Validity of requiring credentials for training courses?

[MarcS]

You just don't waltz in to a law office, pay a fee and a letter is sent. They will (or should) conduct a background check.

a background check? Like the kind they do when you get your CCW? So you're telling us flat out that this requirement is redundant?

What about the background check they perform when you legally purchase a gun?

Frankly, i don't think you'll have much of a problem filtering out the criminal element. In all the shooting classes i've taken, none of which have asked for ID beyond the credit card i paid with, i haven't met one gang banger.

[Whiskey Delta]

[QUOTE=TonyF;36837]You just don't waltz in to a law office, pay a fee and a letter is sent. They will (or should) conduct a background check.

You mean like the background check that was performed by the Sheriff when I got my CCW? The same sheriff that is empowered to PULL my CCW for law violations? This means that my presently having a CCW is sort of a continuing reference of my lack of a criminal record, would you not say? I think so.

But according to you, I should pay a lawyer to do what has already been done? How does this accord with the requirement as Snub Training requires? Notice it does not ask for just a 'lawyer letter', but one attesting to "good character". This, kind sir is a value judgement. The kind of value judgement only someone with a prior relationship with a lawyer would have. Unfortunately for some of us, we don't keep one in our back pocket. If a background check suffices for a lawyer to write a letter of character, then it is a sham. On the other hand, a background check should not be needed if indeed the lawyer knows me well enough to make such a statement.

Sorry, that justification falls flat.

""The problem I have with those of you that feel offended by this standard is that inquiries such as this should be made directly to the instructor or school and not on a public forum specifically due to the tone of some of the comments.""


And why would that be? You are entitled to your 'feelings'. Just like I am entitled to mine. This guy posted this advertisement on this public forum. Nothing in his usage entitles him to be above critique, and YOU yourself asked me to elaborate, correct? Sorry if I don't line up and fawn. I didn't use any bad words nor did I libel, call names or impugn anyone's character. You used words like "Tone" and "Hostile" yet, I don't see Tone or Hostility in anyone's postings. I guess my attempts at humor were taken as "tone" when all I was trying to do was get past the implications of "Hostility". Man, I can't win.


""Like it or not instructors and schools do have to be concerned with their reputations and liability issues. It's a business decision and some of you seem to be taking it personal. Last thing we need is the criminal element attending classes and it gets splashed all over the headlines.""

Yep, and 'business decisions' are not the sole purview of instructors and schools. I am making one right now, in the absence of a 'real' explanation, like "jeepers guys, I must have mistyped that". What comes shining through, however is a very "Zumboesque" quality of presumptive discrimination against anyone not already well heeled enough to have a personal, intimate relationship with a lawyer.

Whether or not the "Criminal Element" attends this class is irrelevant. I mean, is this really a problem? Is the "criminal element' going to drop a business card from the school he attended after he robs a bank?

Sorry, I am not jumping on you. You yourself said that your school is satisfied with just a CCW, correct?

If that is so, why defend the indefensible?

[TonyF]

Sorry, I am not jumping on you. You yourself said that your school is satisfied with just a CCW, correct?

Correct.

Whether or not the "Criminal Element" attends this class is irrelevant. I mean, is this really a problem? Is the "criminal element' going to drop a business card from the school he attended after he robs a bank?

If that is so, why defend the indefensible?

Let me ask you a question.

You indicated that you've been instructing for 20 years, is that public or private sector?

[Whiskey Delta]

Correct.



Let me ask you a question.

You indicated that you've been instructing for 20 years, is that public or private sector?

I train public servants for a private institution.

[TonyF]

a background check? Like the kind they do when you get your CCW? So you're telling us flat out that this requirement is redundant?

No it isn't redundant because there can be issues in a person's background that aren't always related to a criminal history per se.

Frankly, i don't think you'll have much of a problem filtering out the criminal element. In all the shooting classes i've taken, none of which have asked for ID beyond the credit card i paid with, i haven't met one gang banger.

This might seem black and white issue from a student's perspective but running a training school is a business. In our case it's a non profit educational institution staffed for the most part by volunteers. As such we aren't necessarily under the same economic pressures as those in the private sector who are actually trying to eek out a living through offering training courses.

But in many cases those economic pressure and realities can be quite severe and some trainers and schools are forced to balance minimum credential standards against enrollment while others have higher standards. Both are simply business decisions.

I know of at least one very well known instructor who is now requiring armor plates and a mich as a requirement to participating in indoor simulators in his courses. Someone inquired as to why and the short answer was "lawyers".

The liabilities are significant for those of us who offer firearms training. I don't blame anyone a bit for requiring what they feel is necessary to protect their families from financial ruin.

It hasn't happened yet but I certainly foresee the day when someone's student commits a crime, perhaps murders someone and I guarantee the family will be wanting to sue everyone, including the instructor for *teaching someone how to kill*. In that context, insulating yourself from civil action to the greatest extent possible is not unreasonable.

It would be nice if we lived in an ideal world where we could all be *purists* from a *firearms / 2A* perspective but it's not an ideal world.

[MarcS]

No it isn't redundant because there can be issues in a person's background that aren't always related to a criminal history per se.

You'll have to expand on that.

[TonyF]

I train public servants for a private institution.

Are you at liberty to disclose you're employer?

I'm not trying to pry, I'd just like to know the extent of your personal liabilities.

Regardless, that indicates to me that your liability doesn't even begin to approach what private sector instructors are subject to. Would it be fair to say your're covered by the insurance policy of your employer?

[Whiskey Delta]

Are you at liberty to disclose you're employer?

I'm not trying to pry, I'd just like to know the extent of your personal liabilities.

Regardless, that indicates to me that your liability doesn't even begin to approach what private sector instructors are subject to. Would it be fair to say your're covered by the insurance policy of your employer?

As any lawyer will tell you, you can be sued for not walking your neighbor's dog.

The real question I suppose is how far into your personal and professional life you are willing to permit paranoia about litigation?

My instructorship is irrelevant excepting that I said that any instructor worthy of the title has a pretty good idea who does not belong in his class shortly after commencement of the session. A good FFL can refuse to sell to anyone, similarly an instructor could show the door to anyone he saw as not being fit. I have bounced a couple of paying customers out after much more investment on their part than a couple hundred bucks and 8 hours of their time. Some people do not make the grade. Period. This has nothing to do with 'secret squirrel' activities, or trying to keep the Red Horde from learning my secret egg salad recipe. People don't need classes to kill.

Whatever my personal liabilities are, I would offer that one does not see a bevy of lawsuits pressed against trainers of weaponscraft. Since his requirement is not universal, we can draw the conclusion that it is not because the letter requirement is so effective. What notion are you trying to sustain here?

Sorry, it does not wash. You are trying desperately to make me appreciate this guy's stance, now through direct comparison against myself.

Objectively, however, your strenuous objections appears to be more of professional loyalty than than to the actual standard of practice.

YOUR own professional standards are not as zealous as his, why is that?


I think that speaks volumes.

[LastManOut]

I downloaded their registration form. You'd need to submit your driver's license and EITHER a CCW permit, FFL, proof of military service , letter from local official or lawyer.
Good enough for me.

[TonyF]

My instructorship is irrelevant excepting that I said that any instructor worthy of the title has a pretty good idea who does not belong in his class shortly after commencement of the session. A good FFL can refuse to sell to anyone, similarly an instructor could show the door to anyone he saw as not being fit.

We're not only talking about criminal history, we're talking about ethical and moral background and character. If a trainer would rather not teach someone of low moral character he has that right. Can you explain to me how you can evaluate that aspect of your students during the course of the class unless you're God and can see into someone's soul? It's not difficult to hide the fact that you're a low life from those around you who don't know you personally.

I have bounced a couple of paying customers out after much more investment on their part than a couple hundred bucks and 8 hours of their time. Some people do not make the grade. Period. This has nothing to do with 'secret squirrel' activities, or trying to keep the Red Horde from learning my secret egg salad recipe.

Please elaborate. Students can get ejected from classes due to wanton violations and indifference to safety protocol. I'm sincerely interested in the specifics of the cases where you've cut students from your classes.

People don't need classes to kill.

That's true. But we're talking about minimizing liability.

Whatever my personal liabilities are, I would offer that one does not see a bevy of lawsuits pressed against trainers of weaponscraft.

That's because the vetting process works though it doesn't mean it isn't ever going to happen. The discussion here is to what length a school or instructor should go to insure *who* they are training.

Since his requirement is not universal, we can draw the conclusion that it is not because the letter requirement is so effective. What notion are you trying to sustain here?

I'm not trying to sustain any *notion*. A discussion is taking place and I'm trying to explain why some private sector schools and instructors require a letter of good character in addition to credentials that provide proof of no criminal history.

You are trying desperately to make me appreciate this guy's stance, now through direct comparison against myself.

I certainy am though I am by no means *desperate*. I'm leaning on you personally because I think it illustrates the point that there is a HUGE difference between an instructor who is covered by his employers insurance policy and private sector instructors who have to concern themselves with the potential liability.

NRA certified instructors are covered by a million dollars of insurance when conducting NRA classes which is why they are *severely restricted* to teaching the NRA courses to the letter. I know for a fact that some go above and beyond the NRA sanctioned course material and I'll tell you, if there is ever an *incident* and it is discovered that they took liberties with the approved course syllabus, the instructor may find himself without that NRA insurance coverage.

You're certainly entitled to your criticism's but you haven't specifically addressed my question as to whether or not you're covered by your employers insurance. I wouldn't think that is a matter of national security and would appreciate a repsonse.

Objectively, however, your strenuous objections appears to be more of professional loyalty than than to the actual standard of practice.

It has nothing to do with loyalty. It has to do with being in a similar circumstance and understanding the risks involved.

YOUR own professional standards are not as zealous as his, why is that?

I think that speaks volumes.

We feel comfortable with our standards. Mr. Bethencourt apparently feels otherwise.