Is The CHL Proficiency Test Sufficient?

[ScooterSissy]

100% sufficient. In the states where no CHL is required and proficiency test is required there has zero problems relating to "proficiency."

The Texas CHL course will not make you a student of the law or a good shot. Participating in forums like this, keeping up on pending legislation, and practicing often at the range and at home will. The odds that you will ever use your weapon are slim, and the statistics show that if you do have to use it it will be a very close range. Plinking a few round done range, and a stationary target, which is at eye level, which you are shooting under very little pressure, while standing in the perfect position, is in no way representative of a real world scenario.

I agree, but have to say I didn't like the title of the thread (or the question posed). Sufficient for what? Is the test "sufficient" to prove that candidate is a highly capable shooter? Nope, it's not. But then, a harder accuracy test that one has to take one time wouldn't really do that either.

Frankly, I passed the proficiency test and it was the first time I had ever fired a handgun. I got better after I got my CHL (and my own handgun). It's probably worth noting that the guy sharing a lane with me was a deputy sherrif (I won't say what county), and I did better on the test than he did.

It really is about personal responsibility, and making a stricter requirement won't make anyone more responsible; at least, not for any longer than it takes to pass the test.

[K5GU]

100% sufficient. In the states where no CHL is required and proficiency test is required there has zero problems relating to "proficiency."

The Texas CHL course will not make you a student of the law or a good shot. Participating in forums like this, keeping up on pending legislation, and practicing often at the range and at home will. The odds that you will ever use your weapon are slim, and the statistics show that if you do have to use it it will be a very close range. Plinking a few round done range, and a stationary target, which is at eye level, which you are shooting under very little pressure, while standing in the perfect position, is in no way representative of a real world scenario.

I agree, but have to say I didn't like the title of the thread (or the question posed). Sufficient for what? Is the test "sufficient" to prove that candidate is a highly capable shooter? Nope, it's not. But then, a harder accuracy test that one has to take one time wouldn't really do that either.

Frankly, I passed the proficiency test and it was the first time I had ever fired a handgun. I got better after I got my CHL (and my own handgun). It's probably worth noting that the guy sharing a lane with me was a deputy sherrif (I won't say what county), and I did better on the test than he did.

It really is about personal responsibility, and making a stricter requirement won't make anyone more responsible; at least, not for any longer than it takes to pass the test.

Let me try to address your question.."Sufficient for what?" I think in the context of CHL class, one of the reasons you're taking the test is to show you're proficient enough for getting the instructor(s) to sign off on your application, and whether or not the handgun proficiency requirements are sufficient enough to meet the instructor's (and the DPS) law requirements to do that while also staying in compliance with the Texas Constitution.

[TVGuy]

I am not going to flame anyone, but it's strange how many people on the forum say that they support "constitutional carry", i.e. no license required, but think the proficiency test is too lenient.

I think that it is every person's responsibility to become safe and proficient with their particular firearm, but that is their own personal choice.

A person who doesn't learn and practice with their firearms will find this out too late.

I never said I support "Constitutional Carry". Frankly, I don't.

Once again, I say that as my opinion and expect to hear plenty of opposition.

[steveincowtown]

Yes, and I love freedom and liberty too. Just want to stay alive to enjoy it!

I'll use the tip hat here so you know I am being polite.




Could you site any examples of problems with proficiency in any of the states that require no CHL or "formal" training? With as liberal as the news media is these days they should be easy to find.

This topic is about Texas CHL proficiency test, not unlicensed handgun proficiency in other states. Or am I misunderstanding your post?

By your quote above the implication was that we need good proficiency testing so that you don't get shot by some untrained CHL holder. If this is what you meant to imply, I was asking that you show examples of "untested" folks becoming in an issue in the many states that either do not require a CHL, or do not required any "proficiency testing" for their CHL.

[K5GU]

Yes, and I love freedom and liberty too. Just want to stay alive to enjoy it!

I'll use the tip hat here so you know I am being polite.




Could you site any examples of problems with proficiency in any of the states that require no CHL or "formal" training? With as liberal as the news media is these days they should be easy to find.

This topic is about Texas CHL proficiency test, not unlicensed handgun proficiency in other states. Or am I misunderstanding your post?

By your quote above the implication was that we need good proficiency testing so that you don't get shot by some untrained CHL holder. If this is what you meant to imply, I was asking that you show examples of "untested" folks becoming in an issue in the many states that either do not require a CHL, or do not required any "proficiency testing" for their CHL.

Thanks for clarifying that. I have not done research on untested folks in states without CHL requirements such as we have in Texas. In this thread, I'm not implying anything. I will express my opinions but not for the purpose of altering how anyone else thinks. This thread is meant, as the caption says, to contain a dialog of thoughts folks might have regarding the current Texas CHL proficiency requirements. If you want a thread to discuss something else, then by all means, start a new thread.

[Wes]

I am not going to flame anyone, but it's strange how many people on the forum say that they support "constitutional carry", i.e. no license required, but think the proficiency test is too lenient.

I think that it is every person's responsibility to become safe and proficient with their particular firearm, but that is their own personal choice.

A person who doesn't learn and practice with their firearms will find this out too late.

It could be that folks don't see a CHL as necessary if they believe the certification process doesn't prove anything anyway?

The CHL is not a certification. The written and shooting portions of the class are minimum standards to issue a CHL.

Okay. How about this then. It could be that folks don't see a CHL as necessary if they believe the minimum standards don't prove anything anyway?

Not needing a CHL at all is the ultimate goal so wouldn't that be a positive?! Licensing does nothing, so bring on unlicensed carry.

[Oldgringo]

Back on point, neither our original license nor our renewal ever mentioned what end of the gun the bullet came out of or anything else vis-a-vis gun safety. Apparently, everyone in both classes had some idea what was going on as no one got .

[K5GU]

I am not going to flame anyone, but it's strange how many people on the forum say that they support "constitutional carry", i.e. no license required, but think the proficiency test is too lenient.

I think that it is every person's responsibility to become safe and proficient with their particular firearm, but that is their own personal choice.

A person who doesn't learn and practice with their firearms will find this out too late.

It could be that folks don't see a CHL as necessary if they believe the certification process doesn't prove anything anyway?

The CHL is not a certification. The written and shooting portions of the class are minimum standards to issue a CHL.

Okay. How about this then. It could be that folks don't see a CHL as necessary if they believe the minimum standards don't prove anything anyway?

Not needing a CHL at all is the ultimate goal so wouldn't that be a positive?! Licensing does nothing, so bring on unlicensed carry.

When speaking for myself, I don't need a CHL for the purpose of self defense and safe firearm handling, but today, I need the license to legally carry in Texas.

[K5GU]

Back on point, neither our original license nor our renewal ever mentioned what end of the gun the bullet came out of or anything else vis-a-vis gun safety. Apparently, everyone in both classes had some idea what was going on as no one got .

[treadlightly]

I don't shoot as well as I would like, not by, as they say, a long shot. When I go to the range, though, I go as a student of the gun. It's fun, but that's a side benefit. The point is to study the art and science of making the gun perform quickly, accurately, and safely - and I got those out of order. I should study more.

Not everyone is going to look at it that way. A shame, in my opinion, but not everyone obsesses the details. Using the words "clip" and "magazine" interchangeably doesn't indicate a safety issue, anyway. Requiring more training probably wouldn't make a long term difference among those least interested in specifics, and those that are really interested probably don't need the requirement. They will seek the skills and knowledge on their own.

when we were talking during a break, the person said, "..What's a chamber?.."

This is an easy one. The chamber is where the chamber music comes from. Mind your hearing protectors, here comes the Second movement.

[K5GU]

I don't shoot as well as I would like, not by, as they say, a long shot. When I go to the range, though, I go as a student of the gun. It's fun, but that's a side benefit. The point is to study the art and science of making the gun perform quickly, accurately, and safely - and I got those out of order. I should study more.

Not everyone is going to look at it that way. A shame, in my opinion, but not everyone obsesses the details. Using the words "clip" and "magazine" interchangeably doesn't indicate a safety issue, anyway. Requiring more training probably wouldn't make a long term difference among those least interested in specifics, and those that are really interested probably don't need the requirement. They will seek the skills and knowledge on their own.

I hear that. Hopefully they nail down those skills before appearing on the firing line. My first CHL range qualification was at an outdoor range. 10 shooters at a time. The instructor kept asking me why I was standing back from the line. I said, "You don't know?". He grinned and said he knew.

when we were talking during a break, the person said, "..What's a chamber?.."

This is an easy one. The chamber is where the chamber music comes from. Mind your hearing protectors, here comes the Second movement.

And it probably smells a little like toasted gun powder!

[steveincowtown]

Thanks for clarifying that. I have not done research on untested folks in states without CHL requirements such as we have in Texas. In this thread, I'm not implying anything. I will express my opinions but not for the purpose of altering how anyone else thinks. This thread is meant, as the caption says, to contain a dialog of thoughts folks might have regarding the current Texas CHL proficiency requirements. If you want a thread to discuss something else, then by all means, start a new thread.

If the question is as you stated:

I think in the context of CHL class, one of the reasons you're taking the test is to show you're proficient enough for getting the instructor(s) to sign off on your application, and whether or not the handgun proficiency requirements are sufficient enough to meet the instructor's (and the DPS) law requirements to do that while also staying in compliance with the Texas Constitution.

Then clearly the proficiency requirements are enough to comply with all laws and requirements as people are getting issued CHLs on a daily basis. I didn't know CHL law or proficiency was mentioned in the Texas Constitution, so I am not sure how any requirements for CHL could be made to stay in "compliance" with such.

[K5GU]

Thanks for clarifying that. I have not done research on untested folks in states without CHL requirements such as we have in Texas. In this thread, I'm not implying anything. I will express my opinions but not for the purpose of altering how anyone else thinks. This thread is meant, as the caption says, to contain a dialog of thoughts folks might have regarding the current Texas CHL proficiency requirements. If you want a thread to discuss something else, then by all means, start a new thread.

If the question is as you stated:

I think in the context of CHL class, one of the reasons you're taking the test is to show you're proficient enough for getting the instructor(s) to sign off on your application, and whether or not the handgun proficiency requirements are sufficient enough to meet the instructor's (and the DPS) law requirements to do that while also staying in compliance with the Texas Constitution.

Then clearly the proficiency requirements are enough to comply with all laws and requirements as people are getting issued CHLs on a daily basis. I didn't know CHL law or proficiency was mentioned in the Texas Constitution, so I am not sure how any requirements for CHL could be made to stay in "compliance" with such.

Article 1, Sec. 23. RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. Every citizen shall have
the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but
the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with
a view to prevent crime.

[steveincowtown]

Then clearly the proficiency requirements are enough to comply with all laws and requirements as people are getting issued CHLs on a daily basis. I didn't know CHL law or proficiency was mentioned in the Texas Constitution, so I am not sure how any requirements for CHL could be made to stay in "compliance" with such.

Article 1, Sec. 23. RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. Every citizen shall have
the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but
the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with
a view to prevent crime.[/quote]

Still not seeing anything about proficiency in there.

[ScooterSissy]

100% sufficient. In the states where no CHL is required and proficiency test is required there has zero problems relating to "proficiency."

The Texas CHL course will not make you a student of the law or a good shot. Participating in forums like this, keeping up on pending legislation, and practicing often at the range and at home will. The odds that you will ever use your weapon are slim, and the statistics show that if you do have to use it it will be a very close range. Plinking a few round done range, and a stationary target, which is at eye level, which you are shooting under very little pressure, while standing in the perfect position, is in no way representative of a real world scenario.

I agree, but have to say I didn't like the title of the thread (or the question posed). Sufficient for what? Is the test "sufficient" to prove that candidate is a highly capable shooter? Nope, it's not. But then, a harder accuracy test that one has to take one time wouldn't really do that either.

Frankly, I passed the proficiency test and it was the first time I had ever fired a handgun. I got better after I got my CHL (and my own handgun). It's probably worth noting that the guy sharing a lane with me was a deputy sherrif (I won't say what county), and I did better on the test than he did.

It really is about personal responsibility, and making a stricter requirement won't make anyone more responsible; at least, not for any longer than it takes to pass the test.

Let me try to address your question.."Sufficient for what?" I think in the context of CHL class, one of the reasons you're taking the test is to show you're proficient enough for getting the instructor(s) to sign off on your application, and whether or not the handgun proficiency requirements are sufficient enough to meet the instructor's (and the DPS) law requirements to do that while also staying in compliance with the Texas Constitution.

Then the answer would be yes. You answer is circular to the question. If a person passes the test, then they have met the legal requirement, thus the test is sufficient to prove they met the legal requirement.