Jump to content

Update 9/19 -- talks and complaints continue. . .UPDATED 10:15


Tvandermyde

Recommended Posts

I just got off the phone with Rep. Costello and Phelps. Went over my last memo with complaints. They have been out of town and are getting back into the swing of things.

 

They had a briefing by State Police before they left, but are becoming aware about the BS they are being fed and the problems stacking up.

 

They are going to seek a meeting with the State Police this week, and I was asked to give them a list of dot points, boiled down from my last memo.

 

State Police legal Department says they can no longer discuss the rules with us as they view them as Ex Parte communications and all commo over them has shut down.

 

So now the only venue we have will be public and through our legislators. For the last 120 days, we have attempted to be helpful. We have attempted to point out flaws in their system and how the real world works. And it seems the State Police Legal Dept. are the ones really screwing this up. Aside from other pee-ons at ISP who have no sense of urgency in the matter and think they can wait until January till they have to do anything.

 

I’m going to Home Depot. I hope they have a sale on pitchforks and tiki torches.

 

The list of our complaints:

 

• State Police don’t want to develop curriculum, but want to place lots of mandates on curriculums.

• Instructors should not be required to file curriculums, unless seeking approval of a specific course.

• Any curriculum should be able to be taught by any instructor.

• No mandatory minimums for any subject matter in courses.

• No mandatory range time or additional rounds, beyond the range qualification

• No requirement for FCCL by instructors

• Law enforcement agencies MUST be allowed to submit finger prints.

• ISP must approve courses shorter than 8 hours.

• ISP needs to publish a list of courses that will comply with the first 8 hours IMMEDIATELY

• ISP needs to get more instructors posted IMMEDIATELY and should be at 50% by now.

• ISP should publish courses that will comply with the second 8 hours IMMEDIATELY

• Lawyers and Law Enforcement officers should be able to teach use of force and current law under the supervision of a certified instructor.

• All subject matter, shall be credited towards the 8 hours. Not just the first 3 items under training.

• ISP NOT instructors should verify training and credits.

• Hunters Education should count towards 8 hours credit.

• ISP needs to file a new set of emergency rules to negate many of the things included as instructors sign off based upon penalties of perjury.

 

If things change I will update this thread so look to the header for any updates and then look to the orginal post for the additions.

 

UPDATE # 1

 

 

Just got a call from a couple of the reps and going over things we are complaining about.

 

The ISP plans to make a large posting of instructors on or about 9/30. They will list curriculums at the same time. They position, is that they see this as big business and don’t want be seen as giving anyone an advantage and fielding complaints from those not approved. Expect a posting of a few hundred or more.

 

They will drop the approved curriculums at the same time same reason. We have pointed out repeatedly about the rules problems with training modules and the mandatory time minimums, coupled with the penalty of perjury for instructors.

 

They have hired 40 new temp employees who are to start either Friday or Monday to work on these issues.

 

Still no answer on out of state instructors or applicants getting their fingerprints here other than making a trip to Illinois.

More as I get it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would seem to me that a good faith effort on behalf of the Instructor to verify the first 8 hours is in all of our best interests. If we give the ISP a "one stop shopping" place for training verification (the Instructor's signature), that would speed up the issuing of licenses, versus them having to go through multiple certificates. If I am taking someone to the range, I am going to verify beforehand in the classroom that they can handle a gun safely (load / unload and show clear / trigger discipline and muzzle sweep). So i would be in a good position to verify whether the certificate from the first 8 hours of training that they are handing me is legitimate or about as good as toilet paper.

 

If I keep a scanned copy of their certificate(s) from the first 8 hours, and I am going to verify their safe handling anyway, I don't see the harm in my "signing off" on them for the full 16 hours. I can't see how I could be charged with misconduct unless the certificate I accept is filled out in crayon and an obvious forgery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look at all that time Valinda spent running all over heck and back, trying to be nice, trying to be helpful, trying to work WITH the isp. All that just to get a nose thumbed at her and communication completely shut off. That is what happens when you try to play nice with a tyrant
Link to comment
Share on other sites

which ones FF cause the rules still apply the FAQ don't matter

 

Can I go to a police department to be fingerprinted?

 

Questions regarding whether a local police department can submit Livescan fingerprints for noncriminal justice purposes should be directed to your local police department.

 

If a business or one or more Instructors are teaching from the same curriculum, are all instructors using the curriculum required to submit it to the ISP for approval?

 

No, once curriculum is approved and listed on the ISP’s website as approved curriculum, any approved instructor with access to the curriculum may use it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look at all that time Valinda spent running all over heck and back, trying to be nice, trying to be helpful, trying to work WITH the isp. All that just to get a nose thumbed at her and communication completely shut off. That is what happens when you try to play nice with a tyrant

 

Yes, that sucks. However, she did accomplish quite a bit before Legal shut the door.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would seem to me that a good faith effort on behalf of the Instructor to verify the first 8 hours is in all of our best interests. If we give the ISP a "one stop shopping" place for training verification (the Instructor's signature), that would speed up the issuing of licenses, versus them having to go through multiple certificates. If I am taking someone to the range, I am going to verify beforehand in the classroom that they can handle a gun safely (load / unload and show clear / trigger discipline and muzzle sweep). So i would be in a good position to verify whether the certificate from the first 8 hours of training that they are handing me is legitimate or about as good as toilet paper.

 

If I keep a scanned copy of their certificate(s) from the first 8 hours, and I am going to verify their safe handling anyway, I don't see the harm in my "signing off" on them for the full 16 hours. I can't see how I could be charged with misconduct unless the certificate I accept is filled out in crayon and an obvious forgery.

 

That was my plan. I've had to prove basic handling for classes I've taken from different instructors. If someone wants to pull the "I was taught to shoot by Sam Colt - who are you to question my skills?" ,my reply is "the guy who's signing your CHL affadavit, if you successfully complete the class. If you have that much of an issue, here's your payment back. Have a nice day. :) "

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So batteries released , fire letters, calls and emails to Reps and Senators at will?

 

 

For Valinda - ISP no pie for you

 

http://www.ezrapoundcake.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/chocolate-pudding-pie-1-500x344.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"State Police legal Department says they can no longer discuss the rules with us as they view them as Ex Parte communications and all commo over them has shut down."

 

I have been fairly patient with this process. However, here is my view. First, I am a lawyer as well as an NRA instructor in multiple disciplines. Tell, or ask your friends at ISP that the concept of ex parte communications applies generally to legal proceedings involving an adversarial relationship. Thus, does ISP consider this process adversarial, Them vs Us? If so, tell them to say so. When I was a child, and someone asked if I wanted any help, I would say no, I will do it myself. With a lot of age, now, when someone asks if I want any help I say, "all that I can get." ISP should realize we are not the enemy and that some of us (Todd for example) have a great deal of expertise in this area that we are happy to share with them for free.

 

There, I have said my peice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would seem to me that a good faith effort on behalf of the Instructor to verify the first 8 hours is in all of our best interests. If we give the ISP a "one stop shopping" place for training verification (the Instructor's signature), that would speed up the issuing of licenses, versus them having to go through multiple certificates. If I am taking someone to the range, I am going to verify beforehand in the classroom that they can handle a gun safely (load / unload and show clear / trigger discipline and muzzle sweep). So i would be in a good position to verify whether the certificate from the first 8 hours of training that they are handing me is legitimate or about as good as toilet paper.

 

If I keep a scanned copy of their certificate(s) from the first 8 hours, and I am going to verify their safe handling anyway, I don't see the harm in my "signing off" on them for the full 16 hours. I can't see how I could be charged with misconduct unless the certificate I accept is filled out in crayon and an obvious forgery.

 

Though I agree with you, and keeping the scanned copies is obviously showing that you did your due diligence, many veterans on this forum have already stated that they would not let someone take a copy of their DD-214. I see a nightmare of trouble if prior verification is pushed onto the instructors. Just my $0.02.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"State Police legal Department says they can no longer discuss the rules with us as they view them as Ex Parte communications and all commo over them has shut down."

 

I have been fairly patient with this process. However, here is my view. First, I am a lawyer as well as an NRA instructor in multiple disciplines. Tell, or ask your friends at ISP that the concept of ex parte communications applies generally to legal proceedings involving an adversarial relationship. Thus, does ISP consider this process adversarial, Them vs Us? If so, tell them to say so. When I was a child, and someone asked if I wanted any help, I would say no, I will do it myself. With a lot of age, now, when someone asks if I want any help I say, "all that I can get." ISP should realize we are not the enemy and that some of us (Todd for example) have a great deal of expertise in this area that we are happy to share with them for free.

 

There, I have said my peice.

There you go "Making sense again!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"State Police legal Department says they can no longer discuss the rules with us as they view them as Ex Parte communications and all commo over them has shut down."

 

I have been fairly patient with this process. However, here is my view. First, I am a lawyer as well as an NRA instructor in multiple disciplines. Tell, or ask your friends at ISP that the concept of ex parte communications applies generally to legal proceedings involving an adversarial relationship. Thus, does ISP consider this process adversarial, Them vs Us? If so, tell them to say so. When I was a child, and someone asked if I wanted any help, I would say no, I will do it myself. With a lot of age, now, when someone asks if I want any help I say, "all that I can get." ISP should realize we are not the enemy and that some of us (Todd for example) have a great deal of expertise in this area that we are happy to share with them for free.

 

There, I have said my peice.

 

+1. Also, I have voluntarily assisted the state and fed govt with my expertise several times and at the end was screwed royally. I have learned not to trust them at all. Nothing surprises me...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have always worked under, "don't ask question you do not want to hear the answers to", but since this can lead to a nice legal mess --

They should clarify if approved instructors are allowed to start advertising or at least start teaching the first 8 hours (Basic Pistol) as officially CCL approved 8 hours. --

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re DD 214's: If the veteran can produce a DD 214 for your examination at the time of training, he/she would be able to produce it again at any proceedings, or it would be available through the national military records process. Presumably an instructor would only need it during some sort of legal proceeding involving the instructor. If its a trial/deposition the other party would only be coming after you through some action against your student. The student would/should be only too happy to provide the instructor a copy.

 

The DD 214 will not disappear (unless it was a counterfeit to begin with). That would be another story!

 

Bushy

 

Edit spelling

Link to comment
Share on other sites

State Police legal Department says they can no longer discuss the rules with us as they view them as Ex Parte communications and all commo over them has shut down.

If I had to guess I'd say that the ISP attorneys expect to wind up in court and are battening down the hatches in preparation for a long struggle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would seem to me that a good faith effort on behalf of the Instructor to verify the first 8 hours is in all of our best interests. If we give the ISP a "one stop shopping" place for training verification (the Instructor's signature), that would speed up the issuing of licenses, versus them having to go through multiple certificates. If I am taking someone to the range, I am going to verify beforehand in the classroom that they can handle a gun safely (load / unload and show clear / trigger discipline and muzzle sweep). So i would be in a good position to verify whether the certificate from the first 8 hours of training that they are handing me is legitimate or about as good as toilet paper.

 

If I keep a scanned copy of their certificate(s) from the first 8 hours, and I am going to verify their safe handling anyway, I don't see the harm in my "signing off" on them for the full 16 hours. I can't see how I could be charged with misconduct unless the certificate I accept is filled out in crayon and an obvious forgery.

 

I think this is where I have to disagree. I don't feel it is my job to keep records of a persons prior training. Nor is it my responsibility to VERIFY their prior training or the fact that they meet the complete requirements of the statute. I think that is the ISP's job.

 

As an instructor, if a student tells me he has a DD 214 or has met his first 8 hours via certificate, I would say "fine", teach that student his second 8 hours, give him my certificate that clearly states what was taught and that it is for 8 hours of credit. Then it becomes the students responsibility to turn that information to the ISP and then it is THEIR RESPONSIBILITY to verify they have met the requirements set forth in the statute.

 

I think the ISP is trying to admonish themselves of all responsibility and liability and they are trying to push that down on the instructors. That is not right in my eyes. They are the certifying agency not me !!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FYI: If you're going to share the list, you may want to elaborate on some of the items.

* Is it something we are up against now or something we want *

i.e. 'No requirement for FCCL by instructors'-- Do we want 'No requirements' or are their currently 'No requirements' listed anywhere.--

The list will seem obvious to us, but who knows what goes through the minds of others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...