Buddy,
Methinks you're missing the point. And you certainly did miss where it says that! Simply look on page two of the NSCA Training Standards:
By the way, you can read the entire document here:
http://www.stillwaterfirearms.org/Docs/CCW/Training_and_Instructor_Standards_2010.pdf
It does NOT say an instructor can impose tougher standards.
It DOES say instructors can provide additional training.
There is a big difference between the two statements (above.)
In accordance with the law and the training standards, a person should be certified/qualified if he/she passes the minimum standards.
Additional training is a great thing, but you must bear in mind that some folks simply cannot - and have NO need to - undergo more rigorous training.
Would you deny certification to an elderly person simply because he/she cannot qualify to your higher standarrds? Using the "3" bullseye @ 50 yds" example (extreme example to clarify a point), who cares if a student can hit a 3" bullseye at 50 yds? We are concerned with competency and proficiency at closer "defensive" ranges.
And that makes perfectly good sense. Have you not read of the untold numbers of law abiding citizens (most without the benefit of CCW permits or extensive training) that have used firearms to thwart crime and save lives? Virtually none of them needed "minute of rabbit head" accuracy at
50 yds.
Additional training, over and above the minimum standards, is a good thing - but instructors should not make it mandatory because that (at a minimum) is contrary to the intent of Nevada's "shall issue" law/system.
If a student meets the minimum requirement outlined by law/NSCA standards, and/or
If an instructor requires a higher standard of accuracy than required by law/NSCA, and/or
If an instructor imposes a time limit, and/or
If an instructor uses a target significantly different than the required target, and
If the instructor refuses to certify the student,
THEN I would recommend the student notify the NSCA CCW Sub Cmte that the instructor is not complying with the law and/or NSCA standards.
Nevada is a shall issue state - meaning if a person meets the requirements outlined by law and the NSCA, said person shall be issued a permit.
Again, it does
NOT say a person must meet the requirements of the law/NSCA AND the requirements added by an individual instructor.
It is not "childish" to complain when you've paid your fee and expect to comply with the law and standards, only to be told/denied because an instructor has added unlawful requirements. Again, additional training (beyond minimums) is good - but additional requirements are bad.
This is my personal opinion.
However, I am also a member of the NSCA CCW Sub Cmte (the first civilian member ever appointed) .
Additionally, I think you misunderstand open carry in Nevada. You do
NOT need a law to give you the right to open carry in Nevada. There is no law prohibiting open carry, therefore you can open carry. There is a difference.
Everyone is
encouraged to get additional/advanced training - and practice!
Do you live in Nevada? I urge you to study the law, training standards, etc. Get facts!