163 replies to this topic

[Tvandermyde]

This is the new thread about the proposed rule changes to the FCCL. 
 
I moved it here from Illinois Politics because I think it s better fit. 
 
That being said, please list either your complaints, beefs or suggested changes to the carry rules here. I would like to get this document turned in by week's end, as I have other commitments next week. 
 
The administration is being receptive to changes and as I said before, these are proposed rules. And we have a different administration. 
 
If you do not feel comfortable posting here in a public forum, remember the ICHV types (Hi Mark ! ! !) and other anti-gun types like the Moms have a tendancy to lurk here for intel and the like. So you can email me with your suggestions. tvandermyd AT aol  DOT com (that is for the spambots and others sniffing out emails)
 
I would like to keep this thread from being a debate or P & M match about things. Please stick to the topic and give me your proposals. 
 
 
 
Todd

[McCroskey]

Carry on public transit legal

Carry in parks legal

"no guns" signs posted lose force of law. Business owners can still post them and request that carriers leave if they see one and it bothers them that much, but if police are called, it is "you have to leave or you'll get a trespassing citation" instead of the current nonsense.

[Tvandermyde]

those are all legislative issues and not issues to be addressed in the rules. This is only about the rules. 

[Trevis]

Can you clarify the difference so we can be more productive with our input?

[Blackbeard]

The President feels quite comfortable nullifying legislation through non-enforcement.  Mr. Rauner, I invite you to do the same.  Just announce you'll no longer prosecute for carry in "prohibited" zones.

[Tvandermyde]

these are the proposed rules:

Attached Files

•  20_IAC_1231_Proposed_Amendments_Register.pdf   218.07KB   783 downloads

[McCroskey]

Current courses that count for 4 hours credit should count for 8.

[mjw45]

Class pre-registration-  limits flexibility, especially for small, impromptu classes.

    What benefit does it have.

 

Upload class info-  Make sure that a batch upload is available, not cut and paste each item.

 

Out of state voluntary mental health requirements.

    Cost prohibitive, and will mental health professionals even be able to certify someone who is not normally under their care.

 

Class curriculum-  Concerned about how this will limit Instructor flexibility.

     Will this just be guidelines like before, or an actual curriculum.

[wbear]

1. Lower the initial license fee

2. Lengthen time between renewals

3. Renewal fee same as Foid renewal fee

4. No training for renewal

5. Reduce training hours for license

[defaultdotxbe]

1. Lower the initial license fee
2. Lengthen time between renewals
3. Renewal fee same as Foid renewal fee
4. No training for renewal
5. Reduce training hours for license

Those are all legislative issues too, not rules

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

[wven33]

Non residential applications

[Talonap]

Eliminate the, "Standardized Training Curriculum". I'm sure the people who will determine what it is will have no idea what they're doing.

[OrlandInstructor]

If certificates are only good for one year. If someone does not apply within one year, do they have to take the class again. (we have dozens of students that wait to apply for their license)

The renewal certificate is also good for one year. Can a student take their renewal class one year prior to expiration?

[mic6010]

The biggest one would be the prohibited areas and signage to stop carrying force of law.

 

We don't need to be getting arrested for carrying a gun in the wrong place, it should only be a warning, by law.

 

Especially since so many places are off limits and don't post or they post invalid or hard to see signs, or they post on one door of a multi door complex and not the others etc.

We should be considered trespassing and asked to leave, not take a ride to jail.

[kwc]

Todd, I sent you an email with recommendations on non-resident issues.  

 

Thanks!

[Patriots & Tyrants]

6 students per instructor? Talk about driving up the costs. heck, doubling them.

[sirflyguy]

6 students per instructor? Talk about driving up the costs. heck, doubling them.

This refers to live fire if I read it right. Any firearm training involving the live discharge of a firearm shall be limited to 6 students per Instructor.

I do not think this means that a class cannot be bigger than 6 for one instructor; just that the live fire portion cannot be more than 6 at a time.

[Patriots & Tyrants]

 

6 students per instructor? Talk about driving up the costs. heck, doubling them.

This refers to live fire if I read it right. Any firearm training involving the live discharge of a firearm shall be limited to 6 students per Instructor.

I do not think this means that a class cannot be bigger than 6 for one instructor; just that the live fire portion cannot be more than 6 at a time.

 

.

 

Still going to drive up the costs because the instructors will either need to do multiple sessions, or bring in someone to assist during the live fire.

 

IMO anything that drives up the costs of our carry permits is a bad idea.

[JSharp]

Any ISP standard curriculum they produce is likely to be far inferior to what *some of us* are teaching right now. I'm OK with minimum times and guidelines but it needs to leave flexibility for the instructor to provide the training he sees fit.

 

I couldn't be happier about the maximum number of students per instructor regulation. These guys running 15 or even 20+ students with 1 or 2 instructors are not providing adequate instruction no matter how much they pretend otherwise. The sooner they are made to stop that the better.

Edited by JSharp, 03 August 2015 - 11:30 AM.

[OrlandInstructor]

The 6 students per instructor applies only to the live fire portion.

[cm.stites]

the rules of scanning in military id's needs to go away totally

[lockman]

Non residential applications

 

This^

 

Define what substantially similar is as to not allow things like we have 16 hrs of training and you only have 8 No permit for you!

[kwc]

the rules of scanning in military id's needs to go away totally

 

Providing a DoD identification card number should suffice for this requirement; no need to scan an actual image of the ID card.

Edited by kwc, 03 August 2015 - 11:53 AM.

[JMontgomery]

Any ISP standard curriculum they produce is likely to be far inferior to what *some of us* are teaching right now. I'm OK with minimum times and guidelines but it needs to leave flexibility for the instructor to provide the training he sees fit.

 

I couldn't be happier about the maximum number of students per instructor regulation. These guys running 15 or even 20+ students with 1 or 2 instructors are not providing adequate instruction no matter how much they pretend otherwise. The sooner they are made to stop that the better.

 

I've got this feeling of Deja Vu reading this thread here at IC.  Is this proposal going to cause another round of "let's make it easy to get a Constitutional Right" vs. "X many hours or training are required...  shouldn't it be the best it can be?".

 

I'll be the first to admit I've got limited experience in this field but we had about a dozen instructors in my class of about twenty-five or thirty people.  Obviously they didn't need that many people to do lectures, but out on the range, having that many people made it simply wonderful for the students both in terms of learning and safety.  I didn't need much help, but I still got some help.  Some there needed some hand holding.  Both my wife and I were very pleased with how organized and safely the class was run, thanks to them having instructors to help people who needed it for skill or safety reasons.

 

I would not have been comfortable if there had only been one or two instructors there trying to run a line with a twelve or fifteen shooters.  From a safety standpoint, with people who have decades of bad habits ingrained, that's just an accident waiting to happen.

 

This is the same reason I spend less time at Darnall's public ranges here in Bloomington.  Too many people doing too many stupid things like careless muzzle control and handling guns when I'm downrange.  It's not just Darnall's either.  I was at Foosland with a friend last summer and someone actually started firing at a target at the end of the line when I was hanging a target.  He didn't think there was anything inherently unsafe with that.  That was the last time I went to Foosland.

[Craigcelia]

Here is my wish list of changes:

 

Section 1231.30, c viii)
pass/fail live fire qualification indicating at least 70% of hits were within the 7, 8, 9, and X scoring rings of a B-27 target;

 

• (Is this the proposed language highlighted in red ^^^?  Against!  Keep it the entire black silhouette, not just 7,8,9,X scoring rings).  Going back and forth on this rule is getting to be too much.  

 

Section 1231.40 Curriculum

de) The A 3 hour standardized licensure renewal curriculum shall course must, at a minimum, cover the following topics:

 

• Against!  No renewal recertification should be required and the renewal fee much lower.  This may be a legislative issue but would like to see it eventually gone and the fee lowered.

 

Section 1231.50 Training Certification

g) Beginning March 1, 2016, and thereafter, Instructors shall complete and submit all training records (e.g. training certificates; underlying proof of any statutorily permitted prior training for which credit is being granted) consistent with the training requirements of Section 75 of the Act, via electronic transmission to the Department's electronic database established for approved Instructors within 72 hours after completion of a training course.

 

Against.  The responsibility should be placed on the student. Have the student upload a copy of their supporting documentation when they complete the application, at the same time they upload their certificate and photo.  Instructors should not have to keep the documentation provided. 

[stm]

Lots of good suggestions here. "Conspicuously posted" needs to be defined as a sign posted at each public entrance to a prohibited area. In the case of a building or part of a building, it means within 2 feet of each door, or on each door itself, no lower than 3 ft and no higher than 5 ft high.

Edited by stm, 03 August 2015 - 01:28 PM.

[sirflyguy]

Here is my wish list of changes:

 

Section 1231.30, c viii)
pass/fail live fire qualification indicating at least 70% of hits were within the 7, 8, 9, and X scoring rings of a B-27 target;

 

• (Is this the proposed language highlighted in red ^^^?  Against!  Keep it the entire black silhouette, not just 7,8,9,X scoring rings).  Going back and forth on this rule is getting to be too much.  

 

Section 1231.40 Curriculum

de) The A 3 hour standardized licensure renewal curriculum shall course must, at a minimum, cover the following topics:

 

• Against!  No renewal recertification should be required and the renewal fee much lower.  This may be a legislative issue but would like to see it eventually gone and the fee lowered.

 

Section 1231.50 Training Certification

g) Beginning March 1, 2016, and thereafter, Instructors shall complete and submit all training records (e.g. training certificates; underlying proof of any statutorily permitted prior training for which credit is being granted) consistent with the training requirements of Section 75 of the Act, via electronic transmission to the Department's electronic database established for approved Instructors within 72 hours after completion of a training course.

 

Against.  The responsibility should be placed on the student. Have the student upload a copy of their supporting documentation when they complete the application, at the same time they upload their certificate and photo.  Instructors should not have to keep the documentation provided. 

I am with you.  As I said in an earlier post, cheaters gonna cheat.  Unless they are trying to be able to charge an instructor with multiple perjury counts, we already signed the certificate stating that we did it correctly.Why keep making it more difficult for us?

[Liberty4IL]

1231 Appx A: Why is the prohibited sign circle diameter of 4" changing? To make it smaller and more difficult to see?

[JSharp]

Here is my wish list of changes:

 

Section 1231.30, c viii)
pass/fail live fire qualification indicating at least 70% of hits were within the 7, 8, 9, and X scoring rings of a B-27 target;

 

• (Is this the proposed language highlighted in red ^^^?  Against!  Keep it the entire black silhouette, not just 7,8,9,X scoring rings).  Going back and forth on this rule is getting to be too much.  

This was snipped because it's legislative...

Section 1231.50 Training Certification

g) Beginning March 1, 2016, and thereafter, Instructors shall complete and submit all training records (e.g. training certificates; underlying proof of any statutorily permitted prior training for which credit is being granted) consistent with the training requirements of Section 75 of the Act, via electronic transmission to the Department's electronic database established for approved Instructors within 72 hours after completion of a training course.

 

Against.  The responsibility should be placed on the student. Have the student upload a copy of their supporting documentation when they complete the application, at the same time they upload their certificate and photo.  Instructors should not have to keep the documentation provided. 

 

Agree with both of these things.

 

With scoring it's not just the constant changes. But in what world does a head shot not count as a hit? Only in Springfield...

 

As far as records, they've already shoved enough onto us as instructors. I've accepted that I need to keep records and do so already as part of providing instruction.  But I don't think I should be the one required to upload them to the state and in a limited time frame.

[JSharp]

 

Any ISP standard curriculum they produce is likely to be far inferior to what *some of us* are teaching right now. I'm OK with minimum times and guidelines but it needs to leave flexibility for the instructor to provide the training he sees fit.

 

I couldn't be happier about the maximum number of students per instructor regulation. These guys running 15 or even 20+ students with 1 or 2 instructors are not providing adequate instruction no matter how much they pretend otherwise. The sooner they are made to stop that the better.

 

I've got this feeling of Deja Vu reading this thread here at IC.  Is this proposal going to cause another round of "let's make it easy to get a Constitutional Right" vs. "X many hours or training are required...  shouldn't it be the best it can be?".

 

I'll be the first to admit I've got limited experience in this field but we had about a dozen instructors in my class of about twenty-five or thirty people.  Obviously they didn't need that many people to do lectures, but out on the range, having that many people made it simply wonderful for the students both in terms of learning and safety.  I didn't need much help, but I still got some help.  Some there needed some hand holding.  Both my wife and I were very pleased with how organized and safely the class was run, thanks to them having instructors to help people who needed it for skill or safety reasons.

 

I would not have been comfortable if there had only been one or two instructors there trying to run a line with a twelve or fifteen shooters.  From a safety standpoint, with people who have decades of bad habits ingrained, that's just an accident waiting to happen.

 

This is the same reason I spend less time at Darnall's public ranges here in Bloomington.  Too many people doing too many stupid things like careless muzzle control and handling guns when I'm downrange.  It's not just Darnall's either.  I was at Foosland with a friend last summer and someone actually started firing at a target at the end of the line when I was hanging a target.  He didn't think there was anything inherently unsafe with that.  That was the last time I went to Foosland.

 

It is Deja Vu

 

Before I became an instructor I took a lot of classes from one of the larger training groups in this state and one of if not the very best. From what I have seen they always run a student/instructor ratio of well under 3-1 Since then I've helped them out with a number of classes and in one case the ratio was effectively 1-1. A class of 22 with 21 instructors. Do the classes cost more? Yep. Are they worth it? Absolutely.  The students got great instruction and the classes were safe. We run the same small ratio in the few classes we run.  There are only a couple of us so the classes are tiny. And I'm good with that.

 

NRA says I can only run 5 students per instructor as part of a shooting class. So anyone who's running more than that and using an NRA course as part of their curriculum is already skating. ISP telling me I can only run 6 students per instructor means nothing to me since I wouldn't do it if I could and not just because of the NRA. I just feel it's unsafe and doesn't give the students their money's worth.

 

I'll repeat what I said in the previous discussion on this subject - I fall on the side of constitutional rights. I think the required number of training hours should be 0. But if the state is going to require a fixed number of hours then the instructors should do their best to fill that time with real instruction and teach the students something. And that's not going to happen running 10 or 15 students per instructor.

Edited by JSharp, 03 August 2015 - 03:07 PM.