TexasCHLforum.com

I suspect the 'online' requal will only be in 2015. It does not make sense for DPS to have to run requal classes every 2 years when they can limit it to every 4 years. Just like people that became instructors in 2012, only got a 1 years certificate, they have to requal this year too.

Is there something in the code somewhere (admin code maybe), that says they only need to proficiency-test instructors every 4 years? Where?

???

We'll probably have to shoot again in 2 years when we renew online.

switch wrote:???

We'll probably have to shoot again in 2 years when we renew online.

Soooo.. It's just arbitrary? Whenever. DPS wants us to?

sjfcontrol wrote:Soooo.. It's just arbitrary? Whenever. DPS wants us to?

Totally arbitrary. They're not following the new law for license renewals either.

bizarrenormality wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:Soooo.. It's just arbitrary? Whenever. DPS wants us to?

Totally arbitrary. They're not following the new law for license renewals either.

The Gov't Code doesn't require Instructors to qualify on the range; only CHL applicants. In fact, the Code expressly requires the DPS to allow Instructors to renew online, every other recertification. The Code gives DPS authority to issue rules and those rules require Instructors to qualify on the range every other renewal; i.e. in compliance with the online recertification required by the Code.

DPS is not ignoring the law, nor are they being arbitrary about instructor recertification. They are following the law and the Tex. Administrative Code.

Chas.

Tex. Gov't Code §411.190(d-1) wrote:(d-1) The department shall ensure that an applicant may renew certification under Subsection (d) from any county in this state by using an online format to complete the required retraining courses if:

(1) the applicant is renewing certification for the first time; or

(2) the applicant completed the required retraining courses in person the previous time the applicant renewed certification.

37 TAC §6.72 wrote:To qualify for certification as a handgun instructor, an instructor applicant must apply for and successfully complete the instructor training course offered by the department. As part of the initial training course, and each alternate renewal training course, the instructor applicant must demonstrate handgun proficiency, and initially and at every renewal, must pass a written test covering the required subjects.

I just received my e-mail from the state verifying my application and asking to pick an up coming date. they have new dates through Dec. in Georgetown and Mesquite At the end it added that they were working on a new date for Houston. So I opted for that.
Anyone else received an e-mail like this?

Charles L. Cotton wrote:DPS is not ignoring the law, nor are they being arbitrary about instructor recertification.

37 TAC §6.72 wrote:To qualify for certification as a handgun instructor, an instructor applicant must apply for and successfully complete the instructor training course offered by the department. As part of the initial training course, and each alternate renewal training course, the instructor applicant must demonstrate handgun proficiency, and initially and at every renewal, must pass a written test covering the required subjects.

Perhaps some read your bold text this way and are led to believe that the DPS is being just a tad arbitrary:

An instructor is required to qualify during the initial training and alternate renewals thereafter. For many instructors, this is their first renewal so they may feel that qualification should not be necessary this time around.

The statue is clear as well that the demonstration must be "part of... each alternate renewal training course..." No mention of instructors qualifying other instructors outside of the actual "renewal training course".

I understand the expediency of a slightly different interpretation by DPS on the meaning of "alternate renewals", and am wholly in favor of instructor-on-instructor qualifications, but I also understand those that see a bit of arbitrariness.

dogflight wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:DPS is not ignoring the law, nor are they being arbitrary about instructor recertification.

37 TAC §6.72 wrote:To qualify for certification as a handgun instructor, an instructor applicant must apply for and successfully complete the instructor training course offered by the department. As part of the initial training course, and each alternate renewal training course, the instructor applicant must demonstrate handgun proficiency, and initially and at every renewal, must pass a written test covering the required subjects.

Perhaps some read your bold text this way and are led to believe that the DPS is being just a tad arbitrary:

An instructor is required to qualify during the initial training and alternate renewals thereafter. For many instructors, this is their first renewal so they may feel that qualification should not be necessary this time around.

The statue is clear as well that the demonstration must be "part of... each alternate renewal training course..." No mention of instructors qualifying other instructors outside of the actual "renewal training course".

I understand the expediency of a slightly different interpretation by DPS on the meaning of "alternate renewals", and am wholly in favor of instructor-on-instructor qualifications, but I also understand those that see a bit of arbitrariness.

I think I understand what you are saying but to be sure, the statute/code doesn't require any shooting by instructors. That requirement is found only in the Texas Admin. Code. 37 TAC §6.72 was created by DPS so as long as they don't resort to some unreasonable interpretation of their own rules, then they are not being arbitrary and they aren't ignoring the "law" as some have contended. They certainly have the authority to allow Instructors to supervise the range qualification of other Instructors and this can be considered part of the renewal process, or "course" if you will.

I agree that people who are on their first renewal should be able to requalify online as this is required by the Gov't Code. That said, I can see real problems having both online and in-person renewals in the same year, so the Code should be changed.

Chas.

In the most technical sense, the current practice does comply with the Admin Code requirement of demonstrating proficiency at each alternate renewal. Since the initial certification and the renewal are two different activities, the initial training does not factor into determining if the renewals are properly alternated (think of the "third renewal" usage in the past that did not include the initial class). Therefore, whether the proficiency demonstration is done during an instructor's even-numbered or odd-numbered renewals, it would still be alternate renewals.

I would propose that the word "alternate" be stricken from the code. That would resolve the issue on which renewal is the "alternate renewal".