I can understand the need for periodic review of the regulations to correct problems, delete obsolete sections, include new categories, or clarify areas of “gray” matter. However, I do not understand the need, in some cases, to make things worse. Especially when, due to budget and personnel constants, enforcement of existing regulations fall short. In general, I wonder why it is necessary to “fix” some of these issues, when they do not seem to be “broken”. That being said; In addition to several grammatical and punctuation errors throughout both the current and proposed regulations, there are still some redundancies and incomplete usage of the same naming/wording/terminology. After review of the many changes proposed, I have issues with the following identified sections along with my comments in Bold Italics:
What is the justification of this outrageous increase (an increase of 200% from $10) that primarily affects the least paid individuals in our industry? Specifically, what will change in the processing of a Firearm Endorsement that requires this much of an increase?
D. Manual processing service fee. The department shall COLLECT A $20 SERVICE FEE for any applications under this chapter that are submitted to the department by other means than the available electronic methods established by the department.
You have got to be kidding!! What will change in the processing of any application that requires a service fee if the application is mailed to you with a check? What percentage of applications are currently mailed with a check vs. processed electronically?
B 2. Successfully complete a minimum of 4 hours of CONTINUING EDUCATION IN INSTRUCTOR DEVELOPMENT. Training must be completed within the 12 months immediately preceding the expiration date of the current certification;
B 3. Successfully complete a minimum of 2 hours of PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT for topics related to each category of instructor certification during the certification period; and
And
D 4. Verification of satisfactory completion of INSTRUCTOR DEVELOPMENT CONTINUING EDUCATION requirements;
D 5. Verification of 2 hours of PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT training in each category of certification taken during the certification period; and
What is the defined difference between “Continuing education in instructor development” and “Professional development”? How are these different from “In-service training”? Who determines what training qualifies as either one? What are the determining factors for the training to qualify? Who is allowed to provide the training? (and) When is this determination made? It appears to me that an instructor could be wasting money and time to attend what is perceived to be training that qualifies, only to find out afterwards that it did not. An instructor could possibly be in a situation of not having enough time to take other training before their instructor certification expires after the training is rejected.
D 6. For firearms instructors, official documentation in the form of a signed, dated range sheet identifying the type, caliber, and action, along with the qualification score and course of fire, with a minimum range qualification of 85%, with each of the following:
E. Firearms endorsements are issued for a period not to exceed 12 months. Individuals must complete firearms retraining WITHIN THE 90 DAYS PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION of their current firearm endorsement or will be required to complete entry-level training requirements prior to applying for an active endorsement.
The change to “90 days prior to the expiration” time limit is an unreasonable restriction. For those individuals whose endorsements expire in winter months, the opportunities to qualify or re-qualify will be drastically reduced. The DCJS school database is of no help in trying to find a training facility; many schools list a given category when “they haven’t offered that for years”, “don’t offer it any more”, “will only teach it if they get enough people”, “only offer it once a year”, “will be glad to put you on a waiting list if they get enough people”, etc. etc. etc. The vast majority of retraining is, in reality, only offered in the warmer months of the year. This change should not take place and the original “within the 12 months preceding expiration” should remain in effect.
6VAC20-171-220. Business administrative requirements.
A licensee shall:
13. Inform the department in writing within 10 days of receiving knowledge of any principal, partner, officer, compliance agent or employee regulated or required to be regulated by this chapter being ARRESTED FOR A CRIME IN ANY JURISDICTION, pleading guilty or nolo contendere or being convicted or found guilty of any felony or of a misdemeanor as outlined in § 9.1-139 K of the Code of Virginia.
14. Inform the department in writing within 10 days of receiving knowledge of any principal, licensee, subsidiary, partner, officer, compliance agent or employee regulated or required to be regulated by this chapter, having been found guilty by any court or administrative body of competent jurisdiction to have violated the private security services business statutes or regulations of that jurisdiction, there being no appeal therefrom or the time for appeal having elapsed.
Also
6VAC20-171-240. Compliance agent administrative requirements and standards of conduct.
A compliance agent shall:
6. …BEING ARRESTED FOR A CRIME IN ANY JURISDICTION…
Also
6VAC20-171-250. AdministrativeTraining school administrative requirements.
A training school shall:
8. …BEING ARRESTED FOR A CRIME IN ANY JURISDICTION,
Also
6VAC20-171-280. Private security services instructor administrative requirements and standards of conduct.
An instructor shall:
4. …BEING ARRESTED FOR A CRIME IN ANY JURISDICTION…
3. …BEING ARRESTED FOR A CRIME IN ANY JURISDICTION…
The inclusion of “BEING ARRESTED FOR A CRIME IN ANY JURISDICTION” is contradictory to DUE PROCESS OF THE LAW. Just because someone is arrested for something does NOT mean “found guilty” or “convicted”, which are already covered in the Regulations. This inclusion should not be made. Also, what is the difference between “Convicted” and “Having been found guilty” as they appear throughout the regulations? Isn’t this redundant?
4 c (1) The individual's fingerprint CARDS HAVE been submitted pursuant to Article 1 (6VAC20-171-30 et seq.) of Part III of this chapter;
You are proposing changes that reduce the number of fingerprint cards to one (1) and have made necessary changes to wording in other places. This also should be changed to “card has” instead of “cards have”.
10. Not haveENSURE that regulated employees of the business have not been convicted or found guilty in any jurisdiction…
Also
6VAC20-171-260. Training school standards of conduct.
A training school shall:
10. ENSURE that the owner, principals, training director and all instructors employed by the training school have not been convicted or found guilty…
How do you propose that this is accomplished? The word “ENSURE” means to “guarantee” or to “make certain of”. I doubt that the Virginia State Police or FBI can “Ensure” what you are proposing. The best that either of them can do is to perform the records checks that they have available and those checks are not even “all inclusive”. We, as a business owner, instructor, or compliance agent, do not have the physical or monetary resources available to do records checks at a even approaching the level of the State Police or FBI. This proposed change is both unreasonable and impossible for those you are expecting to do it.
6VAC20-171-240. Compliance agent administrative requirements and standards of conduct.
A compliance agent shall:
23. Inform the department and compliance agent of the employing business if applicable, in a format prescribed by the department within seven days of any person regulated under this chapter who fails to requalify with a minimum passing score on the range.
Also
6VAC20-171-270. Private security services trainingTraining school director administrative requirements and standards of conduct.
A training school director shall:
13. Inform the department and compliance agent of the employing business if applicable, in a format prescribed by the department within seven days of any person regulated under this chapter who fails to requalify with a minimum passing score on the range.
By proposing this change, you will be in affect telling an endorsee that they should not even try to re-qualify until just before their endorsement expires. Otherwise they will risk loosing their endorsement at any point within the 12 months preceding expiration that might be chosen (because of availability of training or distance to travel) to re-qualify. Anyone can have a bad day, especially on the range, or have weapon or ammunition malfunctions, which would normally entail the endorsee to correct the problems and then reschedule. Also, if an endorsee who is registered as ASO and PPS fails to re-qualify in Advanced Firearms, you are proposing they will loose their handgun endorsement for both, even though that individual may have been able to re-qualify on the normal handgun course of fire and therefore still be able to work as an ASO until they are able (for whatever reason) to re-qualify Advanced handgun.
I see nothing wrong with the current regulations pertaining to this issue. If an endorsee fails to re-qualify within the 12 months preceding expiration of the endorsement THEN you simply do not re-issue a new endorsement for that category.
