TexasCHLforum.com

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.

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.

mikeloc wrote:I emailed the CHL-90 to DPS April 23rd and never even received an acknowledgement that they received it.

sent to RSD_LRS_CHL@dps.texas.gov


Mike

howdy wrote:

G.C.Montgomery wrote:Missed all of you as well but, I've been tied up with one thing or another for a couple years. Will certainly strive to be more active going forward. Someone posted a new thread about an email I guess we all got from DPS. All I can say is what a waste of time. It doesn't clear anything up as the RSD isn't likely to change its requirements in September because there won't' be enough time to deal with it at that point. As I mentioned before, I'm just going to move forward with the NRA certification. I just have to clear my schedule and get my company to stop using the mushroom farmer's school of management.

Would that be "kept in the dark and fed manure"

RossA wrote:My instructors license doesn't expire until the end of this year. I can afford to wait a couple of more months to see what the Legislature does. If I can save almost $300 in fees and an entire weekend worth of time it will be worth it.

The_Busy_Mom wrote:

longtooth wrote:I am registered for May 25th & not really waiting for yall to win the case.

I tend to see things differently from most people around me. Not that I don't agree/do agree with them. I just have always been the one who arrives at the same answer different than 99% of the people solving the same problem. In the end, we all arrive at the same solution, I just get there differently. I also think it's great to have discussion - I never even thought of acutal reciprocity indicating national firearms program recognition. I don't necessarily agree with that, but SJF definitely makes a point that I hadn't thought about.

Feedback = Muy Bien!

TBM

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