Results 1 to 23 of 23

Thread: HB 1275: Concealed handgun permits; demonstrated competency by applicants.

  1. #1
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    HB 1275: Concealed handgun permits; demonstrated competency by applicants.

    HB 1275: Concealed handgun permits; demonstrated competency by applicants.

    Concealed handgun permits; demonstrated competency by applicants. Specifies that an applicant for a concealed handgun permit must demonstrate competence with a handgun by completing a National Rifle Association handgun safety or training course. Current law requires a National Rifle Association "firearms" safety or training course.



    Hardly seems worth the effort...

    TFred

  2. #2
    Regular Member Marco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Greene County
    Posts
    3,844
    As posted on VAGT.

    Quote Originally Posted by ndaknow on VAGT
    Because of Virginia Code §18.2-308 (G) (7) Instructors are allowed to define course content.

    Because of this loophole, a sham class is as legitimate as an National Rifle Association of America (NRA) class.

    The courts must accept any piece of paper which states the instructor’s NRA identification number as a valid diploma.

    It was only a matter of time until the above loophole was exploited and online vending machines were setup to dispense diplomas that had to be accepted by the court for the purpose of obtaining a Virginia permit to carry a concealed handgun.

    On November 7, 2011 the NRA announced a change in training policy. In it, NRA instructors are no longer permitted to use the association’s name or state their NRA identification number. The text of the announcement is below.

    Online diploma mills are nothing more than money making machines.
    Do you think the NRA’s new policy will put the online diploma mills out of business?

    ANNOUCEMENT BY NRA –
    Dear NRA Instructors and Training Counselors:
    Due to NRA's long history of facilitating quality firearm training, the public expects a high standard for training programs bearing the NRA name. Maintaining the high quality of the training programs is of the upmost importance.
    The National Rifle Association of America currently has no online firearm training courses. All of our firearm training courses (Home Firearm Safety excluded) have a shooting component on a range. Some NRA certified instructors have created online firearm training programs, and have issued certificates to individuals that take their courses, using the title NRA Certified Instructor. Under no circumstances may NRA's name or your NRA credentials be associated with any online firearms training course. If NRA's name or your NRA credentials are associated with a course, you must, among other things, actually work with the students, face-to-face, to allow you to evaluate whether they perform the safe operation of a firearm, and shoot with a sufficient level of skill. This policy applies to any course which might result in issuing any certificate that bears the title of NRA Certified Instructor, or if the course is associated in any way whatsoever with a certification issued by the NRA.
    While NRA allows NRA Certified Instructors to use their titles in association with courses that are not NRA courses, as long as they make a very clear disclaimer that such courses are not NRA approved, the use of a disclaimer is not sufficient to allow you to use NRA's name or your NRA credentials in connection with an online course. In other words, your NRA credentials and the NRA's name, trademarks, titles identification numbers, etc. may not be associated with any online firearm training course, regardless of whether there is a statement that it is not an NRA course.
    We have even found online courses with titles such as: "NRA CCW Course,"NRA Home Defense," and so on, that are not NRA sanctioned courses. NRA Instructors are not authorized to create a title of a course which includes "NRA," "National Rifle Association," or any other wording that makes a non-NRA course appear to be an NRA course.
    Violation of these policies may result in revocation of your NRA credentials. If you have any questions concerning this policy, please contact the NRA Training Department.


    Yours Truly,
    Charles H. Mitchell
    Manager, NRA Training Department.
    Emphasis mine.

    It appears the NRA is gearing up for national concealed carry standards.
    Or
    More training equals more money for them, who would have thought that.



    I don't see the NRA pushing for the rights of folks to carry without goverment intervention.


    For all those that need a training class. A hunter safety course is legal as proof of training and the class is usually offered free of charge.
    Why put money in the NRA's pocket.
    While I do believe folks need to have some training I don't believe it should be mandatory.
    If you think like a Statist, act like one, or back some, you've given up on freedom and have gone over to the dark side.
    The easiest ex. but probably the most difficult to grasp for gun owners is that fool permission slip so many of you have, especially if you show it off with pride. You should recognize it as an embarrassment, an infringement, a travesty and an affront to a free person.


    ~Alan Korwin

  3. #3
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    , Virginia, USA
    Posts
    387
    Another form of training proof...
    Honorably Discharged Veterans only need to submit a copy of their DD-214; after blacking out your SSN of course. No money goes to that group that does so well at Negotiating your Rights Away with this method either.

  4. #4
    Regular Member mk4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    548
    looking at the proposed section G7 in 18.2-308:
    7. Completing any handgun training or safety course or class, including an electronic, video, or on-line course, conducted by a state-certified or National Rifle Association-certified firearms instructor;

    since it's been reported that the NRA has forbidden its certified instructors from conducting on-line safety courses as 'NRA-approved', if the 'state' also disallows its certified instructors from the same, then this might be an end-around to close that training option? the antis have certainly been vocal about short, on-line training, which they decry as a joke. Haas and Goddard would sure see this as a victory.
    Last edited by mk4; 01-20-2012 at 10:33 PM.
    “For life, liberty and Little Lizzie.” - John Connor (2005)

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    796
    One thing that has bothered me about these issues as I've been following it is that I'm not so sure that I'm comfortable that it has become the defacto that only the NRA can define a training standard, or that only the NRA can determine that an instructor is qualified to teach, or that they can otherwise restrict or prohibit such things at the whim of a small board (vs. put to the vote of members) that decides to do so.

    I guess my point is that I've not felt comfortable that states (and potentially the Feds) have codified into law (and want to expand upon that) what essentially seems to be a monopoly on training and related standards. For example, I'd suspect that amongst the group of people here it could be possible to define standards and create training based upon those standards, yet if I understand it correctly, that training wouldn't be recognized as meeting legal requirements. I'm not advocating that this group try to do that, just giving an example.

    But it would seem that if the DMV required that all driver's education must be provided by AAA (or pick your own example), nobody would sit quietly for that. And that's for a privilege vs. constitutional rights potentially being impacted.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Uber_Olafsun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Alexandria, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    585
    I agree with that. They keep coming back to NRA. The trying to require training for a right is bad enough but saying that only one group can provide it is even worse. Thankfully my proof of training was discharge paperwork.

  7. #7
    Herr Heckler Koch
    Guest
    When I suggested, first in a face to face forum and then on-line, that citation of private organizations in state law be removed then I discovered the depths to which worms living in fromunda rocks will sink.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    796
    Quote Originally Posted by Herr Heckler Koch View Post
    When I suggested, first in a face to face forum and then on-line, that citation of private organizations in state law be removed then I discovered the depths to which worms living in fromunda rocks will sink.
    Which would certainly have me wondering all the more.

  9. #9
    Regular Member AtackDuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    King George, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    214

    Angry Not on the VCDL leg. tool

    This one is not listed on the VCDL legislation tool.

    It is getting so bad that we now have one more organization to beware of when it comes to our rights. The NRA is now expecting us to ask them to teach us, so that we can exercise our right of self defense? The more I think about it, the angrier I get!

    I asked Phillip if the NRA was coordinating with VCDL on the legislation. He assured me they are. I think they slipped this one through, or are trying to.

    It's from Kaye Kory (D) Falls Church. Anyone have any info on her?
    Last edited by AtackDuck; 01-21-2012 at 10:21 AM.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    796
    Would this be grandfathered for those who haven't previously attended an approved handgun training? I ask because:
    G. The court shall require proof that the applicant has demonstrated competence with a handgun and the applicant may demonstrate such competence by one of the following, but no applicant shall be required to submit to any additional demonstration of competence, nor shall any proof of demonstrated competence expire:
    Which indicates that it doesn't expire....and then gives as one of the proofs:
    2. Completing any National Rifle Association firearms handgun safety or training course;
    So I guess my question is, you got training previously, but it wasn't for handguns (specifically), could "they" (Court) then say that you didn't meet the application requirements upon renewal and use that for justification of denial? [You're only paranoid IF they aren't out to get you.]

  11. #11
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    IMO, it's a pointless bill. I'm not an expert on NRA training curricula, but as I said, I'm hard-pressed to believe there is THAT much difference from this one-word change. I could certainly be wrong, and would be happy to see evidence if so. That is why we post and discuss these bills, so we can all learn that which we do not know.

    On the monopoly... Nature abhors a vacuum. Who else is there that establishes any firearms-related training curriculum? Other than perhaps the Boy Scouts and of course the US Military and police academies... I don't know of anyone. Perhaps another organization should start writing their own... who's next in line behind the NRA? GOA? SAF? I would think that if there are other curricula available, it wouldn't be impossible to add a phrase ", or GOA" etc, here and there throughout the code. NRA would be opposed, but it would be an obvious conflict of interest for them to do so, and people would see through that. They would have to argue that their curricula was somehow superior, and we all know this isn't rocket science...

    Finally there are so many ways to satisfy the demonstration requirement, even though most might use the NRA training, it really wouldn't be all that hard to use another instead.

    TFred

  12. #12
    Regular Member mk4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    548
    i still think this may be an end-around attempt at taking out on-line training. the antis crow over this and it would give them a symbolic victory. as TF points out, there are plenty of ways to satisfy the 18.2-308 requirement.
    “For life, liberty and Little Lizzie.” - John Connor (2005)

  13. #13
    Regular Member stickslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Woodbridge
    Posts
    181
    Quote Originally Posted by Toad View Post
    Another form of training proof...
    Honorably Discharged Veterans only need to submit a copy of their DD-214; after blacking out your SSN of course. No money goes to that group that does so well at Negotiating your Rights Away with this method either.

    +1

  14. #14
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,614
    Quote Originally Posted by mk4 View Post
    i still think this may be an end-around attempt at taking out on-line training. the antis crow over this and it would give them a symbolic victory. as TF points out, there are plenty of ways to satisfy the 18.2-308 requirement.
    No victory or defeat for either side. Essentually no real change in the law + all other options still exist. See this as a lot to do about nothing.

    Bears watching, but little more in IMO.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  15. #15
    Regular Member mk4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    548
    i really don't care about on-line training being available or not. it's not the option i took, in any case. was just postulating out loud. ;-)

    cheers!
    “For life, liberty and Little Lizzie.” - John Connor (2005)

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    623
    Quote Originally Posted by AtackDuck View Post
    It's from Kaye Kory (D) Falls Church. Anyone have any info on her?
    She's my delegate, and she's a waste of time talking to. I've tried.

    Last October, she came to a community association meeting for my neighborhood and outright bragged about how Saslaw illegally killed bills in the State Senate. (Her district overlaps with Saslaw's.)

    What's worse is she tried to turn a non-partisan community meeting into a campaign rally, talking all about how the community needed to vote for her to stop the extremists in other parts of the state from endangering them.

    I left that meeting almost sick to my stomach.
    Alma 43:47 - "And again, the Lord has said that: Ye shall defend your families even unto bloodshed...."
    Self defense isn't just a good idea, it's a commandment.

  17. #17
    Regular Member The Wolfhound's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Henrico, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    697

    Alternatives

    From reading in some other forums, I believe other organizations are recognized in other states. In particular the RWVA (Appleseed) organization training seems to be sufficient in Wisconsin. The alternatives are not well known but do exist in some places.

  18. #18
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,614
    Quote Originally Posted by The Wolfhound View Post
    From reading in some other forums, I believe other organizations are recognized in other states. In particular the RWVA (Appleseed) organization training seems to be sufficient in Wisconsin. The alternatives are not well known but do exist in some places.
    In Virginia we recognize the USA, USMC, USAF, USN & USCG + you get paid to train with those organizations
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Cherry Tree (Indiana County), Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    1,155
    Meanwhile, in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, with over 670,000 people licensed to carry concealed (now only costs $20.00), no proof of training or testing is required.

    Training is a good thing, it makes sense, but does it really serve any purpose?

  20. #20
    Regular Member wylde007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Va Beach, Occupied VA
    Posts
    3,037

    Angry

    Quote Originally Posted by Toad View Post
    No money goes to that group that does so well at Negotiating your Rights Away with this method either.
    ^^^ This.

    It terrifies me that the NRA - a PRIVATE ORGANIZATION - could have itself institutionalized and codified into state law.

    If that doesn't bother you, you should get your head checked.
    The quiet war has begun, with silent weapons
    And the newest slavery is to keep the people poor, and stupid
    Novos ordo seclorum ~ Mustaine

    Never argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

  21. #21
    Herr Heckler Koch
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Statkowski View Post
    ... Training is a good thing, it makes sense, but does it really serve any purpose?
    Oh yeah, it "makes sense" to no other purpose!

  22. #22
    Herr Heckler Koch
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Herr Heckler Koch View Post
    When I suggested, first in a face to face forum and then on-line, that citation of private organizations in state law be removed then I discovered the depths to which worms living in fromunda rocks will sink.
    +1

    I am a bit surprised that a self-proclaimed "dr" would not recognize the secretion fromunda.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    796
    Quote Originally Posted by wylde007 View Post
    ^^^ This.

    It terrifies me that the NRA - a PRIVATE ORGANIZATION - could have itself institutionalized and codified into state law.

    If that doesn't bother you, you should get your head checked.
    Yes, as I said above, that bothers me as well. The other thing that bothers me is that when a private corporation has the ability to get itself written into state code -- then what's next? It seems that as a 501(c)(4) organization (which the NRA is - and by IRS definition that type of corporation is supposedly limited to promotion of social welfare OR be limited to local associations...or people in a particular municipality or neighborhood) that they are already "reaching" as it is to move from offering education to promoting their education as a standard. How far would the reach be for someone like that to then begin to nudge it towards mandatory requalification standards or whatever else?

    Again, I wouldn't like it if someone like AAA started pushing itself as the creator of driver's education standards, and for the same reason it bothers me when someone like the NRA establishes itself as the "keeper" of this type of training. Not to mention, what outside body even exams NRA curriculum or requirements? And who polices the NRA to ensure that they aren't unduly influencing instructors by hold "certification" over their heads if they choose to not support NRA politics? In my mind that seems to cross boundary lines as well.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •