imported post
IA_farmboy wrote:
I did not say "training or retraining" I specified only "retraining". No one will have to line up a retraining course for about five years since with the eight months for the law to go into effect and the 12 month expiration on the validity of the retraining there is a little less than five years between the initial issue and when one can take a valid retraining course for renewal.
The training seems to be relatively well defined but it sets a ceiling on the training but no floor. A sheriff could just ask the applicant a few questions and if answered correctly then sign a neat little form stating completion of a certified training course. The bill sets a ceiling by allowing competition between the various state law enforcement entities and the many private entities spelled out in the law. One of those courses stated in the bill that satisfies the training is the NRA Basic Pistol Course, something that has a long history of its stated curriculum. That makes the NRA course a standard to work from for all competing entities. People will have some choice in the training they desire but the sheriff does not. The sheriff can offer their own training but they must also honor the training from another sheriff.
I kept hearing the claim about how this bill sets a state wide standard on the training but I believe that is very far from the truth. A sheriff has a certain amount of discretion on what training is acceptable. They might get away with demanding more than a certain minimum of training but they cannot set the bar too high without getting slapped around in the courts.
We're probablysplitting hairshere, but anyone who currently has a one year permit, and has not "trained" for several years (with that I mean "their" training, not mine - I train continuously), will have to take "their"
retraining immediately to get a permit. Perhaps it is semantics, but from that perspective, the
retraining requirement starts Jan 1, 2011, not 5 years from now. In otherwords, all Iowans who want a permit after Jan 1, 2011, will have to go through the training, whether they already have in the past for their current annual permitor not.
"The training seems to be relatively well defined . . . "
I don't see how this claim can be made, even when discussing the NRA courses. The NRA courses, from what I have seen, aren't even consistent and vary with the instructor. The sheriff taught course that I took, which Ithought rathergood,had a 1/2 day discussion about the law, responsibilities of the CCW carrier, how to handle encounters with LEO's, etc., some discussion about proper handling (the 5 basic gun handling rules, etc.), and then the afternoon session had supervised live fire on the range, very simple: 3 sets of 5 rounds each at an NRA "B" target from 25 feet - min passing score 70% (pretty easy to do - though one woman in my class failed). None of these type ofdetails of content are even addressed in the new law. And DPS can set completely different standards than the NRA. For all the talk from Iowa Carry of wanting consistent training standards across the state, this lawfellfar short of"consistent."
"A sheriff could just ask the applicant a few questions and if answered correctly then sign a neat little form stating completion of a certified training course."
I doubt this would fly, unless the sheriff is "winking"while he does it. . . the law is specific that the course must come from either a certified NRA instructor or someone teaching a courseapproved by the DPS. The sheriff could no doubt meet these requirements, but I don't think the format yououtline herewill be acceptable, as neither the NRA nor the DPS is likely to endorse such a thing.
"They might get away with demanding more than a certain minimum of training but they cannot set the bar too high without getting slapped around in the courts."
This is where I think it is going to get interesting . . . the Dubuquegroup of Iowa Carry mentioned that "their" sheriff (notably anti-self defense) has made the comment that
"I don't care what the law says" . . . ostensibly this couldmean he will do whatever he can to keep from issuing permits, which could be prettycreative, including "jinking" people around as to what is and is not an acceptable training course. . . They made it sound as if this guy might even be willing to go to court to try and block releasing permits.
No one yet has provided a good explanation as to how “participation in any firearms shooting competition” can be acceptable evidence that you have completed and NRA or DPS handgun course, but that is what the law infers . . .
The next year or so will prove to be very interesting on several fronts . . . .
