Utah Guns Forum banner
1 - 2 of 11 Posts

· Registered
99 Posts
HB 350

In speaking with many instructors and members of US-DIN, there has been 1 overwhelming question. Why should Utah taxpayers subsidize, with resident taxes, non resident instructors to teach non resident applicants?

Why should BCI have to stand idly by when many of these same non resident Utah CCW instructor’s run diploma mills thereby devaluing our fantastic permit in the eyes of other states?

The answer is; obviously they shouldn’t have to.

I have been asked to address this and include language in an existing bill that the Honorable Curt Oda has sponsored. In addition we have worked with Charles Hardy who gave great insight on the language as well as the folks at BCI.

We are the only state that allows this type and degree of credentials and instruction by non-residents let alone letting non-residents teach in any other state. While at the same time having no monitoring of their compliance with Utah’s requirements

No taxes are paid by these other instructors,

Some are just signing up to become instructors for a $5.00 1-time fee so they don’t have to pay for their own instruction. They then sign their own application.

Some out of state (and a few in state) instructors are signing off without giving any instruction.

This bill does not limit the permit system in any way. It in no way touches the content or requirements of instruction.

The reality is that unless we initiate some degree of control over the instructors it may in fact be done for us with farther reaching effects that than those imposed on just instructor’s. For instance BCI and many others still want to see a live fire aspect to the instruction as well as renewal courses for applicants.

In addition we face he real prospect of loosing recognition and or reciprocity with other states unless we show that we are in fact doing something to monitor instructors.

The renewal classes taught should be taught at least 1 if not 2 times per year. This can be amended in the bill.

The notary public type stamp is for control of those who teach and to monitor their credential expiration dates.

In the end it will go a long way to effectively curtail the opportunistic instructors and belay the pattern of abuse among some of the Utah instructor’s

The Bill’s Sponsor, The Honorable Curt Oda has decided to remove the language that would limit instructor credentials to Utah Residents only. Whereas I would like to have retained that language in the bill I believe we can work with it.

I have arranged for some our instructors to speak in favor of the bill when it appears before the house committee this week.

I have also looked at some suggestions proffered by John Spangler of USSC and find them to be appropriate and would suggest to the sponsor they be added to the 1st substitute.

John’s suggestions are as follows;

Line 114- specify what type of NRA certification(s) are needed, or make it deliberately very encompassing- there are many vastly different certifications, some very easy to get, others very difficult. (Home Firearms Safety, marksmanship instructor, coach, RBTAV, etc).

Line 133- add "successfully" before completing

Lines 137-149 Does the term "seal" have a specific meaning? I assume you are wanting an ink stamp with the specified information, not a raised embossed type seal.

Lines 158-159- change to read

[(14)] (13) In providing instruction and issuing a permit under this part, the concealed firearms instructor and licensing authority is are not vicariously liable for damages caused by the permit holder.


W. Clark Aposhian
1 - 2 of 11 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.