User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/17/2014 3:03:52 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Any NRA course meets the requirement but then there is this section I quoted that indicates that an NRA course instructor issuing such certificate must see the student discharge the firearm. This is not an erroneous comment but rather a specific clause of the law and definitely not a DOACS add-on. I understand your point, you see it as different but I see it as a clause and requirement. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
{Tree Trimmed} This is incorrect. Please read the statue quoted below, noted in red. The statue clearly requires "discharge a firearm", in most instances. It's a statutory requirement and not a DOACS requirement. The NRA has quite a few courses that don't require firing a firearm, such as RSO training, Personal Protection Inside the Home, both of which would qualify under Fl state law as proof of competency as they are safety courses. I would never have signed a certificate other than an NRA certified attesting that a person has competency when I was an NRA certified instructor, and even then it would have been in a class that was conducted in accordance with the NRA training material being used. How does the statute 'clearly' require discharge of a firearm when any NRA safety course satisfies the requirement? Personal Protection in the home is an NRA safety class. Therefore it meets the statutory requirement. The extraneous stuff about instructor record keeping has no impact on the statutory requirement. It's simply a record keeping requirement. (As evidensed bu the Florida Legslature's documented intent in the bill that added this requirement.) Most likely an unconstitutional one at that. It provides no retention requirement, it provides no criminal or civil penalty for not keeping the records. It does not require that information be provided to DOACS with the application, it is not applicable to out-of state instructors, etc. You are not signing a certificate that the student showed proficiency, you are signing a certificate that the student completed the specified course. Any NRA course meets the requirement but then there is this section I quoted that indicates that an NRA course instructor issuing such certificate must see the student discharge the firearm. This is not an erroneous comment but rather a specific clause of the law and definitely not a DOACS add-on. I understand your point, you see it as different but I see it as a clause and requirement. But, again, that is a record keeping requirement imposed upon the instructor, it does not modify which courses qualify. There are folks on both side of this discussion. Final resolution will not happen until someone sues the DOACS. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2014 12:22:54 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
But, again, that is a record keeping requirement imposed upon the instructor, it does not modify which courses qualify. There are folks on both side of this discussion. Final resolution will not happen until someone sues the DOACS. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
{Tree Trimmed} This is incorrect. Please read the statue quoted below, noted in red. The statue clearly requires "discharge a firearm", in most instances. It's a statutory requirement and not a DOACS requirement. The NRA has quite a few courses that don't require firing a firearm, such as RSO training, Personal Protection Inside the Home, both of which would qualify under Fl state law as proof of competency as they are safety courses. I would never have signed a certificate other than an NRA certified attesting that a person has competency when I was an NRA certified instructor, and even then it would have been in a class that was conducted in accordance with the NRA training material being used. How does the statute 'clearly' require discharge of a firearm when any NRA safety course satisfies the requirement? Personal Protection in the home is an NRA safety class. Therefore it meets the statutory requirement. The extraneous stuff about instructor record keeping has no impact on the statutory requirement. It's simply a record keeping requirement. (As evidensed bu the Florida Legslature's documented intent in the bill that added this requirement.) Most likely an unconstitutional one at that. It provides no retention requirement, it provides no criminal or civil penalty for not keeping the records. It does not require that information be provided to DOACS with the application, it is not applicable to out-of state instructors, etc. You are not signing a certificate that the student showed proficiency, you are signing a certificate that the student completed the specified course. Any NRA course meets the requirement but then there is this section I quoted that indicates that an NRA course instructor issuing such certificate must see the student discharge the firearm. This is not an erroneous comment but rather a specific clause of the law and definitely not a DOACS add-on. I understand your point, you see it as different but I see it as a clause and requirement. But, again, that is a record keeping requirement imposed upon the instructor, it does not modify which courses qualify. There are folks on both side of this discussion. Final resolution will not happen until someone sues the DOACS. So if I understand your interpretation. You see where state law says if you teach an NRA course or other course as an NRA instructor you need to keep records indicating you saw the student safely handle and discharge a firearm. But you dont interpret that as a requirement? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 2:24:06 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So if I understand your interpretation. You see where state law says if you teach an NRA course or other course as an NRA instructor you need to keep records indicating you saw the student safely handle and discharge a firearm. But you dont interpret that as a requirement? Correct. The addition of the record keeping requirement, in 1995 or so, did not change the statutory definition of 'proof of competency' which happens to include any NRA course. BTW, that bill specifically stated it was a record keeping requirement and did not state any concerns over the lack of live fire. Plus there is no requirement as to how long those records are kept, who may have access to them, no penalty for not doing so, no requirement to certify said live fire to the DOACS on the certificate, etc. It would be sort of like the tail wagging the dog to interpret it otherwise. If the legislature intended to require live fire, they would have so stated. Since they did not define any course curriculum, we have to abide by the letter of the law. Any NRA class, or any other class taught by 'certified' instructors qualify. irrespective of any record keeping requirement arguably imposed (albeit likely unconstitutionally void for vagueness) on such instructors. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 2:39:35 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Correct. The addition of the record keeping requirement, in 1995 or so, did not change the statutory definition of 'proof of competency' which happens to include any NRA course. BTW, that bill specifically stated it was a record keeping requirement and did not state any concerns over the lack of live fire. Plus there is no requirement as to how long those records are kept, who may have access to them, no penalty for not doing so, no requirement to certify said live fire to the DOACS on the certificate, etc. It would be sort of like the tail wagging the dog to interpret it otherwise. If the legislature intended to require live fire, they would have so stated. Since they did not define any course curriculum, we have to abide by the letter of the law. Any NRA class, or any other class taught by 'certified' instructors qualify. irrespective of any record keeping requirement arguably imposed (albeit likely unconstitutionally void for vagueness) on such instructors. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So if I understand your interpretation. You see where state law says if you teach an NRA course or other course as an NRA instructor you need to keep records indicating you saw the student safely handle and discharge a firearm. But you dont interpret that as a requirement? Correct. The addition of the record keeping requirement, in 1995 or so, did not change the statutory definition of 'proof of competency' which happens to include any NRA course. BTW, that bill specifically stated it was a record keeping requirement and did not state any concerns over the lack of live fire. Plus there is no requirement as to how long those records are kept, who may have access to them, no penalty for not doing so, no requirement to certify said live fire to the DOACS on the certificate, etc. It would be sort of like the tail wagging the dog to interpret it otherwise. If the legislature intended to require live fire, they would have so stated. Since they did not define any course curriculum, we have to abide by the letter of the law. Any NRA class, or any other class taught by 'certified' instructors qualify. irrespective of any record keeping requirement arguably imposed (albeit likely unconstitutionally void for vagueness) on such instructors. Interesting. Thanks for the opinion. I was unaware of the history. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 5:19:57 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Interesting. Thanks for the opinion. I was unaware of the history. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So if I understand your interpretation. You see where state law says if you teach an NRA course or other course as an NRA instructor you need to keep records indicating you saw the student safely handle and discharge a firearm. But you dont interpret that as a requirement? Correct. The addition of the record keeping requirement, in 1995 or so, did not change the statutory definition of 'proof of competency' which happens to include any NRA course. BTW, that bill specifically stated it was a record keeping requirement and did not state any concerns over the lack of live fire. Plus there is no requirement as to how long those records are kept, who may have access to them, no penalty for not doing so, no requirement to certify said live fire to the DOACS on the certificate, etc. It would be sort of like the tail wagging the dog to interpret it otherwise. If the legislature intended to require live fire, they would have so stated. Since they did not define any course curriculum, we have to abide by the letter of the law. Any NRA class, or any other class taught by 'certified' instructors qualify. irrespective of any record keeping requirement arguably imposed (albeit likely unconstitutionally void for vagueness) on such instructors. Interesting. Thanks for the opinion. I was unaware of the history. FYI, many people disagree, aggressively so (mostly instructors), with me, as does the DOACS. Only a lawsuit will resolve it once and for all. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 8:19:39 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
FYI, many people disagree, aggressively so (mostly instructors), with me, as does the DOACS. Only a lawsuit will resolve it once and for all. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So if I understand your interpretation. You see where state law says if you teach an NRA course or other course as an NRA instructor you need to keep records indicating you saw the student safely handle and discharge a firearm. But you dont interpret that as a requirement? Correct. The addition of the record keeping requirement, in 1995 or so, did not change the statutory definition of 'proof of competency' which happens to include any NRA course. BTW, that bill specifically stated it was a record keeping requirement and did not state any concerns over the lack of live fire. Plus there is no requirement as to how long those records are kept, who may have access to them, no penalty for not doing so, no requirement to certify said live fire to the DOACS on the certificate, etc. It would be sort of like the tail wagging the dog to interpret it otherwise. If the legislature intended to require live fire, they would have so stated. Since they did not define any course curriculum, we have to abide by the letter of the law. Any NRA class, or any other class taught by 'certified' instructors qualify. irrespective of any record keeping requirement arguably imposed (albeit likely unconstitutionally void for vagueness) on such instructors. Interesting. Thanks for the opinion. I was unaware of the history. FYI, many people disagree, aggressively so (mostly instructors), with me, as does the DOACS. Only a lawsuit will resolve it once and for all. Yea I'm one of those that disagree, quite strongly too. But, it still made for a good discussion and alternating point of view. If I may ask what's your background? Attorney? Instructor? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 4:46:18 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yea I'm one of those that disagree, quite strongly too. But, it still made for a good discussion and alternating point of view. If I may ask what's your background? Attorney? Instructor? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So if I understand your interpretation. You see where state law says if you teach an NRA course or other course as an NRA instructor you need to keep records indicating you saw the student safely handle and discharge a firearm. But you dont interpret that as a requirement? Correct. The addition of the record keeping requirement, in 1995 or so, did not change the statutory definition of 'proof of competency' which happens to include any NRA course. BTW, that bill specifically stated it was a record keeping requirement and did not state any concerns over the lack of live fire. Plus there is no requirement as to how long those records are kept, who may have access to them, no penalty for not doing so, no requirement to certify said live fire to the DOACS on the certificate, etc. It would be sort of like the tail wagging the dog to interpret it otherwise. If the legislature intended to require live fire, they would have so stated. Since they did not define any course curriculum, we have to abide by the letter of the law. Any NRA class, or any other class taught by 'certified' instructors qualify. irrespective of any record keeping requirement arguably imposed (albeit likely unconstitutionally void for vagueness) on such instructors. Interesting. Thanks for the opinion. I was unaware of the history. FYI, many people disagree, aggressively so (mostly instructors), with me, as does the DOACS. Only a lawsuit will resolve it once and for all. Yea I'm one of those that disagree, quite strongly too. But, it still made for a good discussion and alternating point of view. If I may ask what's your background? Attorney? Instructor? Firearms laws (and 4th & 5th Amendment issues) are sort of a hobby for me. Well I guess you could say it's been a non-paying second job. Legal research: statutory and case law, statutory analysis and interpretation, bill writing, etc. for the past 30 years or so. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
