================
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that the PD wanted to require firearms instructors to include a portion of their class dedicated to mental health education or something like that.
The theory being that since many firearm deaths are the result of suicide or mental health problems then the instructors will somehow magically persuade a crazy person not to shoot himself (or herself) or anybody else.

ie. the PD wants firearm instructors to be mind readers or at the very least, psychology instructors.
The PD is asking firearms instructors to teach a subject they are not qualified to teach.

An analogy would be to ask your high school drivers-ed teacher to also teach students how to drive an 18 wheel semi or perhaps fly a cessna.

Does that sound about right?

It might not be some in depth training. If it were something as simple as handing out a suicide prevention help phone number then it could be a very reasonable requirement.

focus
they don't even have a system in place
nor have they had a public meeting to discuss said system

oh, and the counties ignored this until hifico told them...

Have they denied any instructors without good cause?

So......just like the sillouette situation at KokoHead.......


Limbo........


Juuuussst the way they like it.

It might not be some in depth training. If it were something as simple as handing out a suicide prevention help phone number then it could be a very reasonable requirement.

So would it be OK to have a non mental health professional discuss a required mental health issue in order to buy a handgun.  Then get sued if something with regards to that happens?

This requirement, although simple opens the door to a lawsuit.  Remember, anyone can sue for any reason, but it doesn't mean they can win in court. But defense of a BS lawsuit also cost money and stress.  So now an instructor is open for this.

Do you feel it's constitutional for the state/chief to require this? Your statement said "it could be a very reasonable requirement", which is not a stance on the issue.

It might not be some in depth training. If it were something as simple as handing out a suicide prevention help phone number then it could be a very reasonable requirement.

Handing out a phone number that is completely obtainable on the Internet is not "training."  I highly doubt that's what the law  intended, or else that's what it would say.  Something that simple and easy would be literally included in the statute.

Do you think, even in your plebeian example, instructors won't say something like, "If you or someone you know is feeling suicidal, call this number?"

That alone would constitute giving mental health advice.

Must be nice to live in your little world of make believe.

Handing out a phone number that is completely obtainable on the Internet is not "training."  I highly doubt that's what the law  intended, or else that's what it would say.  Something that simple and easy would be literally included in the statute.

Do you think, even in your plebeian example, instructors won't say something like, "If you or someone you know is feeling suicidal, call this number?"

That alone would constitute giving mental health advice.

Must be nice to live in your little world of make believe.

What is a good thing, if you want to call it that is that the law doesn't state how long or how to give this mental health professional advice.  Just that you gotta teach about the issues (exclude the option to bring in a professional).  But at the same time, for the CCW approval, the instructors have to submit their power point or like slides and course curriculum and their credentials to teach such things.  As well as the written test and answer key.  So why would HPD need this unless they are making the determination of what's good enough to teach.  So I highly doubt that HPD would allow an instructor to just pass out a phone number for the suicide, domestic violence and like hotlines.  But we will see what happens.


*Added info

For the use of force required teaching, some instructors  used their Masaad Ayoob (MAS40) instructor training class.  This was a 40hr course. Which means they had to take off and also fly to another state and book a hotel room. I'm not sure what other CCW instructors used for credentials. But for the mental health stuff, would this mean a similar type of instructor training would have to be done?

So would it be OK to have a non mental health professional discuss a required mental health issue in order to buy a handgun.  Then get sued if something with regards to that happens?

This requirement, although simple opens the door to a lawsuit.  Remember, anyone can sue for any reason, but it doesn't mean they can win in court. But defense of a BS lawsuit also cost money and stress.  So now an instructor is open for this.

Do you feel it's constitutional for the state/chief to require this? Your statement said "it could be a very reasonable requirement", which is not a stance on the issue.

I don't think you would be open to significant liability for passing out a flyer with a phone number. Depending on the extent that is required that could be an avenue for lawsuits. 

As for my personal opinion on the chief's rules, I have serious problems with anytime an administrative agency gets to do what should be the job of lawmakers. Punishments and significant regulations should not be made up by departments but by lawmakers.

There is a strong case to make that this is unconstitutional. The name escapes me but there is, I believe, a case going through the SCOTUS right now that touches on this very issue. Not about guns but something more like the EPA making up rules that have the power of law despite that they are not a legislative body. If they decide that administrative agencies cannot essentially make law that could go to making much of the Rules of the Chief unconstitutional. Crossing my fingers!

  So I highly doubt that HPD would allow an instructor to just pass out a phone number for the suicide, domestic violence and like hotlines.  But we will see what happens.

I am not holding my breath either.

For the use of force required teaching, some instructors  used their Masaad Ayoob (MAS40) instructor training class.  This was a 40hr course. Which means they had to take off and also fly to another state and book a hotel room. I'm not sure what other CCW instructors used for credentials. But for the mental health stuff, would this mean a similar type of instructor training would have to be done?

I suspect what many firearms instructors would do is farm out the portion of the class to someone licensed/certified to teach on the subject. Unless one is teaching many classes it probably wouldn't make sense to get such an additional certification, depending on how strenuous the requirement of course.

I am not holding my breath either.

I suspect what many firearms instructors would do is farm out the portion of the class to someone licensed/certified to teach on the subject. Unless one is teaching many classes it probably wouldn't make sense to get such an additional certification, depending on how strenuous the requirement of course.

===========
Let's not mince words here.
The actual intent of these rules is to make it as hard as possible for people to get ANY kind of firearm permit.
Therefore, the vaguer the rule is written, the easier it is to interpret it ANY WAY they want.

I would like to know what genius wrote this ill-conceived proposal before they figured out how it is supposed to be applied.
Furthermore, I would like to know if the person who WROTE these rules has any of the qualifications spelled out in these rules.

This is just me but I believe the Counties and the State are using delay and deny tactics.

This is just me but I believe the Counties and the State are using delay and deny tactics.

...
I think that is pretty obvious.
When this whole ccw business started, I had this mental image of Josh green and the police chief running around like ants that just got sprayed.
Problem is they formed a new line of ants and they are looking to crawl up your leg and start biting.
Their strategy is similar to the way ants attack.
Ants quietly crawl up your leg but don't bite until there are a lot of them.
Then they are given a signal and bite all at once. In this way, the animal is overwhelmed with poison.

These legislative rules are similar to ants. The rules have a start date which is the signal to attack.
But now we know they are crawling up your leg so we have to swat them.
Our problem is that ants regroup and form a new line.
The way to get rid of ants is to get rid of the nest.
My house has a lot of ants. I tried spraying and poison bait with only moderate success.

I don't think you would be open to significant liability for passing out a flyer with a phone number. Depending on the extent that is required that could be an avenue for lawsuits. 

Wrong.

I suspect what many firearms instructors would do is farm out the portion of the class to someone licensed/certified to teach on the subject. Unless one is teaching many classes it probably wouldn't make sense to get such an additional certification, depending on how strenuous the requirement of course.

This would mean an additional cost to the already say $200 class, $150 no refund CCW applicaiton, $50 range expenses, etc...

===========
Let's not mince words here.
The actual intent of these rules is to make it as hard as possible for people to get ANY kind of firearm permit.
Therefore, the vaguer the rule is written, the easier it is to interpret it ANY WAY they want.

I would like to know what genius wrote this ill-conceived proposal before they figured out how it is supposed to be applied.
Furthermore, I would like to know if the person who WROTE these rules has any of the qualifications spelled out in these rules.

A right delayed is a right denied, thus unconstitutional.

Wrong.

 

This would mean an additional cost to the already say $200 class, $150 no refund CCW applicaiton, $50 range expenses, etc...

Indeed.