Minimum caliber(s)?

pfgrone · Post by **pfgrone** » Fri Feb 10, 2006 1:52 pm

I've tried searching this forum and browsed several websites, including the DPS site but cannot seem to find an authoritative statement of the minimum calibers needed for either wheelgun or semi. Is there a minimum needed for the CHL proficiency exam?
Paul

txinvestigator · Post by **txinvestigator** » Fri Feb 10, 2006 1:58 pm

yes there is.

You must qualify wth a .32 or larger.

Authority, Texas Government Code, Section 411.188 a.

nemesis · Post by **nemesis** » Fri Feb 10, 2006 2:00 pm

Keep in mind that if you qualify with a revolver, you will be restricted to only carrying revolvers but, if you qualify with a semi-automatic pistol; you can carry whichever you choose.

jbirds1210 · Post by **jbirds1210** » Fri Feb 10, 2006 2:38 pm

It is also good to keep in mind that many instructors will loan you a semi if your only gun is a revolver. Take advantage of every portion of the license..it is the same price. You might have to shop around a little bit, but many of them do offer this service! Thanks.
Jason

Kalrog · Post by **Kalrog** » Fri Feb 10, 2006 2:49 pm

Some places will also rent guns for the test... Red's does and that is where I took my class. I see you are located in Central Texas - and if you mean Austin by that, then Red's is an option if you are in need of a rental.

pfgrone · Post by **pfgrone** » Fri Feb 10, 2006 5:57 pm

Thanks. Appreciate the info.
Paul

JohnKSa · Post by **JohnKSa** » Sat Feb 11, 2006 2:43 am

WARNING! BEFORE reading farther, please read the disclaimer at the end of the post.

It may already be obvious from the answers, but you may carry ANY legal caliber once you have your CHL.

The minimum caliber requirement applies ONLY to the qualification course shot during the CHL training.

gigag04 · Post by **gigag04** » Sat Feb 11, 2006 3:05 am

JohnKSa wrote:WARNING! BEFORE reading farther, please read the disclaimer at the end of the post.

You dont have to have this disclaimer - we are a friendly place here by nature. Our admin wont let ebickering last anyway so noone should jump on ya.

and Welcome!

-nick

JohnKSa · Post by **JohnKSa** » Sat Feb 11, 2006 8:29 pm

WARNING! BEFORE reading farther, please read the disclaimer at the end of the post.

I do that so I won't be accused of breaking the law...

No, it's not a joke (well, it's not intended to be a joke)--click on the link below if you want to learn more.

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/tech_l ... _its_.html

Sometimes it's necessary to "out stupid" the government. ;)

John · Post by **John** » Sat Feb 11, 2006 10:35 pm

JohnKSa wrote:WARNING! BEFORE reading farther, please read the disclaimer at the end of the post.

I do that so I won't be accused of breaking the law...

No, it's not a joke (well, it's not intended to be a joke)--click on the link below if you want to learn more.

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/tech_l ... _its_.html

Sometimes it's necessary to "out stupid" the government. ;)

But we know who you are :razz"

"(C) makes a telephone call or utilizes a telecommunications device, whether or not conversation or communication ensues, without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person at the called number or who receives the communications"

txinvestigator · Post by **txinvestigator** » Sun Feb 12, 2006 12:28 pm

JohnKSa wrote:WARNING! BEFORE reading farther, please read the disclaimer at the end of the post.

I do that so I won't be accused of breaking the law...

No, it's not a joke (well, it's not intended to be a joke)--click on the link below if you want to learn more.

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/tech_l ... _its_.html

Sometimes it's necessary to "out stupid" the government. ;)

Your disclaimer would not keep you from beng charged if the government actually wanted to do so. It is unnecessary.

KBCraig · Post by **KBCraig** » Sun Feb 12, 2006 12:55 pm

txinvestigator wrote:Your disclaimer would not keep you from beng charged if the government actually wanted to do so. It is unnecessary.

You mis-spelled "annoying".

Kevin

txinvestigator · Post by **txinvestigator** » Sun Feb 12, 2006 1:29 pm

KBCraig wrote:
txinvestigator wrote:Your disclaimer would not keep you from beng charged if the government actually wanted to do so. It is unnecessary.
You mis-spelled "annoying".

Kevin

I mis-spelled it so bad its not even there!

gigag04 · Post by **gigag04** » Sun Feb 12, 2006 3:58 pm

txinvestigator wrote:
KBCraig wrote:
txinvestigator wrote:Your disclaimer would not keep you from beng charged if the government actually wanted to do so. It is unnecessary.
You mis-spelled "annoying".

Kevin
I mis-spelled it so bad its not even there!

Translation: unnecessary should equal annoying...thus making it humorous since that is the adjective in discussion.

I get it.

pfgrone · Post by **pfgrone** » Sun Feb 12, 2006 5:14 pm

Who would have ever thought a quest for one very specific piece of information such as "Is there a minimum (caliber) needed for the CHL proficiency exam?" could have generated so many responses and so much off topic discussion. Wow. I'm impressed with the power of such a seemingly simple question.