More Reciprocity

[marinakorp]

Originally Posted by dgg9

Advanced training presupposes basic safety training.

Right...which is why I was asking which of the courses was not acceptable by FLA.

In the requirements, it is asking for basically passing any course involving firearms. They ask for proof of the training (fair requirement), like a copy of a certificate, or even an affidavit that they attended the course, etc.

In another post, MarcS stated it was based off of a phone call to the state (and we know we always get the best and brightest on the phone from any state agency ) and they did not know, etc... OK... and not willing to take the chance of having the price of admission be denied on a technicality ... OK

But based on their rules... most anything will suffice for the training rule. So... I'm not so sure that they will deny.

Has anyone else been deied a FLA license that did not use one of the "generic" training / testing avenues?

[dgg9]

Originally Posted by marinakorp

Right...which is why I was asking which of the courses was not acceptable by FLA.

The problem is that while in reality almost any advanced shooting course should suffice, there is no way for the FLA civil servant staffer sitting at his desk to know that, nor can we expect them to have the initiative to run down all the information.

As in all things bureaucratic, they will push back all work and research to you, the applicant. So if you want to leverage the classes you've had, you can try contacting FLA, or else maybe contacting your trainer and see what he can type up for you..... but all this is rolling the dice.

But based on their rules... most anything will suffice for the training rule. So... I'm not so sure that they will deny.

That's just it: it's vague, which is anathema to bored, incurious clerks. When confronted by the need to think, they may actually think, OR they may just say "ok, I'll approve it and be done with it" OR they may just reject it out of hand. No way to know how he'll feel on that particular day.

[Sebastian]

I carry in DE on an FL license. DE won't likely sign with PA because their attorney general interprets their reciprocity statute as requiring training. Ohio, as far as I know, is the same way.

[larrymeyer]

Originally Posted by Sebastian

I carry in DE on an FL license. DE won't likely sign with PA because their attorney general interprets their reciprocity statute as requiring training. Ohio, as far as I know, is the same way.

Don't have a problem with training maybe the AG get together and change PA license to add a box that says went through training and if you had it can be checked off. After all a drivers license says you must wear corrective lenses

[Sebastian]

I've thought of that too. The main problem I see with a training endorsement is twofold:

1. It's not common practice. We'd be the only state that would do it, and I could see it weirding out enough state Attorneys General that it might not get us where we want to be.
2. It opens up the door to the possibility of just having a blanket training requirement. Going down that road just a little bit gets us one step closer to that unwelcome destination.

I would support a training requirement if we went Alaska carry, where the only purpose of the license was for reciprocity with other states. Otherwise I think it's too much of a political risk.