The Annoyed Man wrote:WildRose wrote:The Annoyed Man wrote:WildRose wrote:The Annoyed Man wrote:Jusme wrote:There are no regulations, in the LTC firearms proficiency test, that require any gun be fired with only one hand. To require that, of someone, with a non-traditional "pistol" seems unfair. JMHO
Might be justifiable for safety reasons.
There is no "one hand" requirement for qualification.
See my post immediately above yours.
I did and no such one hand firing requirement exists in Texas.
For some reason, your reply is rubbing me the wrong way - intentionally or not. You joined the forum on Wed Jan 31, 2018 at 12:30 am, and have 34 posts. I joined the forum on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 10:59 am, and I have 23,389 posts. I
think by now that I understand a little bit about what is required in qualification and what is not. I don't really need to explain myself to you, but I will.......
I
completely understand that there is no such requirement. I
also completely realize the fact of the matter that
some individual instructors
sometimes take upon themselves the authority to apply arbitrary standards during qualifications. If you think this is not happening, you're fooling yourself. They
may (see dictionary definition of MIGHT/MAY below) do so for any number of reasons, but it
usually has to do with questions of accommodating handicapped, elderly, or inexperienced shooters.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/might
Definition of might
past tense of MAY
1 —used to express permission, liberty, probability, or possibility in the past • The president might do nothing without the board's consent.
2 —used to say that something is possible • We might get there before it rains. I might go, but then again, I might not.
3 —used to express a present condition contrary to fact • If you were older you might understand.
4 a —used as a polite alternative to may • Might I ask who is calling?
4 b —used as a polite alternative to ought or should • You might at least apologize. I might have known she'd be late.
I used the word "might" in the context of definition #2. I could have alternatively said "
possibly be justifiable for safety reasons", or "
maybe justifiable for safety reasons".
If you spend enough time both studying CHL/LTC law and it's occasional imprecision (this forum is chock full over the past 10 years of examples) people have questions because there are vagaries in the common use of language which can cause some imprecision. Often, these vagaries are due exactly to use of language issues like the example defined above. There
might (could/maybe/possibly) be multiple definitions for a single word in common use, and that affects how people understand (A) the law, and (B) what people
say about the law.
An important principle in the law is that it does not MAKE a thing legal, it only makes things
illegal. By default, all things are legal. LTC law is a perfect example.... at one time, it was completely lawful to openly carry a handgun without permission. Then a law was passed making it illegal. Then another law was passed making an exception to the first law if the bearer held a gov't permission slip, but it still remained illegal for anyone else. Under that standard, just because there is no requirement in the law for two handed use of a firearm, there is neither any requirement that enforces either a one-handed or two-handed standard during qualification. The Instructor/RSO is tasked with enforcing range safety, AND with trying to get his/her students to pass the qualification. If a student showed up with an Austrian Pfeifer-Zeliska revolver chambered in .600 Nitro Express Magnum (see image below), that gun would be permitted for qualification because it is a handgun. But let us also stipulate in this example that the student had never fired a handgun before, and the Pfeifer-Zeliska was loaned to him by his evil twin Skippy, who thought it would be a hilarious practical joke on the poor student. You'd have to forgive the instructor if he/she wanted to make sure that the situation was safe, and so he/she
might (maybe/possibly) justify to themselves the necessity of imposing a stricter safety standard than that imposed on the student who shows up with a Glock 19.
In fact, in the 8th post on page 1 of this thread, the OP who had asked the question in the first place said:
skeathley wrote:I decided to disallow this gun for the Proficiency. It violates the spirit of the law, if not the letter.
If you want to argue about one-handed requirements, go ahead; but you'll have to find someone else to do it with. I'm out.
