TexasCHLforum.com

Bily Lovec wrote:during my first renewal many years ago the guy shooting next to me was doing headshots only at the first stage.

I'm convinced they changed the target because of people taking head shots.

I saw people in my last renewal that looked like they failed. I know a few people shot again after everyone else was done. There were a few people with cheap Hi points or other pistols. Some of them had trouble with them. In my first class, a guy brought in a cheap Jennings 9mm new in box that he hadn't cleaned or oiled or shot at all. The instructor helped him out with a liberal amount of oil and he managed to get the pistol to work. I was upset that my ParaOrdnance P14 failed on me for the first time ever in the middle of the test (FTE). I have since changed the extractor and it has been dang near perfect since.

my instructor had us fill out that we passed the proficiency test before we even had the test

I thought the test was just a formality. This thread surprised me.

I had an uncle tell me to not get a perfect score on purpose because a perfect score could be used against me at a trial. He claimed that the prosecutor could argue that I was such a crack shot that I could have shot to wound instead of kill. I realize that is against the training, but it seemed like a valid point.

er....NO.

BTin wrote:I thought the test was just a formality. This thread surprised me.

I had an uncle tell me to not get a perfect score on purpose because a perfect score could be used against me at a trial. He claimed that the prosecutor could argue that I was such a crack shot that I could have shot to wound instead of kill. I realize that is against the training, but it seemed like a valid point.

I think the score that goes to DPS is pass/fail.

boomerang wrote:

BTin wrote:I thought the test was just a formality. This thread surprised me.

I had an uncle tell me to not get a perfect score on purpose because a perfect score could be used against me at a trial. He claimed that the prosecutor could argue that I was such a crack shot that I could have shot to wound instead of kill. I realize that is against the training, but it seemed like a valid point.

I think the score that goes to DPS is pass/fail.

Correct.

Additionally, the argument fails even legal logic... a crack shot isn't an anatomy expert. A shot to the leg that strikes the femoral artery is more likely to kill than a shot that hits the chest and goes through a lung, for example. So "I shot him in the leg to stop him" is actually pretty likely to make someone bleed out quickly.

I knew many folks (including my 2nd ex-wife when she was Active Duty) that would shoot during pre-qual all week long high Sharp-shooter to Expert and ALWAYS clutch on qual day. Knowing it counts throws many folks off...

boomerang wrote:

BTin wrote:I thought the test was just a formality. This thread surprised me.

I had an uncle tell me to not get a perfect score on purpose because a perfect score could be used against me at a trial. He claimed that the prosecutor could argue that I was such a crack shot that I could have shot to wound instead of kill. I realize that is against the training, but it seemed like a valid point.

I think the score that goes to DPS is pass/fail.

It is, and that is why our Instructor threw away our targets after checking to see if we failed or passed.

CHL Class is a GREAT place to learn to Shoot…!

...or see if your gun works....

...or a great place to TRY out your NEW gun that you have NEVER shot...!

RIGHT?????

NOT!!!

SHEESH! Out of a class of 22 or so folks there were at least 5 folks that fell into the above. Crazy.

One gal brought a brand-new revolver (S&W Ladysmith .357) that she wanted to try - she was blissfully unaware of the SA / NSA classification/restriction...the instructors encouraged her to shoot an auto - one of theirs (for $20)...she insisted on going home to get a gun - her dad gave her some relic Ruger auto that repeatedly failed.

One person shot a 30 year old gun that hadn't been shot in 25 years.

An older guy next to me on the firing line had a nice-looking piece - he didn't shoot so well, he shanked quite a few...as in "not in the scoring area" of the target - especially on the 15 yard shoot (the last part)...he threw a TEMPER TANTRUM and threw down his empty mag after shooting. Well, that's great, especially when they want everyone on the line to show empty mag / cleared gun...I think he passed though.

I don't know Pucker, I shot my Glock 36 for the first time on the qualifying range for my CHL without any problems. Of course, it wasn't the first time I'd ever shot any gun, just that one. I will admit that I was pretty nervous taking the test and shanked a few of the first rounds due to that but I certainly did pass without any real effort.

I'm sure we've all heard the opinion "if you can't pass the DPS qualifying course for a CHL you really shouldn't own a gun, much less carry one." While I don't actually feel that way I have to say there may be some validity to that viewpoint. I've honestly wondered why we're required to prove proficiency in such a rudimentary fashion. If you're just going to make the test so easy that anyone can pass it why don't we just do away with the test? Frankly I'm irked that we have to take a test to exercise a right to begin with.

HKUSP45C wrote:I'm sure we've all heard the opinion "if you can't pass the DPS qualifying course for a CHL you really shouldn't own a gun, much less carry one." While I don't actually feel that way I have to say there may be some validity to that viewpoint. I've honestly wondered why we're required to prove proficiency in such a rudimentary fashion. If you're just going to make the test so easy that anyone can pass it why don't we just do away with the test? Frankly I'm irked that we have to take a test to exercise a right to begin with.

I am going to quess, but requiring a proficiency test was probably one of the compromises made in order get the CHL legislation passed.

WildBill wrote:

HKUSP45C wrote:I'm sure we've all heard the opinion "if you can't pass the DPS qualifying course for a CHL you really shouldn't own a gun, much less carry one." While I don't actually feel that way I have to say there may be some validity to that viewpoint. I've honestly wondered why we're required to prove proficiency in such a rudimentary fashion. If you're just going to make the test so easy that anyone can pass it why don't we just do away with the test? Frankly I'm irked that we have to take a test to exercise a right to begin with.

I am going to quess, but requiring a proficiency test was probably one of the compromises made in order get the CHL legislation passed.

From what I understand, the test is required for other states to honor reciprocity. We could do away with the test but a lot of states would stop honoring Texas CHL's.

FWIW, I think there's a difference between carrying and owning. I would never deny somebody's right to own a firearm to protect their house or vehicle, no matter how bad of a shot they were. We need to be careful. . . there are a lot of elderly, infirm, or disabled people who would struggle to pass the CHL proficiency test but might be able to defend themselves at point-blank range in a bad situation. The important thing is to know your limitations and never take a shot beyond your skill level. If you can't hit a certain distance in the range, you definitely shouldn't plan on making it count in a stressful situation.

fickman wrote:FWIW, I think there's a difference between carrying and owning.

Yes. It's the difference between keeping and bearing arms.