TexasCHLforum.com

sjfcontrol wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

RossA wrote:I can teach basic handgun marksmanship and safety without any NRA certification. I have been doing it for years and the NRA certification will do nothing for this part of my training. The decision to enforce this part of the law, which has not been enforced in years, makes it look like the state is simply trying to make it more difficult for us to keep our certification.

You're right, we can teach without any credentials. I did it for many years, but having NRA credentials carries weight with an increasing number of folks just getting into shooting. You really can't blame people who know nothing about firearms wanting to see that any potential instructor has been certified to teach by a recognized organization. It also makes very good insurance coverage available for only $300/annually and this covers everything you teach, including classes of your own design.

DPS didn't ignore the NRA instructor requirement in the past, then change its position. They just missed it in the rush to get the program set up. It was only recently discovered and then only because the new administration in that department ordered a complete review of their operation. Now that they realized their error, DPS has no choice but to comply with the statutory requirements. Instructors without a second certification are lucky that no anti-gun person or group became aware of this fact earlier, or they would have filed suit to disqualify those who do not meet the statutory eligibility requirements.

As I said earlier, DPS is not the least bit happy about this situation, nor is anyone else. (Okay, perhaps there are some NRA Training Counselors who are grinning, but I doubt even that.)

Chas.

So, what's changed? Why aren't the anti's suing to invalidate all the CHL licenses that have been issued since 1995?

Nothing has changed; no one knew about it until very recently. Since DPS is going to follow the law and require a second certification, there's no reason to sue, nor enough time to file suit, get it to trial, and get a judgment before the Dec. 31st deadline for renewing our instructor certificates.

Chas.

You're (purposely?) missing the point.

No I'm not purposely missing the point. The subject matter and all of the discussions have been about instructor certificates, not a citizen's CHL. I thought that's what you meant. Next time, you might consider being a little less accusatory.

sjfcontrol wrote:If I were an anti, and I became aware that every instructor teaching CHL classes since the beginning of the program weren't actually qualified ( ok, perhaps might not be qualified), I'd be suing to invalidate all the issued CHL licenses, not the instructors. Everybody would need to requalify, with qualified instructors. It wouldn't matter who knew what when. If this occurs to me, I'm sure it has occurred to others.

Then you'd lose the suit and you'd probably be ordered to pay the attorney fees of your opposition.

First, a large percentage of CHL Instructors meet the dual certification requirement so there would be no justification to "invalidate all the CHL licenses that have been issued since 1995." A plaintiff has no way to identify the students who took classes from instructors who didn't have dual certification, and that's a significant impediment to filing and/or maintaining suit.

Secondly, there would be no legal basis for "invalidating" any CHL. Instructors were certified by DPS, thus they were authorized to teach the classes. They may have been certified improvidently due to the lack of dual certification, but they were certified.

Suing to invalidate a CHL is not a viable suit, but suing DPS to prevent (and/or revoke) issuance of instructor certificates to people who do not meet the statutory eligibility requirements would be possible.

Chas.

sjfcontrol wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

RossA wrote:I can teach basic handgun marksmanship and safety without any NRA certification. I have been doing it for years and the NRA certification will do nothing for this part of my training. The decision to enforce this part of the law, which has not been enforced in years, makes it look like the state is simply trying to make it more difficult for us to keep our certification.

You're right, we can teach without any credentials. I did it for many years, but having NRA credentials carries weight with an increasing number of folks just getting into shooting. You really can't blame people who know nothing about firearms wanting to see that any potential instructor has been certified to teach by a recognized organization. It also makes very good insurance coverage available for only $300/annually and this covers everything you teach, including classes of your own design.

DPS didn't ignore the NRA instructor requirement in the past, then change its position. They just missed it in the rush to get the program set up. It was only recently discovered and then only because the new administration in that department ordered a complete review of their operation. Now that they realized their error, DPS has no choice but to comply with the statutory requirements. Instructors without a second certification are lucky that no anti-gun person or group became aware of this fact earlier, or they would have filed suit to disqualify those who do not meet the statutory eligibility requirements.

As I said earlier, DPS is not the least bit happy about this situation, nor is anyone else. (Okay, perhaps there are some NRA Training Counselors who are grinning, but I doubt even that.)

Chas.

So, what's changed? Why aren't the anti's suing to invalidate all the CHL licenses that have been issued since 1995?

Nothing has changed; no one knew about it until very recently. Since DPS is going to follow the law and require a second certification, there's no reason to sue, nor enough time to file suit, get it to trial, and get a judgment before the Dec. 31st deadline for renewing our instructor certificates.

Chas.

RossA wrote:I can teach basic handgun marksmanship and safety without any NRA certification. I have been doing it for years and the NRA certification will do nothing for this part of my training. The decision to enforce this part of the law, which has not been enforced in years, makes it look like the state is simply trying to make it more difficult for us to keep our certification.

You're right, we can teach without any credentials. I did it for many years, but having NRA credentials carries weight with an increasing number of folks just getting into shooting. You really can't blame people who know nothing about firearms wanting to see that any potential instructor has been certified to teach by a recognized organization. It also makes very good insurance coverage available for only $300/annually and this covers everything you teach, including classes of your own design.

DPS didn't ignore the NRA instructor requirement in the past, then change its position. They just missed it in the rush to get the program set up. It was only recently discovered and then only because the new administration in that department ordered a complete review of their operation. Now that they realized their error, DPS has no choice but to comply with the statutory requirements. Instructors without a second certification are lucky that no anti-gun person or group became aware of this fact earlier, or they would have filed suit to disqualify those who do not meet the statutory eligibility requirements.

As I said earlier, DPS is not the least bit happy about this situation, nor is anyone else. (Okay, perhaps there are some NRA Training Counselors who are grinning, but I doubt even that.)

Chas.

RottenApple wrote:

Jumping Frog wrote:Charles, there is also a bit of a variation on the chicken and egg dilemma that I believe exists with the NRA Instructor certification.

If you are a new NRA-certified instructor that subsequently teaches only Texas CHL classes, the NRA will not renew your NRA Instructor credentials. You have to teach a minimum number of NRA-certified classes as a new Instructor to maintain your certification. Thus, we could be looking at Texas CHL Instructors who have to re-qualify as an NRA Instructor every two years.

When I looked into becoming an NRA Instructor, I believe that is the way the Training Counselor explained it. I could be mistaken, but it is worth someone more knowledgeable than I looking into this possibility.

Brgrds,

Bob

According to my TC there is no minimum number of classes you have to teach to renew your NRA Instructor certs. There may have been n the past, I don't know. I never asked what the requirements used to be. But even if Mr. Crowe was mistaken, it's not difficult to find an instructor who needs some assistance, volunteer your time, and get credit for a class or 3.

You are correct. In the past, there was a minimum number of classes required to renew, but there is no such minimum currently. I'm talking a belt and suspenders approach by saying this is something we should address legislatively in the future, in case the NRA decides to reinstate a minimum number of classes to renew. Don't take this as a hint, I don't serve on the Education & Training Committee. In fact, I doubt the requirement would be reinstated for a number of reasons.

Chas.

Jumping Frog wrote:Charles, there is also a bit of a variation on the chicken and egg dilemma that I believe exists with the NRA Instructor certification.

If you are a new NRA-certified instructor that subsequently teaches only Texas CHL classes, the NRA will not renew your NRA Instructor credentials. You have to teach a minimum number of NRA-certified classes as a new Instructor to maintain your certification. Thus, we could be looking at Texas CHL Instructors who have to re-qualify as an NRA Instructor every two years.

When I looked into becoming an NRA Instructor, I believe that is the way the Training Counselor explained it. I could be mistaken, but it is worth someone more knowledgeable than I looking into this possibility.

Brgrds,

Bob

We need to get through this CHL Instructor renewal (2013) and this is something we need to address legislatively in 2015.

Chas.

DPS has notified instructors about sending in your CHL-90 with supporting documentation for NRA, TCLEOSE, or "other" instructor credentials. There's no reason to call DPS and ask for clarification or further information at this time.

I renew my strong recommendation that anyone who does not have one of these certifications register for an NRA Basic Pistol Instructor Class ASAP. If you read the code, it's clear that there are two qualifications for being a CHL Instructor: 1) successful completion of the CHL Instructor class; AND 2) certification as a firearms instructor by NRA, TCLEOSE, or "other." The "other" must be a nationally recognized certification for pistol instruction.

I cannot give details, but I was part of a conference with DPS and various stakeholders a few weeks ago. DPS wanted to find a way not to require it for existing instructors and various ideas were discussed. Unfortunately, the Code is absolutely clear as to instructor eligibility requirements. The DPS CHL Instructor certification cannot legally meet the requirement for the secondary certification in the "other" category because 1) the CHL class is not a course to teach handgun shooting; and 2) the statutory requirement is for two certifications.

Not a sole involved likes this situation, but this is the law. I tried to find a way around it, but none exists. There's no reason for anyone to blast DPS for enforcing the law or for not creating artificial and legally unsupportable exceptions. All it would take is a law suit by an anti-gunner and a lot of CHL instructors could find themselves subject to an injunction prohibiting them from teaching until they meet both eligibility requirements.

Do not take my post as indicating that DPS has made a final determination or that they have exhausted all efforts to find a way to help CHL instructors. I'm just relating the facts and encouraging instructors to get NRA certified instead of risking their CHL certification. As of now, there are 8 months in which to obtain NRA certification. Every month one waits increases the chance they will not be able to find an open class in time for the Dec. 31, 2013 renewal deadline. If you already have a handgun certification that you think may qualify in the "other" category, then by all means email your CHL-90 and credentials to DPS ASAP. They will contact you and let you know if that certification meets the "nationally recognized" requirement. If it does, you're good to go. If not, you will still have time to get NRA certification. (In case someone is wondering, I'm an NRA Instructor, but I'm not an NRA Training Counselor so I don't teach instructor classes.)

Chas.

Gov't Code §411.190 wrote:Sec. 411.190. QUALIFIED HANDGUN INSTRUCTORS. (a) The director may certify as a qualified handgun instructor a person who:

• (1) is certified by the Commission on Law Enforcement Officer Standards and Education or under Chapter 1702, Occupations Code, to instruct others in the use of handguns;
  
  (2) regularly instructs others in the use of handguns and has graduated from a handgun instructor school that uses a nationally accepted course designed to train persons as handgun instructors; or
  
  (3) is certified by the National Rifle Association of America as a handgun instructor.

(b) In addition to the qualifications described by Subsection (a), a qualified handgun instructor must be qualified to instruct persons in:

• (1) the laws that relate to weapons and to the use of deadly force;
  
  (2) handgun use, proficiency, and safety;
  
  (3) nonviolent dispute resolution; and
  
  (4) proper storage practices for handguns, including storage practices that eliminate the possibility of accidental injury to a child

.

Folks, I'm not playing it close to the vest; I don't have a final answer. As soon as I do, I'll post it here. I hope there is a way to avoid forcing current CHL instructors to get NRA, TCLEOSE or "other" credentials, but my strong recommendation is still to get NRA certified, if you do not want a break in your CHL Instructor certification. Don't take this as a hint that it will be required -- it's not. I'm just being cautious.

Chas.