Good time today.....

[mcub]

Some people, like me, may do worse than normal simply because we're not used to shooting in a line, as a group.

That having been said at my course one person managed to fail.

I was surprised that a few people were not good at loading their weapon, perhaps the state should get rid of the long range strings, and replace them with a demonstration of ones ability to take down, clean and reassemble their weapon. I would also think one should be required to own a handgun, as opposed to renting one they do not not know how to use.

[frankie_the_yankee]

Some people, like me, may do worse than normal simply because we're not used to shooting in a line, as a group.

That having been said at my course one person managed to fail.

I was surprised that a few people were not good at loading their weapon, perhaps the state should get rid of the long range strings, and replace them with a demonstration of ones ability to take down, clean and reassemble their weapon.

Great suggestion! +1+

[Venus Pax]

I would also think one should be required to own a handgun, as opposed to renting one they do not not know how to use.

This puts an even greater strain on the less wealthy citizens in our community. I recall a poster on here that had $50 per month available to spend on all things firearm-related. This is not only the gun, holster and ammo, but the cleaning supplies, adequate storage, gun show costs, and taxes.
With this amount of money, It would take him two months to pay for his handgun course and 50 rounds of ammo. It would then take him three months to save for his application fee.
And that's only if someone was kind enough to lend him a handgun.

Then, he has to find a handgun. $50 per month is not enough to rent all the guns necessary to know what one wants, especially considering that he would still need ammo. $50 would just cover ammo if another couple of shooters wanted to let him try their guns.
Then, he would have to save for a handgun. It would take him two or three months to purchase a Hi-point, four or five months to purchase a Bersa, and five or six months to purchase a Springfield. He probably wouldn't even consider a Kimber.

Is he any less deserving of his RKBA than the rest of us that already own handguns?

[seamusTX]

I was surprised that a few people were not good at loading their weapon, perhaps the state should get rid of the long range strings, and replace them with a demonstration of ones ability to take down, clean and reassemble their weapon. I would also think one should be required to own a handgun, as opposed to renting one they do not not know how to use.

A couple of points here:

A person with arthitis or a similar ailment can be perfectly capable of shooting, but have trouble pulling back the slide of a pistol or loading a magazine. What about a one-armed person?

It really doesn't matter if they take an hour to load the pistol at home or have it done by someone else. They are going to be carrying it loaded.

This kind of individual examination would also slow down the course.

P.S.: I second what Venus wrote.

- Jim

[Xander]

I would also think one should be required to own a handgun, as opposed to renting one they do not not know how to use.

In addition to the points Venus made, there are other extenuating circumstances that require even those who own guns to rent. For instance, my CHL class was on a Saturday, and the range qualification was on the following Monday. A fellow who took the class with me had the ejector on his PPK break Sunday, as he practiced for the qualy. He had to rent (and rented another PPK) to actually shoot.

Besides...Owning a gun doesn't mean much. I'll bet there are just as many seasoned, safe, and proficient shooters (particularly non or casual handgunners) who don't own handguns, but are going to be considerably more prepared for the proficiency test then the folks who go out and buy a gun the day before and show up with it still covered in packing grease. Nothing about owning a handgun makes one particularly more prepared.

[mcub]

Ok, I can see the argument about the monetary limitations, however, if a person does not own a handgun, why does this person need a CHL. ??

If they are going to carry some one else’s fire arm, certainly they'd be able to bring to class.
If they don’t yet own a firearm or have one available to them regularly, why not acquire the handgun first, the learn to use it and then take the course.


I just think that with the range test, we should at least be able to show some understanding of the gun that is being used, beyond pulling the trigger. If not , just dump the range part all together.

[mcub]

then the folks who go out and buy a gun the day before and show up with it still covered in packing grease. Nothing about owning a handgun makes one particularly more prepared.

That point I agree with.

[flintknapper]

I would also think one should be required to own a handgun, as opposed to renting one they do not not know how to use.

This puts an even greater strain on the less wealthy citizens in our community. I recall a poster on here that had $50 per month available to spend on all things firearm-related. This is not only the gun, holster and ammo, but the cleaning supplies, adequate storage, gun show costs, and taxes.
With this amount of money, It would take him two months to pay for his handgun course and 50 rounds of ammo. It would then take him three months to save for his application fee.
And that's only if someone was kind enough to lend him a handgun.

Then, he has to find a handgun. $50 per month is not enough to rent all the guns necessary to know what one wants, especially considering that he would still need ammo. $50 would just cover ammo if another couple of shooters wanted to let him try their guns.
Then, he would have to save for a handgun. It would take him two or three months to purchase a Hi-point, four or five months to purchase a Bersa, and five or six months to purchase a Springfield. He probably wouldn't even consider a Kimber.

Is he any less deserving of his RKBA than the rest of us that already own handguns?

Well said.

Especially the point highlighted in red.


Did that rhyme?

[mcub]

I would also think one should be required to own a handgun, as opposed to renting one they do not not know how to use.

This puts an even greater strain on the less wealthy citizens in our community. I recall a poster on here that had $50 per month available to spend on all things firearm-related. This is not only the gun, holster and ammo, but the cleaning supplies, adequate storage, gun show costs, and taxes.
With this amount of money, It would take him two months to pay for his handgun course and 50 rounds of ammo. It would then take him three months to save for his application fee.
And that's only if someone was kind enough to lend him a handgun.

Then, he has to find a handgun. $50 per month is not enough to rent all the guns necessary to know what one wants, especially considering that he would still need ammo. $50 would just cover ammo if another couple of shooters wanted to let him try their guns.
Then, he would have to save for a handgun. It would take him two or three months to purchase a Hi-point, four or five months to purchase a Bersa, and five or six months to purchase a Springfield. He probably wouldn't even consider a Kimber.

Is he any less deserving of his RKBA than the rest of us that already own handguns?

Well said.

Especially the point highlighted in red.


Did that rhyme?

So then if you are not wealthy, you should be allowed to carry a gun that you do not know how to use?? The anti-gun lobby would love to hear that statement .

[HooG19]

Sounds like a lot of people would benefit by attending a pre-CHL course to familiarise themselves with the operation of their firearm.

Problem is, of course, most of those same people wouldn't bother because they aren't obliged to attend

This was my next logical step in this discussion of the "inability" of some shooters. I'd love to see a prerequisite class similar to an intro to firearms that many ranges offer, but would that really be the answer? Like Chas, I also like TXI's idea of adding the NRA course, but could it be required?

What about simply raising the standard to that of the instructors? I'm sure that with a little range time, just about anyone could score 90% with a small caliber, short barrel weapon. But how many people really attempt to qualify with a snubby?

As far renting the handgun used for the test, I personally don't have a problem with this, as long as the shooter can handle said firearm. I really have no issue with it if they only own a revolver but don't want to be limited to carrying an NSA type of weapon. Especially if they are planning on purchasing a SA in the near future.

Why can't we be held to a higher standard than 70%?

[Charles L. Cotton]

As much as I don't like to see poor gun-handling skills, there is no evidence that a required course has shown any benefits. For example, Florida requires only that an applicant have taken any firearm course, or have served in the military, or have a membership in a competitive organization such as IDPA or IPSC. There are other states that don't require a course to obtain a CHL.

I would never support any increased performance requirements to obtain a CHL. I like txinvestigator's idea of combining the CHL course and an NRA course, but I would never support making it mandatory. All it would take is an unfriendly Col. at DPS and the course could be made impossible for the vast majority of people to pass.

As someone mentioned in another thread, the range requirements for LEO qualifications are no more difficult than the CHL course.

Chas.

[phddan]

I'm still waiting for someone to explain why we even have to pay the state and pay for a class.
Something about shall not be infringed keeps coming to mind.

But, back on topic, my wife has a little trouble loading mags and racking the slide, do to a wreck that busted up her left arm, and she has plates in it. But she shoots my 45's good, and it was a good idea for her to test with an auto in case she needed to carry mine.

She uses me as her armorer, to keep the weapons clean and functional. And it's a pretty good trade off, considering I don't get any flak for weapons and ammo purchases.

Dan

[MAFWG]

I'm one of those who didn't own a handgun when he took the CHL course. In fact, the range qualification for the CHL class was exactly the 3rd time I had ever shot a handgun!

I bought 2 guns the day my CHL arrived.

Hunter


PS: I scored a 250 on my CHL test using a rented Glock 19.

[Xander]

I just think that with the range test, we should at least be able to show some understanding of the gun that is being used, beyond pulling the trigger. If not , just dump the range part all together.

I agree that people who own guns should know how to use them. I think that's a personal responsibility, however. I also agree that the range test should be dumped. As should all the other requirements. I'd fully support a move the Alaskan model, where concealed carry is legal, period. If you can legally possess a handgun there, you can stick it in your waistband and carry it concealed. No permit, no class, no range test.