TexasCHLforum.com

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

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

Keith B wrote:

MasterOfNone wrote:

The_Busy_Mom wrote:I believe wholeheartedly that DPS isn't going to keep Instructors in limbo any longer than it takes for the legislative session to end.

But they ARE keeping us in limbo by not giving us ANY information. If they are planning to wait for the legislative session to end, they could simply tell us that. Remember, the year started with DPS sending renewal notices, then going silent.

I said this here http://texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php? ... 15#p770885" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. I know it dodn't come direct from them, but I stated it was info I got straight from a reliable source in DPS.

I didn't say they weren't keeping you in limbo, I said I believed they wouldn't keep you in limbo any longer than the end of the session. And if we are going only by statute, then you really aren't in limbo - you aren't in compliance. (The word 'You' is for any instructor who doesn't have the NRA/TECLEOSE/etc. certification, not directed at Keith.) But I understand that there was someone at DPS, way back when, that said you could take the long class vs. short class, etc. I get it. But in the end, the statute and the Admin Rules are what we ultimately have to comply with. Hey, DPS might get to the end of the legislative session, and decide of the approx. 3,000 instructors, X amount are NRA certified, X amount are TECLEOSE, so a very small percentage might actually need the certification. Like I said in my post, if you want to be in complete compliance with statute, no matter what Joe Schmo said in the past or what is going to happen with legislation in the future, then get the certification. If you want to wait, then wait. It is your personal choice.

TBM

234sportsman wrote:I just got home a few minutes ago from the instructors course. The auditors BOSS was there and the auditor gave wrong info. This question was discussed in depth. New instructors will not be allowed into the class without NRA or TECLEOSE Certs.

As for renewals, the process for those issues has yet to be decided and is even under consideration now in the legislative session by State lawmakers.

We were told that auditors are Contractors.

To the original poster...if you are NOT already CHL instructor , it is mandatory that you have one of the other Certs.

IIRC, we were told that auditors are Civilians, not Contractors, but I digress. I believe wholeheartedly that DPS isn't going to keep Instructors in limbo any longer than it takes for the legislative session to end. It would be crazy to put out a bunch of memos right now, knowing that there could be big changes to the legislation in the future (read 1-2 months). As a current instructor, qualified before Jan.1, 2013, if you want to be in complete adherence to the law, then get the NRA certification no matter what. If you want to wait to see what plays out in the legislation, then wait. Whatever you choose, it is your choice. But the statute says you need the certification. The statute doesn't give excpetion for renewals, for itintials, or for 'short class/long class'. If reading the statute, I don't believe there is any 'grey' area.

PS - I know that when new instructors get back from class, we think we know everything . I don't claim to know anything other than what I was tested over, and what I take away from the class. My post is what I have taken away from the class, and it was muy bien!!!!

TBM