IL - Call to Action - HB4290 Certified Firearms Instructor


PDA






wtr100
April 24, 2014, 04:13 PM
originally posted at
http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=48349



Witness Slips Needed




Witness Slip Instructions
http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=32865




HB4290 Certified Firearms Instructor is a bill which has concerned us for some time, both in its extreme penalties and lack of safeguards. Having passed out of the House last month, it is now scheduled to be heard in Senate Judiciary on 4/29/2014.



Today's Call to Action is in 2 parts.




Step 1 - File Witness Slips Opposing HB4290




Log on to the ILGA Dashboard or Create a New Account first, then file as an OPPONENT at the link below.


HB4290 Certified Firearms Instructor = OPPONENT
.
.
.


Step 2 - Contact the Sponsor




In an effort to ensure that the sponsor, Senator Michael Connelly, is aware of the many criticisms leveled against this bill, we ask every member to contact his offices immediately in order to share the information that follows. Please make a special effort to copy and paste our talking points into the body of an email, and fill the Senator's inbox at senatorconnelly21@gmail.com. Voice mail and fax are also options.



> Under HB4290 an instructor charged with falling short of the required training for a class of 20 students will face revocation of credentials, up to 1 year in prison, and a maximum $62,000 penalty

> An instructor who was the subject of a recent Illinois State Police press release, under HB4290 language, would face maximum fines and surcharges totaling $1,021,875 in addition to revocation of credentials and prison.

> HB4290 does not explain how charges against out of state instructors will be handled. Will they be extradited for trial and sentencing, or will they face nothing more than revocation of credentials with only Illinois instructors being subject to the full brunt of these outrageous penalties

> HB4290 offers no guarantee of restitution to the aggrieved students, making them the potential victim of both the instructor's and the State's indifference to their rights

> There are no safeguards against false allegations, whether made by disgruntled students, instructors in competition with the accused, or overzealous prosecutors.

> There are no safeguards against charges being leveled for the most minor misunderstanding or slight variation in length or content of training.

> HB4290 fails to differentiate between incompetent instruction, and dishonest instruction.

> In removing the possibility of court supervision, those promoting HB4290 seek to relieve the Judiciary of its Constitutionally mandated power and authority, vesting them instead in the single branch of government under their direct control

> The ISP already has the authority to revoke an instructor's teaching credentials

> The ISP already has the authority to deny or revoke a concealed carry license

> With revocation procedures already in place the purpose of HB4290 is retribution, not safety. If safety was the issue this bill would have been offered in the Fall Veto Session. If safety was the issue this bill would not have languished in the House more than 2 months in the Spring Session before debate. If safety is the issue this bill would not now be sitting idle in the Senate more than 3 weeks.






Senator Connelly can be reached as follows:


District Office

1725 S. Naperville Road,
Suite 200
Wheaton, IL 60189

VOICE: 630-682-8101
FAX: 630-682-8108

Springfield Office

M103C State House
Springfield, IL 62706

VOICE: 217-782-8192
FAX: 217-782-9586

E-mail
senatorconnelly21@gmail.com



Do remember that all contact should be respectful and business like. If you choose to call his office do recognize that you will speak to office staff who will likely know little about the bill. Make your position known in a polite and friendly way.

If you enjoyed reading about "IL - Call to Action - HB4290 Certified Firearms Instructor" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Trent
April 24, 2014, 06:02 PM
Wow. So under this new law, if it passes .... if I teach a class of 20 students *1 minute* short of the required time, I face fines of $62,000 and a 1 year prison sentence with no court supervision allowed?

I would turn in my credentials over this, if it passes. Not worth going to prison over teaching a damn firearms safety class.

What's to stop them from charging me with a crime if the Illinois State Police rules that 5 minute restroom breaks each hour don't count for the allotted time? I could still teach 16 hours but fall 80 minutes "short" of the required time. (Basically I'd have to teach an hour and a half "extra" to make up for restroom breaks).

Jeez. Screw that.

Trent
April 24, 2014, 06:08 PM
The thought of going to prison over allowing a student to go take a leak and stretch their legs for a few minutes each hour is amusing, and frightening, both.

ilbob
April 24, 2014, 10:09 PM
the law allows for a class A misdemeanor for falsely certifying someone. phelps is a sponsor.

the only reason to oppose this is if you want to have more schlock instructors.

the dire predictions are just plain nonsense. read what the law actually says

wtr100
April 24, 2014, 10:42 PM
this is a bad bill - good intentioned - maybe - but is way to broad

honestly the solution should be to eliminate training altogether or reduce it to NRA FIRST Steps

Trent
April 24, 2014, 11:42 PM
the law allows for a class A misdemeanor for falsely certifying someone. phelps is a sponsor.


And your point is? Phelps is a sponsor - big deal. The guy caved in to every anti-gun demand that Madigan and Cullerton made. Period. And THEN some.

Thanks to Phelps not having a backbone, we got the country's WORST "sort of shall issue" concealed carry law, PLUS we got mandatory lost / stolen reporting, universal background checks, clear and present danger mental health reporting, etc.

Sorry, I'm not drinking the cool aid there.


the only reason to oppose this is if you want to have more schlock instructors.


The law already DEALS with "shlock" instructors in the form of REVOCATION.

In addition those instructors are going to find themselves at the end of some VERY nasty civil lawsuits for their ill deeds.

You're telling me that on top of all that civil liability and being stripped of their ability to teach and make an income doing so, they should *also* go to PRISON for a year?

Sorry, I agree that what they did was bad, but not 1 year of prison bad. That's a life-ending event. Period. Career dead. Family ruined and possibly homeless. And so on.. on TOP of all the other nastiness they face already in civil court from ex-students.

No, the punishment should fit the crime and for making a minor STATUTORY violation, it should not involve "time without the possibility of court supervision".

Even the first THREE classes of marijuana possession (by weight) are not THAT harsh in Illinois.

A man who beats his WIFE and puts her in the HOSPITAL doesn't face that harsh of a penalty. It's a straight up Class A misdemeanor and he can walk on court supervision.

Theft of property under $500 (other than from a person) also doesn't carry as harsh of a sentence. Again, a straight up Class A misdemeanor which the perpetrator can receive court supervision on.


the dire predictions are just plain nonsense. read what the law actually says

Oh I have. And I still don't like it, not one bit.

ilbob
April 25, 2014, 07:08 AM
It appears to me an instructor could be charged under the existing law, but that is just a class B misdemeanor.

In any case, the term "falsely certify" is pretty specific as to what the offense is. It is not making a mistake, or unintentionally missing some point that should have been covered in the class.

C0untZer0
April 25, 2014, 08:58 AM
My senator, who is generally a pro-Second Amendment moderate republican is sponsoring this in the senate.

If the vote in the house is any indication, it is a juggernaut of a bill, 109 Yeas 2 Nays, and one of the no votes was Dunkin (I can only assume he voted against it because it wasn't strict enough and didn't go far enough in punishing firearms instructors).

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/votehistory/98/house/09800HB4290_03272014_013000T.pdf


I think after the Bass Pro / Security Guard College controversy this bill just has too much support.

If you're just looking at the number of witness slips filed against it, there isn't a ton of opposition against this bill even within the gun owner community. John Boch, President of "Guns Save Life" is a proponent of it.

If they just leave it alone - I think it will easily pass as is. I can also see someone like an overly-ambitious Kwame Raoul or Dan Kotowski tinkering with it and inadvertently administering a poison pill to it.

wtr100
April 25, 2014, 09:14 AM
I see some 'big name' instructors in favor of it. One has to wonder why?

I'm just a small time instructor - 4 to 8 students a month - have to wonder if they'd rather not see guys like me teaching

I'm probably over thinking the problem ...

DT Guy
April 25, 2014, 09:40 AM
It seems a bit draconian (it's Illinois, after all...) but you have to consider the vicarious liability: if someone doesn't learn the basics about legal self-defense, they could be relying on incomplete or inaccurate information at the worst possible time. Pulling the trigger on someone you shouldn't isn't a trivial matter, and so this training represents something more than 'checking a box.'

Larry

ilbob
April 25, 2014, 10:17 AM
I see some 'big name' instructors in favor of it. One has to wonder why?

I'm just a small time instructor - 4 to 8 students a month - have to wonder if they'd rather not see guys like me teaching

I'm probably over thinking the problem ...

people who just sign off rather than actually teaching the required material need to spend some time in the pokey.

I don't see how it matters any if you are doing it full time or part time. the same requirements apply.

Trent
April 25, 2014, 10:54 AM
It seems a bit draconian (it's Illinois, after all...) but you have to consider the vicarious liability: if someone doesn't learn the basics about legal self-defense, they could be relying on incomplete or inaccurate information at the worst possible time. Pulling the trigger on someone you shouldn't isn't a trivial matter, and so this training represents something more than 'checking a box.'

Larry

Sure, I agree - however, this bill doesn't really address incompetent instructors.

As an example, a friend of mine wanted to get training as early as possible and took a class in Metamora, IL last fall / early winter. They literally spent 4 hours reading the 170 page law on a projector WORD FOR WORD, then went out to stand in a corn field for 4 hours waiting to shoot the qualifier shoot. Over 100 people were waiting to do the qualification shoot, took a little over 4 hours to get them all through because there was one instructor. They got literally 5 minutes of live fire - each.

But that training - technically - qualifies as "good instruction" because A) they covered all of the required legal language and B) spent 4 hours on the range doing weapons handling exercises (which consisted of firing 30 shots and waiting 3.95 hours to get their turn).

Now compare that 100+ student class against an instructor running 4 or 5 students through.

With 5 students I can spend a great deal of 1 on 1 time not just in class answering individual questions, but at the range we can do so many practical drills with them, that most every student will run out of ammunition by the end of the 4 hours. We have to sit and wait around at the range until the clock strikes the correct time to depart once we get through all of the material I've prepared (which is WAY over what most instructors teach to a class of 20 or 30, since we can pack in way more drills and exercises).

If I were to dismiss that class 15 minutes early - even though I put students through 8x more live fire exercises than the average "large class" instructor, I'm going to jail.

Meanwhile other instructors are pumping masses of ill-trained people out on to the street with crap training, but not technically violating the statute.

C0untZer0
April 25, 2014, 11:47 AM
I see some 'big name' instructors in favor of it. One has to wonder why?

I'm just a small time instructor - 4 to 8 students a month - have to wonder if they'd rather not see guys like me teaching

One of the guys that you're referring to is an NRA TC, happened to co-teach my BPIC and I know that he is interested in developing good NRA instructors. He let me sit in one of his BP classes and observe for free, even fed me pizza. I also know that he is very adamant about weeding out bad instructors - I learned that the first day of BPIC.

So his interest in this bill is not eliminating competition. If you were to take an NRA instructor course from him, he'd be a resource for you - for life.

But he is very serious about decertifying NRA instructors who do not follow NRA standards, and the Security Guard College controversy seems to be one of those cases. I know that his views carry over to Illinois CCL instructors also - he's very passionate and very serious about the issue and it isn't economic self interest.

This bill didn't come about because some Illinois CCL instructors wanted to thin the herd, it came about because 327 (and counting) people had their CCL applications rejected due to improper training:

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2014-04-14/news/chi-suit-filed-in-wake-of-concealed-carry-permit-rejection-20140414_1_bass-pro-shops-ambrose-instructor

And legislators jumped on it.

ilbob
April 25, 2014, 11:59 AM
Sure, I agree - however, this bill doesn't really address incompetent instructors.

As an example, a friend of mine wanted to get training as early as possible and took a class in Metamora, IL last fall / early winter. They literally spent 4 hours reading the 170 page law on a projector WORD FOR WORD, then went out to stand in a corn field for 4 hours waiting to shoot the qualifier shoot. Over 100 people were waiting to do the qualification shoot, took a little over 4 hours to get them all through because there was one instructor. They got literally 5 minutes of live fire - each.

But that training - technically - qualifies as "good instruction" because A) they covered all of the required legal language and B) spent 4 hours on the range doing weapons handling exercises (which consisted of firing 30 shots and waiting 3.95 hours to get their turn).

Now compare that 100+ student class against an instructor running 4 or 5 students through.

With 5 students I can spend a great deal of 1 on 1 time not just in class answering individual questions, but at the range we can do so many practical drills with them, that most every student will run out of ammunition by the end of the 4 hours. We have to sit and wait around at the range until the clock strikes the correct time to depart once we get through all of the material I've prepared (which is WAY over what most instructors teach to a class of 20 or 30, since we can pack in way more drills and exercises).

If I were to dismiss that class 15 minutes early - even though I put students through 8x more live fire exercises than the average "large class" instructor, I'm going to jail.

Meanwhile other instructors are pumping masses of ill-trained people out on to the street with crap training, but not technically violating the statute.
The law requires what it requires. There is no requirement to shoot more than 30 rounds. There is no requirement to draw from a holster. There is no requirement to shoot the gun you will be carrying. There is a requirement for a set number of hours of instruction.

And yes, the law requires you to provide 16 hours of instruction. If you choose to provide 15.75 hours of instruction, you are breaking the law. You do not have the right to select the number of hours of instruction provided, anymore than an NRA instructor can change the number of hours of instruction required for NRA classes.

The law does not require "good" training. Nor does it require the student actually learn anything, or be tested to see if the student learned the required material. It does require 16 hours of instruction.

C0untZer0
April 25, 2014, 01:06 PM
The law is poorly written - for the reasons that we all know. Part of the problem, IMO, is that the 16 hours was not put in the bill to ensure that Illinois citizens got a high quality of education. The 16 hours was a compromise from a proposed 40 hours of training, it was the best the antis were going to get as far as creating a hurdle for CLL. They were just trying to throw up an obstacle to carrying - that's all. So the guidelines aren't really good guidelines for working professionals. Since the antis never intended it to be a constructive guide for education, and the pro-carry people were just trying to get a bill done at that point, what we got was garbage.

So the situation was ripe for an unscrupulous character to take advantage of it, which may be what happened.

What bothers me now is that the ILGA does have time to craft a better bill and put in measures that would punish fraudulent instructors while not ensnaring good instructors with good intentions, but instead they're rushing through a bill without any protections in it.

We know where the 16 hours came from, No thought was given to lunch time, bathroom breaks, transit time, what actually needed to be taught and how long it took to teach or any of that. It was just a meaningless compromise number. Instead of fixing that mess, they're going to pass a new law that will put an instructor in jail unless their courses are 9 hours and 40 minutes long, or all the students wear a catheter all day.

ilbob
April 25, 2014, 01:20 PM
The law is poorly written - for the reasons that we all know. Part of the problem, IMO, is that the 16 hours was not put in the bill to ensure that Illinois citizens got a high quality of education. The 16 hours was a compromise from a proposed 40 hours of training, it was the best the antis were going to get as far as creating a hurdle for CLL. They were just trying to throw up an obstacle to carrying - that's all. So the guidelines aren't really good guidelines for working professionals. Since the antis never intended it to be a constructive guide for education, and the pro-carry people were just trying to get a bill done at that point, what we got was garbage.

So the situation was ripe for an unscrupulous character to take advantage of it, which may be what happened.

What bothers me now is that the ILGA does have time to craft a better bill and put in measures that would punish fraudulent instructors while not ensnaring good instructors with good intentions, but instead they're rushing through a bill without any protections in it.

We know where the 16 hours came from, No thought was given to lunch time, bathroom breaks, transit time, what actually needed to be taught and how long it took to teach or any of that. It was just a meaningless compromise number. Instead of fixing that mess, they're going to pass a new law that will put an instructor in jail unless their courses are 9 hours and 40 minutes long, or all the students wear a catheter all day.
The ISP may have to create some rules defining what constitutes an hour of instruction. However, generally speaking, virtually all hours of instruction are only 50 minutes long.

Worst case, the instructor starts a stopwatch when he starts talking and when he dismisses the class for lunch or breaks he shuts it off. He starts the watch again when he starts talking to the class again. He stops talking when it gets to 16 hours.

how is this any different than any other crime where there is a potential for some trivial violation to be charged?

The law is what it is. It seems likely given the overwhelming support it has that the bill will pass and instructors will have to be aware of it.

PCGS65
April 25, 2014, 01:28 PM
The 2nd amendment says nothing about needing/asking the governments permission to excercise the right to keep and bear arms.
So who is actually breaking the law?

ilbob
April 25, 2014, 01:41 PM
The 2nd amendment says nothing about needing/asking the governments permission to excercise the right to keep and bear arms.
So who is actually breaking the law?
tell that to the judge as they march you off to jail.

Drail
May 5, 2014, 05:38 PM
I lived in Ill. for 12 years and was an NRA instructor. I really loved teaching students but I don't think I would even consider doing that in Ill. if this is how the State is going to deal with their "licensing" system. But I am not really surprised. They have a history of making something so absurd and ridiculous that no one will want to even bother doing it. When we first got the Instant Check system running in Ill. for sales at gunshows the State's response was every weekend that there was a gunshow scheduled the State Police's computer would go down. No sales. Then on Monday it would miraculously start working again. Illinois is unbelievable.

lilguy
May 5, 2014, 07:13 PM
This is what can happen with a self policing system set up in Illinois. They were drawn kicking and screaming by court order into creating this system. Enough instructor frauds
popped up to set off alarm bells and they are hammering future infractions. Anyone surprised by this result has been sleep walking.

tactikel
May 5, 2014, 09:36 PM
IMHO the politicians in power, hate the law, hate the instructors, and despise the citizens attempting to achieve a license. We need to vote them out. :cuss:
My family has lived in Illinois for 115 years, I'm DONE, hello Arizona. :fire:

Drail
May 8, 2014, 12:52 PM
But the problem with "voting them out" is that we have reached a point where almost anyone who is willing to go into politics to replace them with is just as corrupt and arrogant and hungry for power. I am proud to live in a Constitutional Republic (not a Democracy as so many claim) and the 2nd Amend. was placed into our Constitution by very wise men who knew that eventually we would reach that point as a last ditch measure to save the Republic. We may have to use that option or our Republic may perish. When the American Revolution took place only 3 percent of the citizens fully supported severing all ties with England. Only 3 percent. I fear that today you would be hard pressed to find even that many who would walk away from their easy lives and fight for the Republic and their freedom instead of simply voting more criminals into power. It's just easier to vote and hope for change. And the politicians are counting for that to be the case.

ljnowell
June 6, 2014, 05:18 AM
I lived in Ill. for 12 years and was an NRA instructor. I really loved teaching students but I don't think I would even consider doing that in Ill. if this is how the State is going to deal with their "licensing" system. But I am not really surprised. They have a history of making something so absurd and ridiculous that no one will want to even bother doing it. When we first got the Instant Check system running in Ill. for sales at gunshows the State's response was every weekend that there was a gunshow scheduled the State Police's computer would go down. No sales. Then on Monday it would miraculously start working again. Illinois is unbelievable.


That's odd, I make almost every gumshoe within 100 miles and usually myself or one of the two guys with me buy a gun and I have never been told the computers are down. We've been at it many years , how long ago was this?

Drail
June 7, 2014, 09:09 PM
Around 1994.

If you enjoyed reading about "IL - Call to Action - HB4290 Certified Firearms Instructor" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!