TexasCHLforum.com

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

The problem is that every different version of the story has come from someone who was told by DPS. Until something is put out directly from DPS to instructors, there is still effectively no information. Your source may be very credible, but it is still a rumor.

MasterOfNone wrote:

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.

The problem is that every different version of the story has come from someone who was told by DPS. Until something is put out directly from DPS to instructors, there is still effectively no information. Your source may be very credible, but it is still a rumor.

I don't consider 'We don't know yet what we will have to do for renewals until the legislature has closed' as a rumor. They may have an idea of what will be required, but until then it is where they stand. I think the issue is with the pending legislation on renewals. If it passes they may have to modify their renewal requirement for instructors as well.

You want to know something else that I'm afraid of? That DPSor the legislature will make a decision and not even bother to tell us. I don't know about the rest of you, but when the new CHL 100s came out I didn't know about it for several months until I found out about it on some board like this one. DPS never sent out any notification that they were changing their forms that we were required to use. If they keep up this "excellent" level of communication, they may change requirements for certification and not even bother to tell us.

I called the DPS about a month ago and was told then that renewals WOULD NOT require the NRA course. I was told then that a new letter was forthcoming. I know going to Austin every 2 years for Instructor renewal was a pain for some people, but I enjoyed it and always learned something there. I was "in the loop" because they would tell us about all the new changes.

Charles has asked us not to call Austin and bug them ( he asked after I called). They are short handed and trying to deal with hundreds of thousands of US.

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

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!

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!

You guys are creative enough in your arguments to be good lawyers.
Not sure the judges would buy the arguments but I likeem.

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

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

I keep hearing persistent rumors the law doesn't apply to renewals but I can't find where the law says renewals are exempt.

Help a brother out there.

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

Not saying I agree with it either. Just saying the argument could be made.