The law could certainly be changed, but "we" didn't have anything to do with this bill. I doubt we'd delve into this issue since 1) it impacts so few people; and 2) we have too much to get done. As a practical matter, if online courses are to be offered, DPS should be doing it.ChrisR wrote:What do you think about getting the law amended to shorten the in person proficiency requirement ? The LTC 101 specifically says 1 hour min 2 hour max of "range instruction" plus the actual shooting. Range instruction does not take that amount of time. It would benefit both parties, especially if instructors could just add the online students to the range portion of the class. It's apparent that this was not well thought out.Charles L. Cotton wrote:As the DPS lady said during our recertification course, "about the only people who will benefit from the online courses are people who are 1) out of state; and 2) exempt from the range qualification." I agree, primarily because of the overall cost to the student and because I don't see many LTC instructors being willing to do only the range portion of the class.
Some instructors will refuse to do the range portion of the class on principle while others will not find it to fit a good business model. If the 1 to 2 hrs. of instruction was not required, then we could allow online students to join us just for the range portion of the course. The additional teaching requirement means we would have to have separate classes for these folks and I don't see that happening on a broad scale. I won't do it because of what I would charge them for such a short "course." Unless they can get an online course for $20, the overall cost of training will be higher than attending a live class. (I've heard some instructor say they will charge the full fee.) It will be interesting to see how all this works out.
Chas.
Chas.