the time required drumming your fingers on the desk in class.

I don't disagree with the concept but I think the case studies and open classroom discussion have real value in creating understanding of the material. Is it worth 10 hours? That's hard to say...

Tom