TexasCHLforum.com

sjfcontrol wrote:

The_Busy_Mom wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:It could be argued that previous to this year, the "long class" qualified to fulfill the "other nationally recognized teaching course" (or whatever the formal wording is). And that DPS no longer wishes to spend class time on teaching to teach, or teaching basic firearms, but now wants to specialize in CHL issues only. Therefore they are now requiring NEW instructor candidates to have other training to fill the gap.

Under this logic, current instructors would NOT be out of compliance without additional certification.

I'm not saying this is or will be their logic, just a possibility to justify not requiring current instructors to have additional training.

Definitely not trying to be argumentative, but how would a curriculum developed by TEXAS DPS, specific to TEXAS statutes and administrative code, be a Nationally recognized course? The statute and administrative code says you have to meet A,B,C requirements. It doesn't really matter what someone at DPS wishes or wants to specialize in- we are bound by statute and code. Neither give an exception to the requirements, or whether the instructor is new or renewal. Of course, DPS would be able to amend the administrative code, but only legislation can change the statute. I'd beat the rush and get NRA certified - it's great information, fulfills the statute requirements, and hey, who among us doesn't support the NRA? (Insert sarcasm/smile/laugh/wink. here!!)

TBM

Reciprocity. Other states recognize the training.

Not trying to talk anybody out of the NRA course. As you know, I was there with you!