NRA Members
Are anybody that pays the dues. No background check, no idology check, no age restriction (other than junior membership for children), open to anybody. A more open and unbiased policy you are unlikely to find.
But with that, the NRA is a PRIVATE organization. Leaving aside the whole "permits as infringment" argument, the NRA has no business doing anything involving issuance of a state license. For CCW or anything else. If it does, it becomes an arm of government, and it's policies and standards may be altered by government, because they can.
State Game Departments (generally) require proof of a Hunter Safety Course or other equivalent for first time hunting licenses. They recognise the NRA courses meet all their requirements. But the state does not provide the NRA course. Although many places allow the use of public buildings for holding the courses, they are not providing the course. NRA members do that. Often gratis.
So, I think your idea is not a good one, apart from the "stacking the deck" argument, we do not want states to take to themselves what "NRA Certified" means. Which they must do, by their own bureaucratic rules and procedures in order to certify a person to issue CCW licenses in the situation you describe.
Nice try, it shows your are thinking. But this idea, no. Not a good one, it has too much potential for abuse. I hope you understand, government, by it's very nature would corrupt the system.
And then there is the whole "stacking the deck" argument. Can't you hear some anti-gun editorial screaming "Gun Nuts decide who gets a gun! Dodge City and the OK Corral were peaceful places compared to what they will turn our cities into!" etc., etc.....
I just don't see it working, and I see a potential for damage to our cause when it fails. Consider, if someone(s) with a comitted desire against CCW, gets through NRA Certification (without seeing the light), because the state says they have to, inorder to hold the position needed to deny CCW. Imagine the political hay the other side could make with theat.
I believe the reason we have never seen such a thing is, that the comitted anti-gunners have such an aversion to all things "gun" and "NRA", that they never attempt the NRA courses. And likely any few who do attempt such are "converted" to our point of view as the truth. But if the state "forced" them to get through, and they did, I see a potential for harm to our cause.
"After all, how can you claim any unfairness to our denial, NRA certified people turned you down. It was all very fair." What lawyer would touch that kind of case? And what jury would find for the applicant if both the State and the NRA said you were unsuitable for CCW? It might not be the truth, but it is what the jury (or judge) would hear.
