Just for our CCW GUYS AND GALS ONLY(for fun)


PDA






Too Many Choices!?
September 26, 2005, 08:53 PM
Anybody want to post their scores for fun or is that too much info? I scored a 238/250 with a couple misses up close :rolleyes: , while nailing the 25 yrd shots like butter :evil:... Two misses and two fours dropped my score below 240:(. . Nothing in the 3's :) . Like I said both misses were up close on the 5 shot slow fire, I jerked the trigger instead of squeezing. In my defense, I was using a still new to me(at the time) Glock 23 (.40)for the class, and adjusted well after the misses to hit the longer shots(just had to focus as I was getting cocky after nailing the first mag).

If you guys want to play just list your score and how you did...What gun used, and if you have any fun ideas for your requal.

My fun idea for requal is to use my .223 AR-Pistol with red-dot or fixed 4x compact scope and attempt to get the 250 I should have got the first time(preferably with only a 3" spread this time :evil: ). That, or buy a good .22 auto pistol and mount a dot on it. I did not see anything against optics in the book ;).

If you enjoyed reading about "Just for our CCW GUYS AND GALS ONLY(for fun)" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
pax
September 26, 2005, 09:07 PM
Score for what course of fire?

pax

P12
September 26, 2005, 09:19 PM
My guess is those of us that have to shoot a qualifier for a CHL.

249/250.

Had one flier.

Springfield Armory PX9505L 9mm

TexasRifleman
September 26, 2005, 09:22 PM
249 here also on the Texas shoot. That was with my Sig 239 in .40 at my
last renewal. My original shoot to qualify was so long ago I can't remember, but it wasn't too bad.

Dropped one shot at the last one, but it was a crotch shot so it would have worked out.... :evil:

I don't think you will be able to use your .22. I believe you have to qualify with at least a .380. Not sure where I read that though... might not be correct.

Old Fuff
September 26, 2005, 09:28 PM
To Many ......

Anyway, like Pax requested ... For those of us that don't live wherever you do, please post the details of the course of fire. :uhoh: :confused: :D

Standing Wolf
September 26, 2005, 09:37 PM
We used N.R.A. bullseye 25-yard targets at seven and ten yards when I took the Colorado CCW course several years ago. My score was 299 out of a possible 300 or 249 of a possible 250: I'm not sure how many rounds we fired, but do remember a single 9.

I was shooting a Herrett-stocked six-inch Python: not a carryable gun at all, but an old-time straight shooter.

landon74
September 26, 2005, 10:02 PM
In Texas, you fire 20 rounds at 3 yards, 20 rounds at 7 yards, and 10 at 15 yards, at a silouhette of a man. Max score is 250. My instructor told us not to shoot a perfect score, because when you are called before a grand jury, the state can only release one of two things to the grand jury, either that you qualified, or that you scored a perfect. Taking that into consideration, I shot a 249.

M-Rex
September 26, 2005, 10:05 PM
438/250

I shot a lot. ;)

elric
September 26, 2005, 10:25 PM
248/250 on the Texas qual. 48 shots in the 5 zone, 2 in the 4 zone. Actually, they just counted the 2 in the 4 zone and assumed the other 48 shots were fives, since my 5 zone was mostly one big ragged fist sized hole, no way to count individual shots :).

I know I dropped one into the 4 zone at 15 yards, but I think my other one in the 4 zone came from the guy in the next lane, he was spraying all over the place!

orangeninja
September 26, 2005, 10:44 PM
I think it was a 249...the instructor was chiding me for missing one because I was a cop. :eek: :D

Old Fuff
September 26, 2005, 10:44 PM
Were you Tex-a-cans shooting at the old B-27 FBI silhouette target, or something else? Details gentlemen ... What are the details??? :D

RRTX
September 26, 2005, 10:51 PM
I think it was a 249...the instructor was chiding me for missing one because I was a cop.

Ya, he should have expected you to miss a whole lot more than that lol :neener: Old Fuff, scroll down to the bottom of this page and you will see the TX qualification target. http://www.ccgunrange.com/chl_class.html

dolanp
September 26, 2005, 11:02 PM
Perfect I think but I didn't actually get my score. There may have been one round that hit on or near the 4/5 line.

Old Fuff
September 26, 2005, 11:04 PM
Thank ya'

I went and bookmarked the page. The target is not known to me, but I should be able to find or make something with a 12" circle on it ... :evil:

chris in va
September 26, 2005, 11:08 PM
You guys have to do that?? Wow.

HighVelocity
September 26, 2005, 11:12 PM
Perfect on the firing line and the written test. :neener:

Beat up Glock 22 (2nd Gen police trade-in), 180gr remington UMC.

Azrael256
September 26, 2005, 11:12 PM
248/250 with a Springfield .45. One ragged hole COM except for one round that went astray and landed in the right arm region. Furious to this day about that, I am. My instructor joked that I was more than welcome to requalify as many times as I wanted at $25 a pop. I'll get him good when I come up for renewal.

Oh, and I aced the written test. I don't think you will be able to use your .22. I believe you have to qualify with at least a .380. It has to be a .32 or bigger, so the .22 definitely won't cut it.

scbair
September 27, 2005, 07:47 AM
250/250. I'd have done better, but they wouldn't let me use my sawed-off Ithaca pump! :banghead:

Actually, I still feel kinda bad about my qualification. I brought two handguns; the 642 I actually carry most of the ime, and my old, butter-smooth, pinned & recessed M19 Combat Magnum. I only brought the bigger revolver in the event the other shooters included any loud-mouthed braggart types. Yep, there were a few. At least two were shooting the CCW qualification with long-barreled Ruger .22 autos!! :scrutiny:

O-o-o-o-o-o-K-a-a-y . . . . I outshot both of them, using the M19, and they weren't so proud, anymore. :evil:

I've run myself through the same qualifier, at the local range, with the 642, and have absolutely no trouble qualifying, usually at or near 250, anyway. It's actually a VERY easy course of fire.

RTFM
September 27, 2005, 09:20 AM
RRTX, I should be moving back to DFW in Dec (fingers crossed)
I have a Crimson Trace Laser grip on my Sig P229 .40

Are the use of lasers allowed in qualification?

warth0g
September 27, 2005, 09:30 AM
Landon74:

"My instructor told us not to shoot a perfect score, because when you are called before a grand jury, the state can only release one of two things to the grand jury, either that you qualified, or that you scored a perfect. Taking that into consideration, I shot a 249."


Why is it a problem to get a full score in the face of a jury?

warthog

beaucoup ammo
September 27, 2005, 09:30 AM
There was a guy down to my left at the range we qualified at..nailin' the center round after round. I was impressed and asked him about the gun. He allowed it was the same we were all using in class (Glock .40) and his first time to shoot it. Some folks can show us what range time and practice can do!

Myself, I was never out of center mass and good enough to get my CHL.

Take Care

AirForceShooter
September 27, 2005, 09:48 AM
I hate tests.
Fla and a DD=214, no test and pure happiness.

AFS

ny32182
September 27, 2005, 10:11 AM
250/250. I'd have done better, but they wouldn't let me use my sawed-off Ithaca pump!

Actually, I still feel kinda bad about my qualification. I brought two handguns; the 642 I actually carry most of the ime, and my old, butter-smooth, pinned & recessed M19 Combat Magnum. I only brought the bigger revolver in the event the other shooters included any loud-mouthed braggart types. Yep, there were a few. At least two were shooting the CCW qualification with long-barreled Ruger .22 autos!!

O-o-o-o-o-o-K-a-a-y . . . . I outshot both of them, using the M19, and they weren't so proud, anymore.

I've run myself through the same qualifier, at the local range, with the 642, and have absolutely no trouble qualifying, usually at or near 250, anyway. It's actually a VERY easy course of fire.

:confused: The SC qualification was only 50 rounds, or, it was when I shot it in late 2003. It was shot at a B27 target at various distances. I shot 50/50, and that was right after I started shooting handguns. Personally, I think Vermont style carry should be the law of the land, but if they are going to have a qualifier, it should be a lot harder than SC's. What we have in place now is just retardedly easy.

I'm also curious as to why an instructor would tell you to intentionally not shoot a perfect score.

harvester of sorrow
September 27, 2005, 10:42 AM
Personally, I think Vermont style carry should be the law of the land, but if they are going to have a qualifier, it should be a lot harder than SC's.

I'm not sure why you think that. I prefer the Vermont system myself, but failing that, the way Georgia does it is way better: no class whatsoever, no qualification whatsoever, just fill out the application, get your prints done, pay your money and wait. I think our goal should be to have as many law-abiding citizens as possible carrying concealed weapons, not to place arbitrary barriers in their way. While there is a risk with a completely untrained person, I'll gladly accept that risk over encouraging the state to raise the requirements to obtain a permit.....I'm sure some politicians wish they could make you qualify at 1000 yards with your pistol to get certified. :D

waterhouse
September 27, 2005, 10:53 AM
Wow, you guys are a lot better than me. I had a 232/250 (I think) on the Texas one. I did have a pretty decent group in the chest until we moved back to 15, and then I started hitting the target's right hip, about a foot lower and 6 or so inches to the left of where I was aiming. It was a tight group in the hip though. Earlier in the class the instructor had talked about how we were supposed to shoot to stop, and that we should practice shooting the hip because if someone was all hopped up on drugs that would make them go down. He joked that if I ever shot someone in the chest and they didn't stop coming at me then I should run 15 yards away and then turn around and aim for the chest again. :D

For those that asked: In Texas the test is as follows, fired with a .32 or larger caliber from the low ready at a man sized silhouette. If you qualify with a revolver you get to carry only a revolver, if you qualify with a semi-auto you can carry either a semi or a revolver. Also, if you use a DA/SA semi, your first shot of each round will be double action and all remaining shots in the string will be single.

20 shots from 3 Yards

* One round fired in 2 seconds, 5 times
* Two rounds fired in 3 seconds, 5 times
* Five rounds fired in 10 seconds, 1 time

20 shots from 7 Yards

* Five rounds fired in 10 seconds, 1 time
* Two rounds fired in 4 seconds, 1 time
* Three rounds fired in 6 seconds, 1 time
* One round fired in 3 seconds, 5 times
* Five rounds fired in 15 seconds, 1 time

10 shots from 15 Yards

* Two rounds fired in 6 seconds, 1 time
* Three rounds fired in 9 seconds, 1 time
* Five rounds fired in 15 seconds, 1 time

ny32182
September 27, 2005, 10:57 AM
Oh... the point isn't that I want more barriers up. People who choose to carry should take it upon themselves to become proficient with their weapon. I just think that anyone carrying should be much better than SC laws require. To qualify in SC, you only have to *hit* the B27 target (anywhere on the target) 35/50 times.

beaucoup ammo
September 27, 2005, 11:14 AM
If it were any easier, the "law abiding citizens" would be joined by a wave of non-law abiding citizens. If you've got nada to hide..why make it easier for an army of scum bags to legally pack? They carry sans license for the most part anyway.

Even the marginally acceptable could "go off" on a Houston or San Antonio free-way in a moment of road rage. And, in fact have. No thanks. I say keep the current system in place in Texas. From the day I took the class to the day my license arrived in the mail: 5 weeks. I can live with that.

Go Spurs!

Take Care

bamawrx
September 27, 2005, 11:18 AM
That sounds like a cool test. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad we have so such thing here, but it does sound fun.

Kramer Krazy
September 27, 2005, 11:27 AM
SC here, too.....got a 100% on both the written and shooting sections (we shot 10 rounds in five-shot groups at 5, 10, 15, 20, and 25 yards at a B-27). What I really didn't care for with the shooting part was the people who were not following the directions. Our instructor didn't want you to actually aim, but to point, and you were also to fire rapidly. Some of the guys were so afraid of getting low scores that I would fire off all five of my rounds and have my gun holstered before they were done with their second or third shot. My wife took the course with me, also, and was getting a kick out of how quickly I was shooting and reholstering before they were finished. There was one guy shooting so slow and getting such a small group, that the instructor actually singled him out and informed him that he had paid for "the whole target". My wife was getting frustrated because her shots weren't as good as the other guys, but I informed her that in a gun fight, she'd have shot them twice before they ever got a round off, so she'd be the one still standing.....which is your goal.

middy
September 27, 2005, 11:54 AM
They didn't give us our scores on the TX range qualification when I took it. They said the rules had changed and it was pass/fail with the score neither disclosed nor recorded. From what I saw on my target I scored about 235, but I wasn't focusing much, just going for COM hits and focusing on working the safety perfectly on the new 1911 I was using.

beaucoup ammo
September 27, 2005, 12:06 PM
At the range (Glock .40) for my CHL, and now at home with my KAHR P9 (Great little concealment weapon) I find it vey difficult to load my clips. Granted, I suffer from a degenerative muscle disease (not ALS..Post Polio), so I'm slowly losing strength..but I still have a strong grip and no other strength related problems with my hands.

The qualifying range was my first experience with a semi-auto..a S&W .357 model 65-3 my long time Pal.

Are the springs all that strong..?

Also, how long can you keep a full clip before the spring's integrity is compromised?

Lot's of questions I realize..but very important to me.

Thanks..

Take Care

Chrontius
September 27, 2005, 12:20 PM
Mag springs don't usually go bad from sitting around loaded, if they aren't too badly squished. It's loading and unloading them where the metal fatigue really happens.

harvester of sorrow
September 27, 2005, 12:35 PM
If it were any easier, the "law abiding citizens" would be joined by a wave of non-law abiding citizens. If you've got nada to hide..why make it easier for an army of scum bags to legally pack? They carry sans license for the most part anyway.

:confused: The non-law abiding would join in a wave to comply with the law? Like they do with drugs? Or raping people and robbing convenience stores? Laws only affect the law abiding. The law abiding should be left alone to do whatever they want to do. :)

beaucoup ammo
September 27, 2005, 12:49 PM
Lowering the requirements, IMO, would indeed allow a less desireable segment of socity into the CHL number. Like a good brisket, Texas' proceedure is Just Right. Not too invasive...and not that easy to obtain.

There is a population group that would jump at the chance to obtain a CHL.. were it not for what amounts to the really benign back ground check required here in Texas.

"Grey Area" is a phrase that's used often because it covers just the people I refer to.

Thanks

Gunpacker
September 27, 2005, 12:52 PM
In FL my course of fire was ONE SHOT to show you know enough to operate the gun. I shot at a target with dozens of holes in it already from previous members of our class. Instructor didn't even glance at the target. Simply said "pass". Now I am an accomplished shooter, the target was typical man sized, and about 10 feet away. I was looking but darned if I could tell where I hit. Now I are a gunman.
Actually seems to be reasonable to me. Do we want to disqualify folks from protecting themselves with an arbitrary test, when a good shot can shoot a bystander with a slight miss also??

harvester of sorrow
September 27, 2005, 01:01 PM
Lowering the requirements, IMO, would indeed allow a less desireable segment of socity into the CHL number.

Well, I've lived in Texas now for the last 7 years, but I grew up in Georgia. Based on what I see, I don't think Texas people are much different from Georgia people. In Georgia, as I stated before, there is no training or qualification necessary, just a background check and a filing fee (iirc less than about $30). I've never heard of any problems there with "shady" characters getting permits and committing crimes with them, and I'm pretty sure that the media of any state would blare a story like that from the rooftops given the opportunity.

ETA: of course, I think even Georgia's system is too invasive. ;)

Also ETA: sorry for the hijack

FunGunner
September 27, 2005, 01:16 PM
I think mine was just hit the black 20 times, and you'er done. So using 1911 8 rounders, it was a three mag IPSC style bullet dump at 7 yards. I passed by a good bit, but still finished way before everyone else.

beaucoup ammo
September 27, 2005, 01:39 PM
If you rated a state's requirements to obtain a CHL (1 being the easiest)..

I'd prefer the 5 to 7 range myself for the reasons I mentioned earlier. Like a kitchen strainer traps the garbage.

As for the "Media", I spent 35 years in those trenches and not one (1) local or national outlet would shout Anything from the roof tops without the owner's OK.

Regardless of the story, it would never see day light should it disagree with the owner's stance.

Thanks

pax
September 27, 2005, 02:08 PM
Lowering the requirements, IMO, would indeed allow a less desireable segment of socity into the CHL number. Like a good brisket, Texas' proceedure is Just Right. Not too invasive...and not that easy to obtain.
*sigh*

Okay, let me put this as kindly as I possibly can: what you just said was very selfish and elitist.

Silly, too, because as has already been pointed out, criminals don't bother with the law.

"Not too invasive" means, "it doesn't affect me." But it does affect other people, people you referred to as "a less desireable segment of society." Someone more blunt would have called them "poor people" -- folks who can't afford to jump through expensive and utterly unnecessary hoops in order to exercise a basic human right.

Folks like my next door neighbors, good, hard-working folks who live in a very poor rural community and who are raising a passel of kids on hand-me-downs and boiled dishrag soup. I was talking to the mom awhile back, and the subject of guns came up. I told her about the free classes at the shooting range up the hill, and she was absolutely thrilled to hear about 'em. Then she asked, "How hard is it to get a carry permit here?"

In WA, it's not hard at all. You go in, let 'em take your paw prints, give 'em a half-century note, and wait a few weeks. No hassle, no required classes. But there is that fifty dollars' tax to be paid.

I told her that. She sighed and said, "Well, I have to buy groceries this pay cycle because the garden's not producing enough yet. Maybe I can save up for it, and get it a couple months from now."

But she knew -- and I know from observation -- that they'll have some minor emergency, like a broken car or a kid who needs a trip to the doctor, and she won't be able to pay the government for the enormous privilege of carrying her personal property with her when she leaves the house.

The pathetic thing is, if they were freeloaders on the system, they'd be getting food stamps and free medical, and would probably have the spare cash to pay the tax on protecting themselves. They aren't, so they don't. That "not too invasive" tax keeps them from being able to exercise a basic human right.

And well meaning folks like you think this is a good thing.

pax

Every radish I ever pulled up seemed to have a mortgage attached to it. -- Ed Wynn

thereisnospoon
September 27, 2005, 02:13 PM
I just had to pay $20.00

No skills required, just a body temp and a sawbuck...

ny32182
September 27, 2005, 02:14 PM
+1 on pax's post.

harvester of sorrow
September 27, 2005, 02:17 PM
Pax, exactly.

honkeoki
September 27, 2005, 02:17 PM
Well said, Pax.

Like GunPacker, I only had to fire a single shot into a torso target at 3 yards. The target was completely riddled with holes and the only way to fail the test seemed to be to cover the instructor with the barrel of HIS Sp101. Needless to say, I didn't.

But a couple of people did. :eek:

beaucoup ammo
September 27, 2005, 02:40 PM
Washington? I live in South Texas where the border is a joke! You need guns..but you need guidelines to keep guns out of the hands of the endless wave of aliens and the people. Endless.

Here's the bottom line: I respect your participation in this, but really have to question your interpretation of my post.

Silly? Maybe to you. Very serious to us so close to the Mexican Boarder...and the San Antonio INS HQ 1 mile away. I've seen people there you would not want to Hand a gun to!

Elitist? :O) Hardly. It's your interpretation..but waay off target!

Thanks for the input..after all, it'd be mighty dull with a bunch of bobble heads!

Thanks, Pax

Azrael256
September 27, 2005, 02:42 PM
They didn't give us our scores on the TX range qualification when I took it. Yeah, I didn't actually get mine, either (In TX. I'm in OK for schoolin'). They've been doing the pass/fail thing for quite some time. We didn't actually get a score on the written test, either. Obviously all of that information might someday come up in court, so it is destroyed right after testing.

But, since the instructor went over the questions missed on the written test, and I could plainly see my target (I have good eyes), I know just how I did.

beaucoup ammo
September 27, 2005, 02:52 PM
Because of our large geographic size and population, electoral importance and our proximity to Mexico, Texas' experience with concealed carry has come under sustained attack. Pax, you're not alone in your views.

Before passage, opponents predicted a decline in public safety, with minor incidents escalating into killings as the concealed carry law placed more guns in irresponsible hands. Further, critics claimed that criminals would be undeterred by an increase in armed citizens. Both predictions were Wrong.

And the Reason for that..in large part...are the CHL requirements here in the Lone Star State...larger than many countries..and all but 1 state!:O)

Thanks

Vic303
September 27, 2005, 02:54 PM
We didn't get our scores on the range portion of the test in 2003. I lost track of where I was hitting after the ragged hole in the middle of the target got too big to spot individual hits... :p and that was with my Kimber Ultra...!

As far as the difficulty in getting a CHL in TX, it has gotten easier and cheaper and is good for longer, now, than it was in 2003. At least cheaper for some--not all. It is still expensive for most folks I will admit, but there are plenty of 'loopholes' to cut the price. Plus our reciprocity has improved dramaticaly in the last 2 yrs too.

Pax, maybe you could help your neighbor raise some funds for her ticket. Have a 2-family garage sale with her or something. Or if the woman is 'crafty' like making blankets/quilts etc, maybe offer to sell some at the office for her? OR sell stuff for her on eBay.

ny32182
September 27, 2005, 03:06 PM
Illegal aliens wouldn't be albe to pass a background check, and obviously don't care about the law, so, the CCW laws, whatever they are, are never going to matter to them anyway.

RTFM
September 27, 2005, 03:08 PM
PAX, I "heart" you.
Please come home, re-cross the border. The land of ID is empty now.

Back on topic.

Hey TX CCL folks. I ask again, are lasers allowed during your qualifications?

beaucoup ammo
September 27, 2005, 03:08 PM
"In 1998 and again in 1999, the Violence Policy Center, a research organization opposed to concealed carry (Editor`s note: VPC seeks a total ban on handgun ownership), released reports highlighting the numbers of Texas` concealed carry licensees who have been arrested since the law went into effect. Using Texas Department of Public Safety records, the center pointed out that Texas licensees had been arrested for nearly two crimes a day through 1998--with more than one arrest each month for a violent crime.
In isolation, these numbers paint a troubling picture.

However, the reports are misleading for several reasons. First, they do not separate crimes that involve concealed weapons from those that don`t. In addition, they ignore the fact that more than 55 percent of licensees arrested for violent crimes are cleared of the crimes for which they are arrested. Most tellingly, when the arrest rates of Texas` concealed carry holders are compared with those of the general population, licensees are found to be more law-abiding than the average person."...NRA

IMO, that's because the Texas Test is constructed to assure that very statistic.

Thanks

pax
September 27, 2005, 03:11 PM
Vic303 ~ the problem was taken care of. :)

beaucoup ammo ~ I'm familiar with how it is in border states, having lived for quite awhile near the border in AZ. My observation then, and my conviction now, is that criminals don't obey laws, and that illegal aliens don't bother paying taxes. Concealed-carry requirements are, in effect, both laws and taxes -- and as the requirements become stricter, the related taxes become higher. Such requirements primarily affect only people who obey laws and pay taxes, and thus they disproportionately affect honest people like my next door neighbors.

pax

harvester of sorrow
September 27, 2005, 03:16 PM
You need guns..but you need guidelines to keep guns out of the hands of the endless wave of aliens and the people.

Interesting....I live about 28 miles off the border with nothing between us and it but ranch land (which the 2000 census determined was in one of the poorest areas in the country). I live in the area you are talking about. You still don't get it. Criminals are all doing these things already. Criminals will always be able to get guns, and will always carry them. Your assertion that we can "control" who can legally carry guns by keeping stringent requirements is meaningless. So what if we can? That won't affect those who depend on breaking the law for their lifestyle and livelihood. California has much more stringent requirements for carrying a gun than Texas in that in many places only the ultra-rich or politically-connected can get permits, would you hold up California's violent crime as representative of the success of your policy?

There will always be more law-abiding citizens than criminals (we would certainly hope). The absolute best way to deter and address crime is to make it as cheap and painless as possible for ALL of the law-abiding citizens to arm themselves ALL the time.

beaucoup ammo
September 27, 2005, 03:25 PM
"A citizen of a foreign country, wishing to enter the U.S., generally must first obtain a visa, either a nonimmigrant visa for temporary stay, or an immigrant visa for permanent residence."

The lines at the INS Office (1 block off I-35N) run out the door and down the block. Why? They all want in.

I own a ranch outside Hondo. The tracks I find heading North aren't made by white tails wearing Adidas.

As for California's requirements...I think Texas' are just right.

Thanks

harvester of sorrow
September 27, 2005, 03:37 PM
So even though Texas's concealed carry requirements could be much less expensive and much less arduous, they are actually just right because there are lots of aliens, illegal or otherwise, who walk across your ranch to the immigration office.....makes perfect sense to me, now. :confused:

Correia
September 27, 2005, 03:56 PM
beaucoup, I totally disagree with you. And not only do I disagree with you, as a CCW instructor, I go out of my way to teach poor people. I charge less than any other local instructors that I'm aware of, and I've taught many folks with the provision that they pay me when they are able to. It is bad enough that the state needs money for the background check, but there is no reason to make it expensive.

I grew up dirt poor. That family from pax's example would have been the Joneses we were trying to keep up with. :) Poor folks need CCW just as much, (and based on where they live) even more so that the middle class and affluent.

As for keeping guns out of the hands of illegals? Huh? Your train of thought has elluded me. Illegal aliens are breaking the law anyway. And even if you made getting a CCW easier/cheaper, they are still in the country illegally and won't be able to get the permit anyway. So what you are worried about are American citizens who are poorer and browner than you are, carrying guns.

Keep in mind that the criminals you are worried about are already armed.

Personally I would love to see Alaska style carry in more states.

HankB
September 27, 2005, 04:04 PM
Funny how many scored 249/250 on the TX CHL test, including yours truly.

I had a ragged hole in the middle of the five ring with only a few strays slightly outside the main group . . . but there was a round down below the navel in my target. What the . . . ???

It turned out the woman in the lane next to me missed her target entirely a number of times, so I figure one of her errant shots put the extra hole in my target. :(

FWIW, the TX test is supposedly modeled on "typical" qualification requirements for sworn LEOs.

res1b3uq
September 27, 2005, 05:09 PM
Hey TX CCL folks. I ask again, are lasers allowed during your qualifications?

beaucoup ammo
September 27, 2005, 05:10 PM
I'm pointing out the number of folks getting immigrant visas for permanent residence. Period. They are allowed to carry CHL's in Texas. And, rich or poor, there are many people from Mexico moving into this country. You imply I might have something against poor people?! Read all the posts..not even close! I'm in South Texas, Correa..have lived here for over 50 years..and am surprised at your assertions.

As moderators you and pax lead by example. I take it "elitist".."silly" and Your :"So what you are worried about are American citizens who are poorer and browner than you are, carrying guns" are acceptable in exchanging views here. Have you lowered the bar or is this business as usual?

Regardless of misinterpretations and tendencies to rush to conclusion, I enjoy the discourse..but doubt I'll take the low road that's been paved today.

Take Care

ny32182
September 27, 2005, 05:15 PM
The ones who are going to the trouble of getting visas for permanent residence are the ones who are following the law. Is there some reason they should be denied the right to defend themselves?

beaucoup ammo
September 27, 2005, 05:26 PM
Sorry for the delay....NO, they are NOT.

Take Care

beaucoup ammo
September 27, 2005, 05:29 PM
Not at all! And it ISN'T incumbant upon instructors to teach their classes in English either. Only key phrases like "I have a hand gun."

Thanks

ny32182
September 27, 2005, 05:34 PM
Not at all!

Then who, exactly, is it that is eligible to have a permit, yet you think should be kept from having one?

Charles S
September 27, 2005, 05:50 PM
An interesting discussion.

I scored a 250 last time I took the test.

Chares

beaucoup ammo
September 27, 2005, 06:07 PM
I'm in favor of the current Texas CHL exams as they are today. Not as lax as some states or as outrageously stringent as others..period.

"In Texas licensees are found to be more law-abiding than the average person."..NRA

I attribute that to our exam here in Texas, Bad Boy.

That was my point this morning.. and is my final point on the subject now.

Take Care

ny32182
September 27, 2005, 06:18 PM
CWP holders in all states are found to be more law abiding than the average person... not just in Texas.

You've failed to provide any logical reason as to why getting a CWP should be out of the reach of anyone who qualifies for one. The reason for that is that there *is* no good reason, and fixing the problem is supposedly one of the things that the NRA is lobbying for across the country. And, they've been doing well recently. Good day...

Correia
September 27, 2005, 06:33 PM
No low road, but being poorer and browner than most here ( :) ) I can't really see any other logical reasoning behind your assertions. The people who goe through the immigration process, and get their legal visas, and jump through all of the hoops should be allowed the same rights as everybody else.

Would you have denied somebody like Marko Kloos or Oleg Volk their right to keep and bear arms before they obtained their citizenship? Or would that not have been an issue with a German and a Russian?

beaucoup ammo
September 27, 2005, 06:48 PM
I see you as a proud person, as we ALL our. Your only problem..in my opinion...is assuming things without knowing who you're talking to OR what Their background may be, Correia.

This day was worth it..if for no other reason than learning from you and Pax just how low the bar can go here..as the Moderators certainly aren't exempt from the rules any more than the rest of us. Educational And Informative. Two good things.

Take Care

pax
September 27, 2005, 07:00 PM
beaucoup ammo ~

Sometimes, when I'm posting, I forget that there are human beings hidden behind the screen I see. Please forgive me for being insensitive; it wasn't intentional.

I said your argument -- that people who are already breaking laws can be deterred from doing so simply by passing more restrictive laws -- was silly, and so it is. But I in no way meant to imply that you are yourself silly. If you took it that way, I truly am sorry.

The belief that only people rich enough to pay an exorbitant and unnecessary tax should be allowed to exercise a fundamental human right is indeed elitist. I probably should have used a less divisive word than that one, but that word means exactly what I meant to say: that such a belief suggests that wealthy people should have rights that are denied to poorer people. My next door neighbor's right to arm herself is her birthright as an American citizen and as a human being. When people come along and say that the laws must be restrictive, otherwise "less desireable" people might be armed, they are talking about her, and people like her. I can find no other word in the dictionary but "elitist" to describe such a belief.

Since you are not yourself an elitist, I urge you to reconsider your beliefs about who should, and should not, be allowed the "privilege" of bearing arms.

pax

Smoke
September 27, 2005, 07:06 PM
TX here.

249/250

I was FTS drills from the short range (two to the pump one to the head)
Instructor fussed at me on the 3 yrd line for doing it, said I might not pass if I missed too many. I continued to put every 3rd shot in the head until we hit the max distance then just took torso shots. I dropped my next to the last shot just .5" below the line.

He passed me.


Smoke

Farnham
September 27, 2005, 07:33 PM
245/250, but my "miss" was a .45 caliber hole, and I was shooting a Glock 17 9mm. :rolleyes:

S/F

Farnham

Old Fuff
September 27, 2005, 08:43 PM
We seem to have drifted from the original post, but anyway.

I see three issues here:

1. Training: Yes, I think that CCL applicants should get enough classroom to insure they understand safe handling practices, and how handguns work and how to care for them. Safe storage also comes into this. They also should be knowledgeable about the laws they have to work under, and what is O.K. and what isn't. In my book one can't be over trained or educated, but of course there must be a limit.

2. Shooting expertise: A CCL holder doesn't need the skills of an IPSC champion or competitor, but the do need to be able to hit a target in a critical area in distances up to 10 yards. Further is better, but not necessary for an initial qualification.

3. Cost: Should be kept at an absolute minimum. The right to self-defense belongs to all, rich or poor. It is a human right that should not be based on economics.

For the record. I live in Arizona, and on a clear day I can see mountains on the horizon that are in Mexico. I have absolutely no qualms about the "wrong people" getting CCL licenses. The "wrong people" don't give a zip about laws or licenses anyway. I once knew an old Arizona lawman that put it this way, I dont care who carries a gun or how they do it. What I care about is how they use it, and if they use it illegally Ill do something about it.

Correia
September 27, 2005, 08:47 PM
Yep, that's me and pax allright. Low road. Yep. Horrible examples.

Answer my question in a straight forward manner then, rather than casting aspersions on the moderation here. Do you have a problem with somebody like Oleg or Marko or Preacherman (who are white and middle class immigrants) exercising their God given right to keep and bear arms, or is it just the Mexicans down in your area who make you uncomfortable?

I don't know your background. I can only go off of what you have posted. And what you have posted here today indicates to me that you take issue with having people armed who are not as worthy as you are. I'm not putting any words in your mouth, or calling you any names. I'm questioning your posts.

You think it is a good idea to have CCW be more expensive and complex than it needs to be, to keep a certain class of people out. When called on this you talked about all of the Mexicans standing in line at the Immigration office. What other conclusion am I supposed to draw?

As for my background, I know Mexicans pretty well. Thanks. They are about like any other group. Most of them are great folks. They have plenty of criminals too. (I was beaten almost to death by a gang of Nortenos, and the closest I ever came to shooting somebody in self defense was an illegal Mexican, at the time I didn't care where he was from, as I was more tuned in to the little pistol in his hand). Do you really for one millisecond believe that the dangerous criminal element gives a hoot what the paper work is like to get a CCW? Do you really think the legal immigrants who take the time to go through the system are the issue? Since these folks end up living in the same neighborhoods as the criminal element you are so worried about, shouldn't they be able to carry firearms to defend themselves?

Jenrick
September 27, 2005, 09:21 PM
I have to agree with Old Fuff and take say that the a CHL liscense should involve a bit more then filling out some paper work.

I agree with point 1, there does need to be a discussion of the legal ramification of the employment of a CCW, the legality of CC, what exactly entials CC vs. open carry (if your state allows, which I think they all should, but that's a different topic), fire arm safety, and safe storage. Additionally I think that people should spend a significant amount of time in class dry firing from their CC rig, and in general working on proficency.

I feel that demonstrating proficeny in any form of controlled test environment isn't the most effective method. Look at the normal range average of LEO vs. actual LOD shooting averages. Then again I don't have any suggestions on how to do it better so I say leave it as it stands.

I completely agree that the cost is way to high currently. Beyond the processing fee for getting you your CHL card (which if the information is kept on your DL, wouldn't be a factor), there really shouldn't be anything else to worry about. I can do get my DL at a state owned and run facility, and don't have to provide my own car even. Why can't the state provide a classroom, range, and ammo?

Ideally all states would allow open carry, thus removing the majority of the issue. I do feel all firearms owners and beares should have some training and schooling (whether that's home schooled or by the state is up to the individual) and that the state should assist in everyway possible an individual in exercising their right.

-Jenrick

pax
September 27, 2005, 10:20 PM
Old Fuff ~

First, I agree with you that there are a lot of things that people who carry weaponry ought to know. I agree with you so strongly on that point that I spend a lot of my time volunteering to teach these things to people who need to know them. A person who carries a pistol but has never armed himself with the legal, tactical, and practical knowledge of how and when to use it, is worse than ignorant in my book.

But I utterly, categorically reject the notion that a person ought to be prohibited from exercising a fundamental human right until such time as some government bureaucrat has rubber-stamped their ability to do so.

Furthermore, it is my contention that when the laws are set so that people have to shoot to a minimum standard, the cost of available training goes up while the quality of such training goes down.

The costs go up because trainers have to be certified, approved, and rubber-stamped by the state. They have to pay whatever guild fees the bureaucrats demand.

The quality goes down because each instructor is no longer responsible to his own personal conscience as to what his students learn and how well the students learn it. He doesn't develop his own curriculum and thus he no longer has much personally invested in what his students learn. Instead he is given a list of very minimal standard requirements. The students aren't expected to master the requirements, either, but only to meet some (usually low) standard score to which the instructor will be able to point if the student ever gets in trouble.

The requirements might vary from one state to another but they all have one thing in common: they encourage people who have met the minimum score to think of themselves as "trained." Individuals begin to believe that if they can pass a very (very very) simple test of marksmanship, they are equipped to enter into deadly combat and not just survive, but prevail. Generally speaking, this isn't really true; people who have met the minimum requirement and have learned nothing else are really not yet equipped to win a deadly encounter -- although even in such a poorly trained status, they may be lightyears ahead of an ordinary unarmed person. The problem is that people stop there, and because the government says it's good enough, they believe it really is.

In addition to all that, every required hurdle is just that -- a hurdle -- which will eliminate a certain small but predictable number of people from obtaining a CCW. Higher costs mean fewer poor people. More hassle means fewer busy people. More intrusive screening means fewer cynical people. Written testing means fewer dyslexic people and no illiterate people.

Meanwhile, my next-door neighbor still has the basic human right to protect herself.

Doesn't she?

pax

That a free citizen should have to go before a committee, hat in hand, and pray for permission to bear arms - fantastic! Arm your daughter, sir, and pay no attention to petty bureaucrats. -- Robert Heinlein

pete f
September 27, 2005, 10:23 PM
I had to shoot twice, long story, but my car was broken in to and my documents stolen, I shot 250 for 250 the first time 250 the second too. funny thing was i had three 38 sized holes in my target too, but the guy next to me, a retired FPS (federal protection service) agent was trying to qualify for a permit to get a psd job. he was shooting a 4" 686 with 38 wadcutters. I was shooting a paraord p13 the first time, a Colt Commander the second, The FPS guy made some comment about "auto for show, wheel gun for go...." Instructor gave him some advice on not being hasty to jump to judgement.

f4t9r
September 28, 2005, 03:57 PM
Dont remember the score But I hit the target everytime and passed the coarse
The guy next to me could not hit the broad side of a barn but he passed too
after borrowing my Kimber

3rdpig
September 28, 2005, 05:55 PM
I don't remember the number scores, but the first time I took the course here in AZ I used a Sig P220 and passed 100%, the renewal course I used a S&W 3913 and had one flyer. The flyer was my fault, the ranges are so close that I must have gotten sloppy. The next time around I'll use either a Glock 22 or Glock 26 and I'll pay more attention.

The CCW I had in Washington State before I moved to AZ 12 years ago didn't have a shooting test either for the initial license or the renewal.

If you enjoyed reading about "Just for our CCW GUYS AND GALS ONLY(for fun)" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!