Online CHP Course Declined in Albemarle County

[wrightme]

Seems pretty clear to me.

"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."

Yes, the message from the NRA is quite clear.


Some opinions posted by web forum participants aren't accurate though.

 

[2a4all]

Here's my problem with this.

The code states this:

"7. Completing any firearms 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;"

The status of being a "NRA-certified firearms instructor" is a Boolean fact. You either are one, or you are not one. If a person who is a "NRA-certified firearms instructor" writes an on-line training course designed to demonstrate competence for a CHP, I don't think the NRA should have the authority to deny their ability to do this. The law is written to require a credential, not the approval of the agency which provides that credential.

How is this different for any other thing that requires a credential? What if I go to a very conservative religious school and get a diploma or a degree, and then decide to go into a line of work that they do not approve? Are they allowed to tell me that I cannot claim that I have their diploma or degree? I think not.

TFred

This statement in the statute only lists possibilities. It doesn't require that any person or organization actually offer an on-line course. If none exist, then CHP applicants can't avail themselves of this option. The NRA is free to specifiy the training venues that its instructors may use when acting in their NRA certified capacity.

The question remains: does the state (DCJ) allow its certified instructors to conduct on-line courses for CHP applicants?

 

[TFred]

This statement in the statute only lists possibilities. It doesn't require that any person or organization actually offer an on-line course. If none exist, then CHP applicants can't avail themselves of this option. The NRA is free to specifiy the training venues that its instructors may use when acting in their NRA certified capacity.

The question remains: does the state (DCJ) allow its certified instructors to conduct on-line courses for CHP applicants?

You missed the point. The law does not require that the course be taught by a person acting in their "NRA certified capacity", merely that it be taught by someone who is qualified to do so.

TFred

 

[peter nap]

You missed the point. The law does not require that the course be taught by a person acting in their "NRA certified capacity", merely that it be taught by someone who is qualified to do so.

TFred

It shouldn't be an issue really. Contractors for instance are required to be licensed. There are a couple of options for licensing. Could be only local if they keep the dollar value low or one of the various classes through the state.

Most advertise "Licensed and insured" but don't specify who from.

 

[TFred]

It shouldn't be an issue really. Contractors for instance are required to be licensed. There are a couple of options for licensing. Could be only local if they keep the dollar value low or one of the various classes through the state.

Most advertise "Licensed and insured" but don't specify who from.

The NRA has such a monopoly on firearms training, I can't even think of an alternate, but it would be quite amusing if we adjusted this law to remove reference to the NRA and instead allowed and thus promoted someone else in the process.

TFred

 

[CHILINVLN]

They hinted that they can't support the idea that a person can become "proficient" by taking an online course. They actually do have a rule that says an NRA certified instructor can only use his NRA credentials in teaching NRA courses, but they tell me that they're not pressing that one, because it's in their interest to have as many gun owners out there getting some kind of training and perhaps becoming members of the organization. But they think that online courses are so far beyond the minimum standards, and subject to abuse, that they can't allow their name to be used in connection with 'em. I strongly suspect there's a civil litigation reason hiding in that woodpile somewhere.

I COMPLETELY agree and I think online gun safety courses are ridiculous. IMO, there is a hands on portion which is absolutely necessary to safe handling and I feel this element should be necessary for EVERYONE to take, regardless of open or concealed. It should actually be taught to everyone in school really.

 

[peter nap]

It should actually be taught to everyone in school really.

It was, at least in decent parts of Va.
When I was in Elementary school, Hunter Safety Class was mandatory. The Game Warden came in for a an hour 3 days.

The last day included safe gun handling. It included a lever and bolt action rifle, single, double barrel and pump shotgun and a revolver.

That was over 50 years ago and I still remember it so I guess it had some impact.

 

[Grapeshot]

I COMPLETELY agree and I think online gun safety courses are ridiculous. IMO, there is a hands on portion which is absolutely necessary to safe handling and I feel this element should be necessary for EVERYONE to take, regardless of open or concealed. It should actually be taught to everyone in school really.

Good yes, mandatory no.

No conditions on the right to defend oneself.

To begin with, NO handgun course teaches everything - all of the basic courses are but the tip of the iceberg. The responsibility for properly learning everything from nomenclature to combat techniques lies with the individual, not the state.

 

[TFred]

Good yes, mandatory no.

No conditions on the right to defend oneself.

To begin with, NO handgun course teaches everything - all of the basic courses are but the tip of the iceberg. The responsibility for properly learning everything from nomenclature to combat techniques lies with the individual, not the state.

What he said.

Safety courses are smart, and should be encouraged in the highest priority for everyone.

But a requirement that must be satisfied prior to the exercise of rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment? No way, now how.

A "right" with a condition is a "privilege".

TFred