No Need For NRA Certfication? Here's What The Auditor Said

[Charles L. Cotton]

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.

[sjfcontrol]

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. 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.

[Charles L. Cotton]

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.

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.

[howdy]

I can take the hint. I signed up for the Pistol Instructor's course on May 11, and the BIT the night before. I'll give a review after the course.

[switch]

Instead of complaining about DPS requiring the new NRA certification, we should be thanking them for letting get away w/it for almost 20 years. :) Actually, does not affect me because I've been NRA certified for years.

Incidentally, if you let your NRA cert lapse (don't pay the fees :) ), you can renew it by paying the current years fee as long as it has not be lapsed over 5 years (per NRA).