# Should the Govt. License MA Instructors?



## geezer (Feb 23, 2009)

I was reading a thread about fake certificates sold on Ebay, when Sandstorm posted that in UK, where he lives, the government licenses Martial Arts instruction. He was pretty surprised to hear that we could teach here in the States without government approval. He asked how it was possible that we can allow someone to teach skills that can be used to maim or kill without proper government oversight. After all, he asked, we license firearms, don't we? 

Well, I was pretty surprised myself by the difference in approaches on each side of the pond. So you Brits --Just how does it work over there? And Yanks (including you Rebs down South) How do _you _like that idea? Shouldn't we legislate some good government oversight and have some responsible agency license us for what we do? Boy, _that_ would sure fix things up, eh? What do you think?


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Feb 23, 2009)

No.


----------



## CoryKS (Feb 23, 2009)

Andy Moynihan said:


> No.


 
What he said.


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Feb 23, 2009)

Another government monopoly? No way.  Who would set the standards?  Who would pay for it?  We don't need the bureaucrats telling us what can and can't be taught and who can teach it.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 23, 2009)

Like many things, there are pros and cons.  I don't feel that a simple 'yes' or 'no' really addresses the issue.

Municipal, county, and state regulation of various trades has been a fact of life for many years.  Typically this is not seen as intrusive, and usually of benefit to the community.

Examples include barbers and hairdressers, skilled trades such as plumbers, electricians, and carpenters, private investigators, and public school teachers.  All vary by jurisdiction, of course.

In some places, one may receive a 'license' by applying for it, perhaps submitting to a background check, and paying a fee.  In some places, there are tests administered.  In still others, private sanctioning bodies exist, which the government entity recognizes, and which members of said body are accepted and licensed by the government entity.

Professional licensing of the latter sort includes doctors, dentists, lawyers, veterinarians, and psychiatrists.  It can include psychologists, chiropractors, marital and other types of counselors.

So licensing is not that unusual.

With regard to the pugilistic arts, most states license, regulate, and monitor professional boxing, and many are now beginning to accept professional MMA bouts as well.  South Caroline is considering it now, Michigan has just accepted it, as well as a number of other states.

However, to the best of my knowledge, most states do not regulate the private teaching of martial arts.  Anyone can hang out a shingle and teach whatever it is that they wish, even if they learned it out of a book or made it up out of whole cloth.

That leaves the risk for investigating such training centers strictly on the student, _caveat emptor_.  Their sole remedy if they find themselves the recipients of faulty training - or worse - dangerous training - is limited to tort law (civil lawsuits).

Part of the problem with licensing, as I see it, is that there are no standard associations or organizations in the martial arts world.  There are hundreds, if not thousands, of styles, and each of them feud and split off from each other with the regularity of certain Christian churches which will remain unnamed.  Each lays claim to legitimacy and some deny that their other branches are valid - it is ugly.

Unlike, say, poker dealers, who are licensed, but they can take a test to prove they know their stuff - there is no one way to block a kick or punch, no standard anything, and therefore, no way to 'test' that an instructor can do what they say they can, let alone testing if they're capable of teaching it to others.

So why bother with licensing at all?  It would be a nightmare, no doubt about it.

Well, one reason is because of the danger of physical injury.  An ill-trained or ill-informed instructor can hurt students, or teach them unsafe training methods that could end in them hurting themselves.  All well and good for adults, perhaps, who are supposed to know the risks going in, but for children, whose parents may simply assume that 'Sensei He-Man' knows what he is doing, after all, look at all those trophies and awards on the wall...

Here's a thought.  How about licensing not the instructor, but the training facility - and treat it like a restaurant or tattoo parlor?  That is, regulate it as if it were serving food or performing minor medical procedures - cleanliness, safety, and keeping track of injuries and requiring the training center to report any injuries to students during training.  It doesn't prove that the instructor knows what they are teaching, but it might help to put the 'bad' MA centers out of business.

Anyway - in general, I'm not in favor of licensing and regulating things just to do it.  If there is a problem, and if licensing and/or regulation provides a public benefit that can be defined, then I might be in favor of it.  Frankly, I don't much care if barbers are licensed, because I cut my own hair.  But I'd hate it if we didn't license electricians and I hired one to wire my new bonus room and it burned down a couple years later because he was an idiot and used the wrong guage wire, for example.

And with that, I'm off to the dojo.


----------



## searcher (Feb 23, 2009)

No way, no how.   The Gov. messes with our affairs enough, they need to keep their hands away from us and what we do.   All it would be is another invitation to Socialism.    We, teh MA community, are the ones who need to regulate each other by watching out for frauds.    Not the Gov.


----------



## astrobiologist (Feb 23, 2009)

That would just be another means of government interference.  There are so many facets to martial arts training that the government has no business regulating.  If I had to have governmental permission to teach martial arts, I would teach in secret, in the night, maybe using implements for weapons that the government wouldn't recognize as a weapon...  Does this sound familiar to anyone?  (think Okinawa, back when the samurai were less honorable clan members and were more hired thugs)


----------



## MBuzzy (Feb 23, 2009)

Just because something is licensed by the government does not equal socialism or some big brother level of control.  I know that many people feel that ANY oversight from the government is an intrinsically bad thing - but I don't think that is true.  For example, as an Engineer, I am legally not allowed to work in my field without licensing or without oversight by a licensed Engineer.  And EVERY person in the country should be happy about that fact.  The licensing process for us, ensures that the buildings, roads, electrical systems, etc that we design are safe and correctly designed.  Without this oversight, ANYONE could design a building no matter their level of knowledge.

So why not license Martial Arts?  The skills that we teach are of danger to many people.  We aren't discussing licensing anyone who practices martial arts, only those who teach it.  This would ensure a much needed level of oversight to MA instruction.  Right now, as others have said, anyone can teach.  That is not necessarily a good thing as we are starting to really see.  Without some kind of oversight, I fear that the entire MA industry may have problems in the future.


----------



## MBuzzy (Feb 23, 2009)

astrobiologist said:


> That would just be another means of government interference.  There are so many facets to martial arts training that the government has no business regulating.  If I had to have governmental permission to teach martial arts, I would teach in secret, in the night, maybe using implements for weapons that the government wouldn't recognize as a weapon...  Does this sound familiar to anyone?  (think Okinawa, back when the samurai were less honorable clan members and were more hired thugs)



It does sound familiar, but that wasn't licensing, that was simply outlawing of the teaching of martial arts.  There are plenty of problems with licensing such an eclectic field, but it would have benefits as well.


----------



## geezer (Feb 23, 2009)

astrobiologist said:


> That would just be another means of government interference.  There are so many facets to martial arts training that the government has no business regulating.  If I had to have governmental permission to teach martial arts, I would teach in secret...



I was thinking about some of the stuff Bill talked about. As a _public_ high school teacher I had to go back to school at night for a couple of years to get certified by the state (my bachelor's and three-year terminal graduate degree in my field wasn't enough, I guess), then I had to go through a background check and get fingerprinted (that 's actually a good idea) but I have to pay about fifty bucks to get re-fingerprinted about every six years (I guess those fingerprints _just keep changing_) and jump through various other kinds of bureaucratic hoops on a regular basis. In return, I have a fairly secure job with decent benefits. So _it's my choice_. No problem.

Now on the other hand, what about the _private_ MA instructor. Who has the right to tell him what concepts he can teach? What if he teaches a very rare, little-known system? Or, if he left an established organization, for whatever reasons, to teach independently? Or, if he is an experienced martial artist who teaches his own synthesis of all that he has learned? These are not specious, hypothetical examples. Most of us know people like these. Should they be disqualified by some bureaucracy because they don't conform? A government agency may enforce health and safety codes. But can they tell you what you can and cannot teach? Such regulation would never get past a first amendment court challenge. It's a matter of free speech, ain't it?


----------



## seasoned (Feb 23, 2009)

If they can tax it and make money off of it, it looks like a go.


----------



## Archangel M (Feb 23, 2009)

Why not? Sounds like CHANGE to me. :uhyeah:


----------



## artFling (Feb 23, 2009)

MBuzzy said:


> Just because something is licensed by the government does not equal socialism or some big brother level of control.  I know that many people feel that ANY oversight from the government is an intrinsically bad thing - but I don't think that is true.  For example, as an Engineer, I am legally not allowed to work in my field without licensing or without oversight by a licensed Engineer.  And EVERY person in the country should be happy about that fact.  The licensing process for us, ensures that the buildings, roads, electrical systems, etc that we design are safe and correctly designed.  Without this oversight, ANYONE could design a building no matter their level of knowledge.
> 
> So why not license Martial Arts?  The skills that we teach are of danger to many people.  We aren't discussing licensing anyone who practices martial arts, only those who teach it.  This would ensure a much needed level of oversight to MA instruction.  Right now, as others have said, anyone can teach.  That is not necessarily a good thing as we are starting to really see.  Without some kind of oversight, I fear that the entire MA industry may have problems in the future.



But here's the deal; as a liscensed public school teacher, I can tell you that the government does nothing to ensure good teaching.  In fact, they put their stamp of approval on many a person who does little to help students learn anything.  The government doesn't know anything about teaching. On the other hand, an FBI background check is a good thing.  And with martial arts in the news every other week for molesting students, I think FBI background checks are a must.  

This is where an instructor's lineage is useful.  Knowing that he or she learned from a reputable source helps.

That big certificate hanging on my instructor's wall, with about six signatures on it helps too.

If there is official certification, it needs to be done by a third party.  Then again, who thinks the kukiwon does such a great job of assuring great Tae Kwon Do teaching?  

It's a sticky wicket.


----------



## mook jong man (Feb 23, 2009)

If my Sifu had the confidence in me to teach students 4 times a week for him for years and on one occasion I even taught students with the Grand Master sitting there quietly watching me . ( that was nerve racking ).

 I was good enough for these two expert men so why should I need permission off some idiot government official who wouldn't know Wing Chun from a hole in the ground .


----------



## terryl965 (Feb 23, 2009)

Not just No but HELL NO!!!!


----------



## Deaf Smith (Feb 23, 2009)

Like I've said before, it's the nature of goverment to control. Don't matter who is in power. It's the nature of the beast.

I would not be suprised if they try. They regulate an awful lot of businesses.

No, I don't like it, but I bet sooner or later they try.

Deaf


----------



## Hand Sword (Feb 23, 2009)

Sounds like all of the ancient stories about the origin of the arts is trying to come around again? GOOD! This ticky tack stuff should get regulated. It will force the real stuff underground again as it did then, and maybe the true evolutionary process will start up again!


----------



## wade (Feb 23, 2009)

Lets see, they made you license all your guns in England and then they outlawed them, can the martial arts be far behind?

So, being and instructor and an NRA member, hell no!


----------



## Cryozombie (Feb 23, 2009)

MBuzzy said:


> For example, as an Engineer, I am legally not allowed to work in my field without licensing or without oversight by a licensed Engineer. And EVERY person in the country should be happy about that fact. The licensing process for us, ensures that the buildings, roads, electrical systems, etc that we design are safe and correctly designed. Without this oversight, ANYONE could design a building no matter their level of knowledge.


 
The problem with that is, things like Engineering, Medicine, Law, all have a standard they can be tested on.  Book knowlage so to speak.  What standard gets set for Martial Arts, and who does the regulating?

I get a job as a regulator, come and watch you perform to see if you can teach.  Your Tang Soo Do looks nothing like my Bujinkan, so you are doing it wrong.  Sorry no licence for you.  Well, the standard could be physical fitness.  Wait, that guy is old.  No licence for him.  Those Masters are fat, none for them either... 

I just don't see how it could be practical, beyond paying a "fee" (ahem tax) to be licenced... I can't see how they could set a "standard", when the Martial arts are far from.


----------



## girlbug2 (Feb 24, 2009)

Exactly -- the problem is defining the standards for each style. We seem to have problems coming to a consensus among ourselves what those standards are, now imagine the gov't trying to step in and standardize a martial art -- highly laughable, if it wouldn't be so disastrous. 

This would be the same gov't, mind you, that's done a great job setting the standards for public school teaching in California...


----------



## Carol (Feb 24, 2009)

MBuzzy said:
			
		

> _ For example, as an Engineer, I am legally not allowed to work in my field without licensing or without oversight by a licensed Engineer. And EVERY person in the country should be happy about that fact. The licensing process for us, ensures that the buildings, roads, electrical systems, etc that we design are safe and correctly designed. Without this oversight, ANYONE could design a building no matter their level of knowledge._





			
				Cryozombie said:
			
		

> The problem with that is, things like Engineering, Medicine, Law, all have a standard they can be tested on. Book knowlage so to speak. What standard gets set for Martial Arts, and who does the regulating?


 

The PE license is a state-issued license.  These laws do not bar anyone from working in their field. .

What is protected is the presentation of the title of "engineer".  In order to refer to oneself as an engineer to the public, which means one offers engineering services to the public, most states generally require that one is either holds a Professional Engineer license or works under the supervision of a licensed PE.  Most states do not define what "working under the supervision of a PE" means.  It could mean that only one person in a privately owned firm has a PE.

Licensing is more important in some disciplines than others.  Civil engineers or environmental engineers are more likely to be licensed than electrical engineers.  

The law also permits exemptions for certain industries...software, for example.  A PE license is not required for someone to use the title of software engineer, and offer software engineering services to the public.

There is yet another exception.   If the U.S. federal government, or one of the state governments defines a job with the word "engineer" in the job's official title, then that person does not need a PE license to call themselves an engineer.    

Think about that for a moment.  The very organization that makes the rules has exempted themselves from their own rules.  That is not to say that the government cannot require a PE license when hiring (say) a civil engineer, but there is no law requiring that the person be licensed.

The PE exam also smacks of favoritism.  There are very few accredited universities (if any) in the U.S. that offer a degree in "Fire Safety Engineering", for example, yet there is a PE exam for that disciplines.

I'm not trying to belittle anyone who has taken the exam (God bless you if you have), nor do I think that the PE has no value.  But realistically, I do see this as an example of the positive attributes, as well as the negative attributes of such a system. 

And that's in an area with readily defined metrics.


----------



## chinto (Feb 24, 2009)

well, lets see, they tried that in Japan for a few century... did not work thank god!!  I say no, and personally would doubt that instructors would comply with such a law! .. as it should be!

where as a structural engineer would endanger many innocent lives, a bad MA instructor does not. personally i think that a badinstructor will be found out rapidly. So there is NO rational to license either instructors or students!!


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Feb 24, 2009)

Never mind.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 24, 2009)

girlbug2 said:


> Exactly -- the problem is defining the standards for each style. We seem to have problems coming to a consensus among ourselves what those standards are, now imagine the gov't trying to step in and standardize a martial art -- highly laughable, if it wouldn't be so disastrous.
> 
> This would be the same gov't, mind you, that's done a great job setting the standards for public school teaching in California...



States don't seem to have a problem licensing private investigators.

The standards for licensing in, say, Michigan are pretty objective, without having anything to say about 'style'.

http://www.michigan.gov/som/0,1607,7-192-29940_23422-64772--,00.html

No one said anything about _"the government trying to step in and standardize a style,"_ that I am aware of.  Does the government standardize barbers?  But they license them..


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 24, 2009)

Cryozombie said:


> The problem with that is, things like Engineering, Medicine, Law, all have a standard they can be tested on.  Book knowlage so to speak.  What standard gets set for Martial Arts, and who does the regulating?
> 
> I get a job as a regulator, come and watch you perform to see if you can teach.  Your Tang Soo Do looks nothing like my Bujinkan, so you are doing it wrong.  Sorry no licence for you.  Well, the standard could be physical fitness.  Wait, that guy is old.  No licence for him.  Those Masters are fat, none for them either...
> 
> I just don't see how it could be practical, beyond paying a "fee" (ahem tax) to be licenced... I can't see how they could set a "standard", when the Martial arts are far from.



The state of Michigan doesn't have a problem licensing auctioneers, and there is no 'physical fitness' or 'voice control' requirement.  No one makes sure that all auctioneers can make that weird rapid-pitch voice.

http://www.michigan.gov/dleg/0,1607,7-154-35299_35414_46937-176299--,00.html

It's even optional - auctioneers don't need to register, but if they do, they are authorized to call themselves 'registered auctioneers', which may be advantageous to their business.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 24, 2009)

chinto said:


> well, lets see, they tried that in Japan for a few century... did not work thank god!!  I say no, and personally would doubt that instructors would comply with such a law! .. as it should be!



I am not sure what you're talking about.  Banning the teaching of martial arts is not even close to the same as licensing martial arts schools/teachers.  The various states license barbers - haven't been any mass barber-crackdowns that I'm aware of, or did I miss something?



> where as a structural engineer would endanger many innocent lives, a bad MA instructor does not.


Um, what?  You don't think that a person who is unqualified to teach martial arts in any way, could endanger the lives of their students?  I mean, if I, as a white belt, simply choose to put on a black belt and open a dojo, and I taught students a bunch of BS that wont' help them, you don't think that's dangerous?



> personally i think that a badinstructor will be found out rapidly.


And what?  Who will stop them?  Not the police, there's no law against it.

My own fellow karate-ka know of lots of black belt mills in the area.  They laugh about them.  They shake their heads and are dismayed - but what can they do about them?  Yeah, they're out there.  And no one can stop them.



> So there is NO rational to license either instructors or students!!


That is the first question that has to be asked - I will grant you that.  Is there any need to do so?  If the answer to that question is 'no', then I agree with you.  I'm not convinced, however, by your examples, that there is no danger posed by unqualified teachers.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 24, 2009)

searcher said:


> No way, no how.   The Gov. messes with our affairs enough, they need to keep their hands away from us and what we do.   All it would be is another invitation to Socialism.



I think we're talking about licensing on the level of other professions here, like barbers.  Not exactly Big Brother - typically run at the state level.  Are barbers socialists?



> We, teh MA community, are the ones who need to regulate each other by watching out for frauds.    Not the Gov.



Yeah, how's that working out so far?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 24, 2009)

mook jong man said:


> If my Sifu had the confidence in me to teach students 4 times a week for him for years and on one occasion I even taught students with the Grand Master sitting there quietly watching me . ( that was nerve racking ).
> 
> I was good enough for these two expert men so why should I need permission off some idiot government official who wouldn't know Wing Chun from a hole in the ground .



Because there are lots of people out there who are teaching Wing Chun who learned it from a book, or never even bothered with the book.  What they teach may be dangerous to students to try to use, it might even be dangerous in the training center.  I understand you are careful, thoughtful, and were carefully supervised.  Is everyone?  Is it bad if they are not?


----------



## Grenadier (Feb 24, 2009)

Someone would have to be put in charge of licensing.  

Suppose that there's a particular individual who is highly prejudiced against a certain type of martial arts?  Would he be equally as inclined to grant licensing to arts that he favors, versus arts that he thumbs his nose at?  What if you have someone who worships Ralph Gracie to the point of taking everything literally (such as when Gracie once said "Karate is Garbage" on television), and this person gets put in charge?  

What kind of standards are you going to enforce?  

Physical requirements?  I know of many instructors who aren't in the best of physical condition, but they can certainly teach others far more effectively than some physically fit people I know.  Nevertheless, if the prejudiced individual in the above example starts saying "Well, I don't want any out of shape instructors around, period" and starts refusing to grant licenses to such people, what happens to the people who could have benefitted from the training?  

Technique quality?  What are you going to do about instructors who have injuries and might not be able to carry out such demands, even though they are perfectly capable of teaching others how to do so?  What if the person in charge of licensing doesn't understand how things are done in another system?  

You can't license martial arts instructors.  The only legitimate licensing is the business license, the same that any merchant would go through, if someone wants to open up a commercial school.  Even then, that's pretty much automatically granted.  

Let the real proof shine on its own, I'd say.  It's actually relatively easy to pick out good instruction from poor instruction, and in the end, your students will be the gauge of your success or failure as an instructor.  No amount of government henpecking will work.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 24, 2009)

Grenadier said:


> Someone would have to be put in charge of licensing.



Typically, it's a board.  Often consisting of members of that community.



> Suppose that there's a particular individual who is highly prejudiced against a certain type of martial arts?  Would he be equally as inclined to grant licensing to arts that he favors, versus arts that he thumbs his nose at?  What if you have someone who worships Ralph Gracie to the point of taking everything literally (such as when Gracie once said "Karate is Garbage" on television), and this person gets put in charge?



Generally not the case.



> What kind of standards are you going to enforce?
> 
> Physical requirements?  I know of many instructors who aren't in the best of physical condition, but they can certainly teach others far more effectively than some physically fit people I know.  Nevertheless, if the prejudiced individual in the above example starts saying "Well, I don't want any out of shape instructors around, period" and starts refusing to grant licenses to such people, what happens to the people who could have benefitted from the training?
> 
> Technique quality?  What are you going to do about instructors who have injuries and might not be able to carry out such demands, even though they are perfectly capable of teaching others how to do so?  What if the person in charge of licensing doesn't understand how things are done in another system?



How about health codes?  Retaurants are licensed, but no one tests them on how authentic their "Chinese" cuisine is, for example.  But they have to meet certain cleanliness standards, which means routine inspections of the facilities, and they have to carry liability insurance, etc.



> You can't license martial arts instructors.  The only legitimate licensing is the business license, the same that any merchant would go through, if someone wants to open up a commercial school.  Even then, that's pretty much automatically granted.



Sure you can license martial arts instructors.  Anything can be licensed.



> Let the real proof shine on its own, I'd say.  It's actually relatively easy to pick out good instruction from poor instruction, and in the end, your students will be the gauge of your success or failure as an instructor.  No amount of government henpecking will work.



The problem with that is the poor student - who invests 10 years of training in a garbage system and then finds out - too bad, so sad! That their instructor learned everything from a DVD he bought over the internet and it doesn't work, which he finds out when he gets his head busted trying to defending himself against a guy who attacks him at a bar.

And so what if the 'proof shines'?  If an instructor is exposed as worthless, a fraud, so what?  With no system of licensing, there is no way to shut him down.  He can just keep on finding new students and parents to dupe.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Feb 24, 2009)

The government proves its incompetence at nearly every turn.  People are appointed because of party loyalty and appearance.  Ideology is more important than qualification.  A tax cheat is our treasurer in the midst of a major economic crisis, during which the government wants to spend more money than it ever has at one time outside of war.  That pretty pathetic.  We're in a war because the last president was told what he wanted to hear by his advisors.  Likewise pathetic.  

This is not a dig at any particular administration or party either.  It just is.  The Feds are completely unable to do anything without waste and inefficiency.  We don't need another taxpayer supported program, particularly one that the government is completely inept to administer.

Look at the job the government did in regulating the housing market.  That should answer any questions about government involvement in anything.

Daniel


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 24, 2009)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> The government proves its incompetence at nearly every turn.  People are appointed because of party loyalty and appearance.  Ideology is more important than qualification.  A tax cheat is our treasurer in the midst of a major economic crisis, during which the government wants to spend more money than it ever has at one time outside of war.  That pretty pathetic.  We're in a war because the last president was told what he wanted to hear by his advisors.  Likewise pathetic.
> 
> This is not a dig at any particular administration or party either.  It just is.  The Feds are completely unable to do anything without waste and inefficiency.  We don't need another taxpayer supported program, particularly one that the government is completely inept to administer.
> 
> ...



The states and counties license and regulate restaurants and barbershops.  I fail to see the dire consequences you predict, and in fact, they seem to do a pretty good job.

I think people are seeing 'Big Brother' in places where he's not hanging around.  Take a look at the state license of the next doctor you visit.  Aren't you glad he's got one?  Would you prefer he watched a doctor DVD and then operated on your bum knee?


----------



## Steve (Feb 24, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> The states and counties license and regulate restaurants and barbershops. I fail to see the dire consequences you predict, and in fact, they seem to do a pretty good job.
> 
> I think people are seeing 'Big Brother' in places where he's not hanging around. Take a look at the state license of the next doctor you visit. Aren't you glad he's got one? Would you prefer he watched a doctor DVD and then operated on your bum knee?


Bear with me, because I have a cold and am not firing on all cylinders.  Hopefully this makes sense.

The difference that I see between barber students and martial arts is that a hair stylist is performing a public service in a profession with a well established curriculum.   I don't know a lot about barber college, but don't you have to complete some amount of class work and then move to X number of hours of cutting hair under observation?  I mean, it's well established.  Right?  And it's a State license, not Federal, meaning that the requirements for licensing are different from State to State.   This is my understanding of it, but I'll be the first to admit I don't know all of the details.

With martial arts, there is no established curriculum.  Within a style, there may be a governing body and a curriculum, but from style to style, it's like apples and oranges.  I just don't see it being practical, as you can look at Style A's school and Style B's school and see very little in common. 

Add to this that being a barber (and in other licensed trades, such as a Licensed Optician or Dental Assistant) is a service trade.  Martial arts training is more of a hobby or fitness activity than a service.

In general, I think that each style needs to do a better job of governing its own.  BJJ has the IBJJF, which records rank and establishes a uniform set of rules that forms the basis of the ruleset for all tournaments.  Local tournaments don't necessarily conform to all of the IBJJF rules, but they deviate intentionally from them.  It's the foundation.  If you train BJJ from a black belt who is not recognized by the IBJJF, you are probably NOT training from an actual expert in BJJ.   Other styles run on a similar model and I think that's adequate for most.  Another example is taijutsu...  if you're training in Hatsumi's style of ninjutsu, but from a "secret master" who has never "officially" trained... you're running the risk of being taken advantage of.

Now, what does sound reasonable to me (at least right now in my antihistamine fog) would be licensing and sanctioning for specific purpose.  For example, where kids are involved. Teaching to kids should, in my opinion, involve a license... at the very least to provide a background check and gaurantee some instructor training on handling and educating children.  We already license and sanction combat sports, so no need to go further in that.  The idea being, regardless of style, that both competitors are relatively evenly matched and fighting fit.


----------



## Cryozombie (Feb 24, 2009)

Actually here, the state doesnt "license" restaraunts, beyond the typical business license, and thats more of a tax formailty than anything.  What thry do is send the health inspector to make sure the food is safe... very different than licensing a Martial Arts school.  The business license part is the same, but thats already done for commercial schools... because they are commercial.  

But again, Barbers and Restaraunts and Engineers, are not the same as Martial Artists.  Hell, even licensing teachers is different, because there is a set of standards they can measure against.


----------



## Cryozombie (Feb 24, 2009)

stevebjj said:


> With martial arts, there is no established curriculum.  Within a style, there may be a governing body and a curriculum, but from style to style, it's like apples and oranges.  I just don't see it being practical, as you can look at Style A's school and Style B's school and see very little in common.



Indeed.  If , for example, one looks at a combative type MMA school, and then a Point based sparring school, and uses the caveat that they are "sport arts" that point school is going to look weak and ineffectual to the average person, so should that teacher be "failed" and not be granted a license?

While I understand the IDEA is to prevent Fraud, (and boy, in the art that I study we need that) I just dont see a practical way to do it?  Show your certificate?  Cmon, I can whip one of those up in photoshop in about 10 minutes...


----------



## Andrew Green (Feb 24, 2009)

No, absolutely not.

Yes, as a result of having no licensing we do get some very questionable things being taught, but we also get some brilliant and innovative things being taught as well.

To use a famous example look at Bruce Lee, chances are he would not have gotten a license.  Even without regulation some of his peers tried to stop him from teaching.  He bent the rules and didn't follow the "traditional" approach, he mixed styles and ideas, used no teaching methods and never "finished his training" in some peoples eyes.

I can't see anything but the same basic thing happening with regulation.  The "big money" schools would end up playing the politics and games to get to the top of the review board and we would push martial arts instruction into a government enforced McDojo style


----------



## Kreth (Feb 24, 2009)

The problem I see is that government licensing would require some sort of regulatory board. So who sits on that board? "Well, this guy has 25 successful schools, he must be an expert in the field." And BANG, the licensing decisions are being handled by a bunch of McDojo operators. No kids program, no license. No black belt club, no license. "What? You grade people when you think they're ready and not every 6 months?" No license.


----------



## Sandstorm (Feb 24, 2009)

Right, well, I've managed to read through most of the posts in this debate, and it's really interesting to see how the majority of you feel so strongly about not having licensed instruction.

I'm astounded that it's not covered, just as you are astounded that here in the UK, it _is _covered.

Now, in answer to what appears to be a little confusion on how this could and does run, here in the UK we have a large number of organisations and associations with which the instructors are registered. Each association has it's board of governers with specific skills in specific arts, so certain arts will appeal to certain associations**. By having that association badge on your documents, and by being licensed to teach your art under their banner, you would have qualified and met their exacting standards. This gives both ....
A) the instructor faith in what he's teaching, as they are always on hand (the associations) to help out instructors with various courses such as first aid etc, and are behind the instructor with any legalities that may occur within his/her school/lesson etc. The association do criminal checks and references to make sure you are who you say you are and they just sit back and let you teach your art without any interference.

B) the students have faith because they know the instructor has had to pass the requirements of the association to be awarded his licence to teach. This proves the instructor is who he says he is and teaches what he says he teaches. The students are then registered to the association and their grades added through time, until they acquire their Brown or above to be able to break off and teach their own thing. 

If it's a rare style, or even an art of your own, you still must go through one of the many associations until you and they are comfortable with your objectives. They will obviously see your qualities as an instructor as well as a practitioner, and if there is doubt, I would presume it is unlikely he can teach. 

Remember, that most classes/clubs etc have an association badge on their advertising, so anyone can check credentials at any time.

There is no single governing body for the entire martial arts, but these associations often work together to stop fraudulent instructors from tainting the sport and potentially putting off students from ever wanting to learn.

I can see that there wil obviously be schools/instructors who have reputation and have learned their arts for many decades etc and everyone knows who they are, but what about the small towns where Joe Kickboxer sets up an academy or runs classes through a town hall? Who is to know who the hell he is and what his credentials are? He may be great. He may be the best damned instructor out there, or he may end up ripping your son's ligaments through inappropraite stretching exercises and incompetence. How do you know?

The system you  have obviously works to a point. But then it hits that point, and all over the place you have these 'belt factories'  which are very very rare over here.

In a way, I wish we had the same laws as you with regards to licencing, because it can be tedious making sure all your paperwork is in order if you want to do a seminar or some such. It would be nice to just advertise the event and hope people come through the door. Sounds fantastic really.

This is a really fascinating insight that I never knew anything about before. Really interesting to see how different countries operate.

Kind regards

John


**- Just check the back pages of any UK MA magazine and there are advertisements for these organisations, loads of advertisements. As opposed to the US magazines, which advertise courses or classes or DVD offers and home study courses.


----------



## Woodbutcher (Feb 24, 2009)

Anything our government gets their hands on ultimately goes to hell in a hand basket.

The ONLY thing the government runs that works well is the postal service, but if I need something to be there beyond the shadow of a doubt...I send it UPS.


----------



## Steve (Feb 24, 2009)

Woodbutcher said:


> Anything our government gets their hands on ultimately goes to hell in a hand basket.
> 
> The ONLY thing the government runs that works well is the postal service, but if I need something to be there beyond the shadow of a doubt...I send it UPS.


If given the choice between Priority Mail and UPS, I will ALWAYS pick Priority Mail.  It always shows up in less time for less money.

As for the regulatory thing, I'm surprised to learn that there are no belt factories in the UK.  Huh...  that alone might change my mind.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Feb 24, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> The states and counties license and regulate restaurants and barbershops. I fail to see the dire consequences you predict, and in fact, they seem to do a pretty good job.
> 
> I think people are seeing 'Big Brother' in places where he's not hanging around. Take a look at the state license of the next doctor you visit. Aren't you glad he's got one? Would you prefer he watched a doctor DVD and then operated on your bum knee?


What dire consequences?  I didn't predict any consequences.  Nor did I mention big brother or allude to it.  

I did say that the government is _generally_ incompetent.  I did not say that they shouldn't regulate _anything_.  I'm just averse to my tax dollars being wasted on an unnecessary regulatory body that would most likely be ill equiped and ill informed to do a decent job.  

Though I referrenced the feds, I've seen plenty of examples of state, county, and city stupidity.  Just looking at the self defense laws of some states does not inspire me to trust them in regulating anything of a martial nature.

I did like an earlier poster's idea (yours?) of licensing the facility and requiring it to meet certain criteria; that doesn't require a new regulating agency or education of state employees in the peculiars of martial arts.

Daniel


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Feb 24, 2009)

Kreth said:


> The problem I see is that government licensing would require some sort of regulatory board. So who sits on that board? "Well, this guy has 25 successful schools, he must be an expert in the field." And BANG, the licensing decisions are being handled by a bunch of McDojo operators. No kids program, no license. No black belt club, no license. "What? You grade people when you think they're ready and not every 6 months?" No license.


I don't know that this would be the case.  I'd be more concerned with a government agency saying that "this is a martial art and this is not".  I'd also be more concerned with appointments being made based on rtf's, not an uncommon thing in politics.

Generally, I find that the less government involvement in anything the better.  Not always, but generally.  The government has its hand out all the time and often the very people who the government is supposed to be regulating are putting dollars into that hand.  Thus government regulation is often joke.  

Daniel


----------



## Drac (Feb 24, 2009)

Andy Moynihan said:


> No.


 


CoryKS said:


> What he said.


 
What they said...


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 24, 2009)

I think there is some general confusion here between federal and everything else (state, county, municipal, etc).  Most licensing is local, not federal.

Second, I think people are confusing licensing with regulation.  Licensing does not imply controlling how an art is taught.  Regulation may.

A more precise question might have been, _"Should state or local governments license (not regulate) martial arts instruction?"_

I think most of the answers given thus far have had more to do with people's opinions on how well (or badly) the federal government does at running operations.  This may be true - but it rather misses the mark.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Feb 24, 2009)

Andy Moynihan said:


> No.


 


CoryKS said:


> What he said.


 


Drac said:


> What they said...


 


terryl965 said:


> Not just No but HELL NO!!!!


 

That about covers it 

No need for me to repeat what has already been said


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 24, 2009)

New Hampshire currently requires that Martial Arts instruction centers be licensed:

http://doj.nh.gov/publications/nreleases2008/072408.html

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XXXI/358-S/358-S-mrg.htm

This is wrong because?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 24, 2009)

Here is an example of a Martial Arts studio shut down because there is no specific 'martial arts' licensing; instead, the city considers it a 'day care facility' and shut it down because it does not have a day care license.

http://www.pleasantonweekly.com/news/show_story.php?id=525

Interesting story.


----------



## geezer (Feb 24, 2009)

Sandstorm said:


> The system you have obviously works to a point. But then it hits that point, and all over the place you have these 'belt factories' which are very very rare over here.
> 
> In a way, I wish we had the same laws as you with regards to licencing, because it can be tedious making sure all your paperwork is in order if you want to do a seminar or some such. It would be nice to just advertise the event and hope people come through the door. Sounds fantastic really.
> 
> ...


 
I guess it comes down to "pick your poison". Do you want freedom from excessive government oversight, incompetent bureaucratic intrusion, and all the accompanying headaches... or do you want to put up with no restraint on all the frauds, belt-factories and bozos we see all to often.

It's interesting to see how people in different places handle this issue. As for myself, I'll put up with the bozos, and take the responsibility on myself for finding out about my instructors' qualifications. The guys I train with right now probably wouldn't even bother to teach if they had to go through all the bureaucratic hassles of a government licensing system. And the bozos and frauds usually manage to weasel their way around the rules, anyway. Just my perspective.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Feb 24, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> New Hampshire currently requires that Martial Arts instruction centers be licensed:
> 
> http://doj.nh.gov/publications/nreleases2008/072408.html
> 
> ...


 
No where in either of those documents is the term License used


----------



## ChingChuan (Feb 24, 2009)

In the Netherlands, you don't have to be licensed to teach, but there is an optional licensing track. It's meant to provide instructors with the basic knowledge about the law, health-related things (correct stretching/warming up etc. etc.) and teaching theory. There are two parts - A1, which is the 'general' part and A2, which is determined by your organisation. So A1 consists of lectures and tests and A2 is usually supervised teaching etc. 
If you complete this education, you can prove that you underwent a background check and that you can safely teach people from all ages. 

So I don't really understand the problems that people are having with government licensing...


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 24, 2009)

Xue Sheng said:


> No where in either of those documents is the term License used



Good point!

My bad.  The major difference between licensing and requiring registration is that a license can be revoked, preventing the business from operating.  The registration simply sets forth requirements (mostly regarding contracts) and establishes criminal penalties for failing to behave in the manner set forth by law.  Thanks for catching that.


----------



## Kreth (Feb 24, 2009)

I can see licensing a commercial dojo similar to a gym, requiring training in CPR and first aid, etc; but I don't see any equitable way to license instructors. If you (general you) don't know my system, how do you know whether I'm qualified to teach it? :idunno:


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Feb 24, 2009)

I am pretty much just answering off the original posters comments, so forgive me if this has already been answered.

First I think government is way too big already in the United States, and way to invasive in our everyday lives.

that being said there is alot of horrible martial arts schools and instructors in the United States. I have no diea how it is elsewhere, I imagine it is probably fairly similar. I would love to see the actual regulations that are in place across the pond and see what they do.

The biggest problem I see would be the inclination for the regulations to be on whats included in the curriculum, and I think that would be a really bad idea. I do however think it might make sense to require Martial Arts instructors to have a certain leveal of knowledge on the general things that pertain to all martial arts... things like..

Anatomy
First Aid
General Physics
Legal issues, local, state and federal level

I would hate to see it become a requirement to get a Martial Arts degree in College to be able to teach martial arts, but I do think that a program somewhere similar in depth to what Personal Trainers go through would be a good thing.

Unfortunately from what I have seen of government though I see nothing but the tendency to overtake every aspect being too great a risk, and the chances that it gets messed up, or completely out of wack too great to risk.
So I would have to agree with all those that are saying something along the lines of 

HELL NO

LOL


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 24, 2009)

Connecticut licenses martial arts studio:

http://www.ct-clic.com/TradeLicenses/categorySearch.asp?catID=390


----------



## Carol (Feb 24, 2009)

Also note that this has nothing to do with the instruction of martial arts or even instructors of martial arts.   

The law was originally written for health clubs, a recent (within the last 2 years) decision was made to classify martial arts schools as health clubs and therefore require the school to register with the state and follow certain regulations if they offer student contracts.  In other words, the registration affects how money changes hands...and not much else.


----------



## Sandstorm (Feb 24, 2009)

geezer said:


> I guess it comes down to "pick your poison". Do you want freedom from excessive government oversight, incompetent bureaucratic intrusion, and all the accompanying headaches... or do you want to put up with no restraint on all the frauds, belt-factories and bozos we see all to often.
> 
> It's interesting to see how people in different places handle this issue. As for myself, I'll put up with the bozos, and take the responsibility on myself for finding out about my instructors' qualifications. The guys I train with right now probably wouldn't even bother to teach if they had to go through all the bureaucratic hassles of a government licensing system. And the bozos and frauds usually manage to weasel their way around the rules, anyway. Just my perspective.


 
That's cool, it is a case of each to there own. As to the 'government beurocracy, the government itself doesn't get involved. It's Martial Arts governing bodies that take on instructors with merit and references. You have no references or proof of qualifications etc, you don't teach, simple as that. If you don't have an association banner on your paperwork/advertising etc etc, you will not get students. No student=no classes=no point even trying to set up a school without credentials.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Feb 24, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Connecticut licenses martial arts studio:
> 
> http://www.ct-clic.com/TradeLicenses/categorySearch.asp?catID=390


 
Appears to be licensing the facility not the teacher



Carol Kaur said:


> Also note that this has nothing to do with the instruction of martial arts or even instructors of martial arts.
> 
> The law was originally written for health clubs, a recent (within the last 2 years) decision was made to classify martial arts schools as health clubs and therefore require the school to register with the state and follow certain regulations if they offer student contracts. In other words, the registration affects how money changes hands...and not much else.


 
Thanks Carol.... But I still don't trust you with a MagLite


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 24, 2009)

Xue Sheng said:


> Appears to be licensing the facility not the teacher



Yes, it is.  I mentioned a few posts previous that I thought a more appropriate question was _"Should state or local governments license (not regulate) martial arts instruction?"

_I am not, as I said, in favor of licensing at all at this time.  However, I wanted to correct some of what appeared to be radical misunderstandings about professional licensing systems.  I'm paranoid - but some of the response I've read are, in my opinion, way out there in terms of fearing Big Brother.

My point was, and is, that lots of professions are licensed.  Usually at the state or local levels, and most are set up in the interest of public safety.  They're not about 'big government' or power over people, more about protecting the community from the unscrupulous, unqualified, or dangerous.

Not every profession needs to be licensed, and I agree that martial arts is one that probably does not (at this time).  But it can be done, it can be done effectively, and when it is done, it isn't the horror-show government takeover or boondoggle it seems some folks here fear.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Feb 24, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I think there is some general confusion here between federal and everything else (state, county, municipal, etc). Most licensing is local, not federal.
> 
> Second, I think people are confusing licensing with regulation. Licensing does not imply controlling how an art is taught. Regulation may..


 
Licensing is a form of passive regulation. That and another source of income for the state, which already takes enough of our money, thank you very much.

By passive regulation, I mean that a license would mean that

*A.* you need the license to either teach or..

*B.* own the school.

*C.* to have the license, criterial must be met, criteria that may or may not be reasonable and appropriate.



Bill Mattocks said:


> A more precise question might have been, _"Should state or local governments license (not regulate) martial arts instruction?"_
> 
> I think most of the answers given thus far have had more to do with people's opinions on how well (or badly) the federal government does at running operations. This may be true - but it rather misses the mark.


While I agree with you, this creates another level of state, county, or municiple bureaucracy that must be paid for by tax dollars. Or it places the duty into the hands of an existing bureaucracy. 

In either case, you'll have licensing standards being made by people who really don't have the qualifications to do so. What criteria would you use?

Is the building licensed?

Is the owner licensed?

Do the individual instructors need to be licensed?

If yes to that last one, then

Is it merely license saying that the state is aware that you're teaching some sort of MA or...

Would a class be required, along with a requisite test (like the driver's license).

Is there a minimum age?

Is there a maximum age?

Would only certain arts be recognized?

That last question would be my biggest concern. 
*Edit:*
In any case, I'm not trying to pick at you. 

I'm posing the questions as one who live in a place where studios don't need anything more than whatever licensing a normal retail business or fitness center would need.  And since the thread title is asking about instructors, these are the questions I'd be asking if it were being considered in Maryland.

On the flip side, I do agree that there _can_ be positives to licensing either the building or the individual instructor. 

Daniel


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Feb 24, 2009)

Just a funny conversation that ran through my head after reading this thread:

A man walks into the MAVA (Martial arts Verification Administration).  He hands his application to the lady behind the window.

"You can't get a license because that isn't a martial art, sir," says lady behind the window. 

"But maam, I've been studing Shim Gumdo under Chang Sik Kim for the past twenty years in Boston at the headquarters," responds teacher.

"Is this some form of Karate?" she asks, trying to help the man.

"No, its a sword art." he replies.

"So its Kendo?" she asks.

"No, that's Japanese." he says.

"I thought you said that it was from Boston." she replies.

"No, it was founded in 1971 in Korea, but the headquarters are in Boston," he replies. "Anyway, we don't fence."

"Korea!  Haedong Gumdo?" she asks.

"No, that actually was influenced by Shim Gumdo." he replies, now frustrated.

"How can that be?"  She asks.  "According to the FAQ sheet, HDGD is the martial art of the Samurang of the ancient Silla Kingdom."

"No, no, Haedong Gumdo was founded in 1982." he says snappily.

"In Boston?" she asks.

"No, that's Shim Gumdo!" he replies.

"Sorry sir, but that isn't a martial art.  It's not on the list."  She replies.

The man thinks for a moment.

"What if I called it Yoga with a sword?" he asks.

"Ah, that's on the list.  John Basedow did a video fitness series on that as part of his 'Six pack abs part 50.'

"Okay" says the man.  "Yoga with a sword it is."

That is the sort of worst case scenario I envision when I think of government involvement in the martial arts.  

Daniel


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 24, 2009)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> While I agree with you, this creates another level of state, county, or municiple bureaucracy that must be paid for by tax dollars.  Or it places the duty into the hands of an existing bureaucracy.



Which is part of the reason I tend to oppose licensing or regulation of people or businesses unless it serves a well-defined public need.

The two examples I've been able to find so far show examples of both.  The registration required in NH seems to be aimed at protecting the consumer from shady operators that play silly buggers with contracts.  The Connecticut law seems more concerned with public safety.



> In either case, you'll have licensing standards being made by people who really don't have the qualifications to do so.  What criteria would you use?
> 
> Is the building licensed?
> 
> ...



Typically, such licensing is not undertaken without public input, and often, with the assistance and guidance of advisory boards made up of professionals from the community of professionals to be licensed.

One benefit that a license gives is this - regardless of what the basis for licensing might be - if a license is required to operate, then there is a legal way to shut down dangerous or unethical operators, based on a license review board.

Others have mentioned in this thread that the 'bad guys' are well-known or soon makes themselves known.  True - and most of us know of the McDojo's and belt factories, etc.  Some of us have even heard horror stories of instructors who like the young ladies in the class a bit too much, etc.  It happens.  It's great that they are identified - BUT THEN WHAT?

Without licensing, if no crime has been committed, it may be next to impossible to get such a business shut down.

Again, my first criteria for deciding whether I am in favor of government intervention in any aspect of my life is whether or not there is a problem that needs fixing.  My second question is whether or not the proposed solution can fix the problem if there is one.  If the answer to either one is 'no', then I'm not in favor of licensing.  If the answer is 'yes', then I suspect ways can be found that are not unfair to the martial arts community and yet which protect the public interest.  We've been doing it for years - without breaking the public budget or unfairly limiting business, with a variety of professions.  It can be done - the only question is should it be done - in my opinion.


----------



## Carol (Feb 24, 2009)

Take a look at this thread that debates what Province of Ontario is doing. This is perhaps closer to the kind of martial arts regulation (I'm avoiding the term "licensing" because its too specific) that would turn up here:

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=70367


----------



## JadeDragon3 (Feb 24, 2009)

Hell no they shouldn't be allowed license us martial art teachers. First off how in the world could the government verify a person's credentials? Secondly, what does the government know about martial arts? If the gov. were allowed to license martial art teachers then what would be next?where would it end? This would give the government an excuse to tell you how to run your school and possibly tell you how much to charge.

On a side note, here in some states you do not have to register a gun with the government.  All you have to do is pass a background check unless you buy the gun off an individual (which is perfectly legal).


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 24, 2009)

Carol Kaur said:


> Take a look at this thread that debates what Province of Ontario is doing. This is perhaps closer to the kind of martial arts regulation (I'm avoiding the term "licensing" because its too specific) that would turn up here:
> 
> http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=70367



Actually, MMA tournaments are a very good illustration.

Most states in the USA allow boxing competitions, but nearly all license and heavily regulate it.  MMA is new, and most states were not set up to deal with it.  For a decade or so, it was kind of 'under the radar,' but now MMA is going mainstream.  In just the past few months, Michigan has approved licensing MMA competitions like they do boxing, and SC is poised to do so.  It is happening all over the US.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 24, 2009)

JadeDragon3 said:


> First off how in the world could the government verify a person's credentials?



Would they have to?  I can get a license to drive a car, but I don't have to prove I took Driver's Education.



> Secondly, what does the government know about martial arts?



Again, what does the government have to know about martial arts?  When they license a barber, do they tell him what kind of comb he can use, or how long his scissor cut must be and at what angle?



> If the gov. were allowed to license martial art teachers then what would be next?



Why does that matter?  One of the purposes of state and local governments is to serve the public interest.  Provide schools, protect the citizenry, and so on.



> where would it end?



Seriously, you should take a look at your own state's list of licensed professions.  It's probably not all that big - most professions don't pose a public safety risk if done improperly and are not licensed.  They've been doing this for a very long time and the list hasn't been exploding.



> This would give the government an excuse to tell you how to run your school and possibly tell you how much to charge.



Does it give the government the right to tell a barber how to cut hair or how much to charge?

What such a license MIGHT do could include:

* Making sure a martial arts instructor was trained in first aid.
* Making sure a martial arts center had liability insurance.
* Making sure a martial arts center had first-aid equipment.
* Making sure a martial arts instructor did not have a criminal background.

Are these bad things?  How can they be ensured if NOT by licensing?


----------



## JadeDragon3 (Feb 24, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Would they have to? I can get a license to drive a car, but I don't have to prove I took Driver's Education.
> 
> Again, what does the government have to know about martial arts? When they license a barber, do they tell him what kind of comb he can use, or how long his scissor cut must be and at what angle?
> 
> ...


 
I just don't think that the government has any reason getting into the martial art licensing business.  My school didn't have a lot of first aid stuff and I'm pretty sure my teacher was not CPR certified BUT he was and still is an excellent teacher.  That should not stop him from teaching kung fu. Alot of martial art gyms are pretty primative meaning they are not state of the art gyms.  Does the government have a right to mandate things like being certified in first aid, etc.....  What else would they mandate.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Feb 24, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Yes, it is. I mentioned a few posts previous that I thought a more appropriate question was _"Should state or local governments license (not regulate) martial arts instruction?"_
> 
> I am not, as I said, in favor of licensing at all at this time. However, I wanted to correct some of what appeared to be radical misunderstandings about professional licensing systems. I'm paranoid - but some of the response I've read are, in my opinion, way out there in terms of fearing Big Brother.
> 
> ...


 
Having once worked for a Government office that had professional licensing as one of its departments I will say in some cases, (many actually) it is a good idea. However the problem is that the people deciding what is necessary for a license don't always have much or any experience in the area they are making the requirements for. And yet in other cases it is simply another way for the state to take more money from its citizens.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 24, 2009)

JadeDragon3 said:


> I just don't think that the government has any reason getting into the martial art licensing business.



I agree, and I don't think the government has any reason to get into ANY licensing - unless it serves a compelling public interest.  That's what the purpose of such licensing is supposed to be.  Therefore, I would ask if there is such a compelling public interest - if not, then not.



> My school didn't have a lot of first aid stuff and I'm pretty sure my teacher was not CPR certified BUT he was and still is an excellent teacher.  That should not stop him from teaching kung fu.



I am not sure how licensing that required him to become certified in first aid and to have first aid equipment onsite would stop him from teaching, unless you're arguing that he's not capable of learning first aid? :angel:



> Alot of martial art gyms are pretty primative meaning they are not state of the art gyms.  Does the government have a right to mandate things like being certified in first aid, etc.....



I don't know, I used that as an example.  Restaurants are usually required to have smoke hoods over grills - it serves a public safety need.



> What else would they mandate.



What else have you got?  

No, seriously, I am just playing devil's advocate here, but hopefully in a gentle way, trying to see both sides.

None of us want idiots who learn martial arts from a DVD and then open up a dojo to do things like that, do we?  It's dangerous to students - both in terms of dangerous training techniques they might receive as well as in terms of giving them a false sense of confidence that they can meet self defense challenges safely, when in fact they may know essentially nothing of any use in a crisis.  It damages the reputation of martial arts in general, and it even dilutes the value of a product - if you want to look at the sales side of it - in the eyes of the public.  To some, if a McDojo can promise a black belt in so many months for so much money, if your dojo takes longer and costs more - you lose.  That may not matter to you - but it does to some traditional style senseis, I've heard them talk about it.

As things stand now, when martial arts are unlicensed, there is no real way to shut down such dangerous operations.  Even if someone gets hurt - they can sue, but the dojo can go right on doing what it's doing.  Or the bad instructor pops up somewhere else.  Etc.

The one good thing a licensing scheme would be able to do - if used properly - would be to shut down the dangerous operators.  Is that worth the government intervention into what otherwise is a 'wild west, ya'll come' profession?  I don't think so at the moment, but I'm open to discussion on the matter.


----------



## JadeDragon3 (Feb 24, 2009)

If martial art teachers have to be licensed to teach then what keeps the gov. from telling you what you can charge to teach and/or what times you can be open, etc....  where do you draw the line?


----------



## Sandstorm (Feb 24, 2009)

I feel the point is being missed here. The Government doesn't get involved. It's all down to associations created to enforce and certify. The government has nothing to do with it. Sure, they may tax the associations based on revenue, but that's it as far as I'm aware.
The associations have boards/panels of recognised and respected individuals with a variety of MA experience, and they are the ones who say yes or no to intstructors based on their qualifications/character etc etc. 
Sure, you can argue that these associations could be manufactured by anyone, but come, do you really think so? I mean, you get enough legitimate people behind one association, then another, then another, and you are on the way to covering most arts, if not all.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 24, 2009)

JadeDragon3 said:


> If martial art teachers have to be licensed to teach then what keeps the gov. from telling you what you can charge to teach and/or what times you can be open, etc....  where do you draw the line?



Barbers are licensed and they are not told how to cut hair, what times they can be open, or what to charge.

I don't think there is a line there to be drawn.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Feb 24, 2009)

Sandstorm said:


> I feel the point is being missed here. The Government doesn't get involved. It's all down to associations created to enforce and certify. The government has nothing to do with it. Sure, they may tax the associations based on revenue, but that's it as far as I'm aware.
> The associations have boards/panels of recognised and respected individuals with a variety of MA experience, and they are the ones who say yes or no to intstructors based on their qualifications/character etc etc.
> Sure, you can argue that these associations could be manufactured by anyone, but come, do you really think so? I mean, you get enough legitimate people behind one association, then another, then another, and you are on the way to covering most arts, if not all.


 
Which association, name 2 that agree on all points and there are a multitude of association in the US that are simply belt factories and again the majority of CMA teachers in the US belong to NO association what-so-ever.

I once had a guy at a Judo school ask me to teach Taiji there and possible Long Fist later but I needed to be a member of his association for insurance coverage. Explain to me what the heck a Judo association knows about Taiji, Long Fist or any CMA for that matter. I did not take the job.

Again we are right back to, as far as CMA is concerned, most of the legitamate teachers will quit teaching and the charlatans will have big schools that make tons of money and TCMA will be dead.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 24, 2009)

Sandstorm said:


> I feel the point is being missed here. The Government doesn't get involved. It's all down to associations created to enforce and certify. The government has nothing to do with it. Sure, they may tax the associations based on revenue, but that's it as far as I'm aware.
> The associations have boards/panels of recognised and respected individuals with a variety of MA experience, and they are the ones who say yes or no to intstructors based on their qualifications/character etc etc.
> Sure, you can argue that these associations could be manufactured by anyone, but come, do you really think so? I mean, you get enough legitimate people behind one association, then another, then another, and you are on the way to covering most arts, if not all.



There are a LOT of martial arts associations in the US.  And as far as I can tell, a whole shload of them are fake.

Most of them avoid personal damage to their brain-pans by not calling their associations by the name of a style that is known to be legitimate, but they seem to make up new 'styles' to be associations of with distressing regularity.

Possible analogy - in the US, there are several 'real' regional secondary education accrediting associations.  Colleges and universities that have been licensed by these groups are called 'accredited' and the degrees they award are seen as reputable and real. Credits can be transferred to other schools, etc.  

However, there are many 'accrediting associations' that are NOT one of the 'real' ones, and such colleges' degrees mean pretty much nothing.  Some actually teach something - some teach nothing but are only diploma mills - but none of them are 'accredited' and no one has much respect for their degrees.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Feb 24, 2009)

Grenadier said:


> Someone would have to be put in charge of licensing.
> 
> Suppose that there's a particular individual who is highly prejudiced against a certain type of martial arts? Would he be equally as inclined to grant licensing to arts that he favors, versus arts that he thumbs his nose at? What if you have someone who worships Ralph Gracie to the point of taking everything literally (such as when Gracie once said "Karate is Garbage" on television), and this person gets put in charge?
> 
> ...


 


Bill Mattocks said:


> Typically, it's a board. Often consisting of members of that community.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 


I disagree that it is not generally the case. 

In the State of New York that did try to create a license for Martial Artists, they put in the law the requirements of Rank and Years at Rank for owning a school to be able to teach at a school, and all of these were put in from the "friends" of the Representative who was proposing the "Bill". 

This is the only case I know of with an Actual "Bill" in front of a State Congress. 

So, could you please provide me with data to your point? Martial Art Data?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 24, 2009)

Xue Sheng said:


> Again we are right back to, as far as CMA is concerned, most of the legitamate teachers will quit teaching and the charlatans will have big schools that make tons of money and TCMA will be dead.



Why would legitimate teachers quit rather than become licensed?


----------



## Xue Sheng (Feb 24, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Why would legitimate teachers quit rather than become licensed?


 
Look into CMA history, look into Chinese Culture, look into the Duan ranking system.

And basically it just is not with the hassle. As I posted in another thread. I know of a few rather impressive Sifus that would quit because it would not be worth the time or money (they teach because they want to teach what they know and learn and make little or no money at it now) and I know a now charlatan that would be the first in line so he could make MORE money.

I could tell you about the discussion I recently had with my Yang Taiji Sifu or the comment my ex-Wing Chun Sifu made but I have no time and frankly I am already into this much further than I wanted to be.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Feb 24, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> New Hampshire currently requires that Martial Arts instruction centers be licensed:
> 
> http://doj.nh.gov/publications/nreleases2008/072408.html
> 
> ...


 


Xue Sheng said:


> No where in either of those documents is the term License used


 

From the first site:



> New Hampshire Attorney General Kelly A. Ayotte announces that all health club and martial arts school owners in the State of New Hampshire are *reminded* to register with the Consumer Protection and Antitrust Bureau. New Hampshire law *requires* that both health clubs and martial arts schools register annually and those registration statements contain important consumer safeguards.


 
They are *reminded[/b[ not required. 



And the second link is about Contracts and defining them in a legal way.*


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 24, 2009)

Rich Parsons said:


> I disagree that it is not generally the case.
> 
> _[note: with regard to my response to this statement:
> 
> ...



I cannot, as there are very few states that I can find that currently license or register martial arts teachers or facilities.

What I can do is draw upon the history of local and state-level licensing and point out that in general, this is not the case, nor has it been.  While it may be a fear of yours, and backed up by a legitimate situation such as you described, the history of local and state licensure of professionals of various sorts is overwhelming NOT one of unfairly restricting those with whom a head of licensing disagrees.

It's a 'suppose' that just has no historical basis in reality given the history of licensing of professions.


----------



## Carol (Feb 24, 2009)

Rich Parsons said:


> From the first site:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


*

Rich, they are required.  Look at the segment that you posted:




			New Hampshire law requires that both health clubs and martial arts schools register annually
		
Click to expand...


The AG uses the word "reminder" because...well...we are a friendly state...LOL.  In all seriouslness...its because up until recently, martial arts were not considered to be "health clubs" and therefore not subject to this registration and not required to post and offer consumer information.  The statement from the attorney general was another way to reinforce the information - particularly to martial arts schools that have not had to worry  about such forms of legal complinance in the past.*


----------



## Rich Parsons (Feb 24, 2009)

Carol Kaur said:


> Rich, they are required. Look at the segment that you posted:
> 
> 
> 
> The AG uses the word "reminder" because...well...we are a friendly state...LOL. In all seriouslness...its because up until recently, martial arts were not considered to be "health clubs" and therefore not subject to this registration and not required to post and offer consumer information. The statement from the attorney general was another way to reinforce the information - particularly to martial arts schools that have not had to worry about such forms of legal complinance in the past.


 
Carol,

The previous line of the paragraph I quoted has "reminded". The second one you brought up says Required. 

As I deal with requirments every day. It is my business. 

This is conflicting requirements, and I would love to spend time and the money of the system in a court having them prove to me which is the important word. Reminded or Required. 

If they want to get specific they should word it with a "SHALL" to avoid confusions.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Feb 24, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Why would legitimate teachers quit rather than become licensed?


 
Board(B): Mr. Parsons do you belong to a recognized organization for Modern Arnis? 

Parsons(P): No, I am independant. 

(B): Mr. Parsons do you belong to an organization for Balintawak? 

(P): No, I do not as my instructor did not and the founder of the art was his instructor. 

(B): Do you have certificates for your Rank from Modern Arnis? 

(P): I have some of them as my Ex-wife burned some during the divorce process. 

(B): So, you have no proof os some of your rank? You know this is suspcious. Right?

(P): Yes.

*** Here my Friend Bob steps up and says that he can provide certificates just likes those found on EBAY that started theother thread and then this thread. Of course Bob's would look better and have higher ranking and pretty titles and cost more. 

(P): SHHHH Bob I am trying to get through this. 
***

(B): Do you have your certificates for rank in Balintawak? 

(P): Sir, my instructor does not believe in certificates, as each person has to be able to back up what they claim and or say. His instructor did not hand them out so neither does he. 

(B): *** One smart member trying to help me out *** Can you bring your instructor in for him to testify to your claim to be able to teach?

(P): No, I cannot as he has had a stroke and cannot communicate. 

(B): How long have you been in the martial arts?

(P): I have been in the arts for 23 years 

(B): So Mr. Parsons you have missing paperwork in one art. You have no paperwork in another art. You instructors are either Dead or unable to communicate. Is this correct?

(P): Yes.

(B): Mr. Parsons are you sure you are serious and you are not just wasting our time? 

(P): No, I am only trying to follow the law so I can teach and continue to help the few students I may have in my life time so that they can teach in the future and the art survive. 

(B): *** Lots of head shaking and wispering ***

(P): *** Lots of sweating and worrying about the boards decision ***

(B): Mr Parsons, you understand that we usually take time to deliberate and discuss this and then publish our results at a later date. 

(P): Yes I understand. 

(B): But given the data we have in front of us, we cannot, in good conscious waste our time on this. 

(B): Request for License Denied. 

(P): Stops teaching and wonders if anything is worth the time anymore. 

*****

Mean while next(N) person gets up:

(B): *** Same Questions as above ***
(N): I have my Certs right here. I have come from a school with an organization of 50 schools and I have been training for 3 years and want to open my own school. 

(B): Approved as you seem to have all your requirements in hand while "others" do not. 


********************************************************

I might be negative on this issue, but this is what I can imagine happening real easily. So, and others would just stop teaching in the open. We might teach one or two people but all illegally of course.


----------



## Carol (Feb 24, 2009)

Rich Parsons said:


> Carol,
> 
> The previous line of the paragraph I quoted has "reminded". The second one you brought up says Required.
> 
> ...



It is not conflicting requirements. The first is a news release.  The second link that Bill posted referenced the proper statute.  Which, btw, uses the word "shall".     



> *Section 358-S:2*
> 
> * 358-S:2 Registration;  Surety Bond;  Escrow of Deposits. &#8211;*
> I. Any person operating or intending to open or operate a martial arts school within this state shall file a registration statement with the department of justice, bureau of consumer protection and antitrust.


Source:

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XXXI/358-S/358-S-mrg.htm


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 24, 2009)

Rich Parsons said:


> I might be negative on this issue, but this is what I can imagine happening real easily. So, and others would just stop teaching in the open. We might teach one or two people but all illegally of course.



You can imagine it, but that doesn't make it so - and the history of local licensing of various professions does not bear that out.

As to quitting if you have be licensed, so mote it be.

I note that most people who promised to 'leave the country' after various elections seem not to have done so.  I would tentatively predict that most martial arts instructors who wanted to continue to operate would comply with local licensing laws.   People who threaten the loudest to do a Cartman just seem the least likely to actually do it.


----------



## Gordon Nore (Feb 24, 2009)

Kreth said:


> I can see licensing a commercial dojo similar to a gym, requiring training in CPR and first aid, etc; but I don't see any equitable way to license instructors. If you (general you) don't know my system, how do you know whether I'm qualified to teach it? :idunno:



Agreed.

Beyond this general sort of compliance comes the issue of standards. First off, I think teachers who requires an unusually longer time in grade would be orphaned by the system. Whether or not licensing is intrusive, I don't see it as being terribly effective or equitable. What does one do the rest of the time if one is ripped off or deceived -- call a lawyer, the BBB, or the Chamber of Commerce.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 24, 2009)

Gordon Nore said:


> Agreed.
> 
> Beyond this general sort of compliance comes the issue of standards. First off, I think teachers who requires an unusually longer time in grade would be orphaned by the system. Whether or not licensing is intrusive, I don't see it as being terribly effective or equitable.



I can see such a thing.

What if the requirements for licensing were more along the lines of:

* Background check for criminal convictions or current warrants.
* Holder of current first-aid certification, such as Red Cross CPR.
* A clause to enable licensing authority to revoke such licensing, based on good cause and due process, as many professional licensing systems do.

Would such a licensing system ensure that a martial arts teacher was qualified to teach martial arts?  No.  But it would serve several important functions, which would in turn serve the public interest.



> What does one do the rest of the time if one is ripped off or deceived -- call a lawyer, the BBB, or the Chamber of Commerce.



None of those will result in removing a person from teaching, nor will it close a business, unless economically bankrupted by a lawsuit.  Revoking a required license would have that effect.


----------



## Kreth (Feb 24, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> * Background check for criminal convictions or current warrants.


You can have a criminal conviction from something as simple as a bounced check. Should that be sufficient to exclude you from becoming licensed?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 24, 2009)

Kreth said:


> You can have a criminal conviction from something as simple as a bounced check. Should that be sufficient to exclude you from becoming licensed?



I don't think so.  But why imagine up a list of reasons why a criminal background check would not work?  Such a list could be tailored to something that makes sense - say sexual assault convictions, violent crimes, that sort of thing.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Feb 24, 2009)

Kreth said:


> You can have a criminal conviction from something as simple as a bounced check. Should that be sufficient to exclude you from becoming licensed?


 
Interesting question

Driving in Massachusetts while under the drinking age with someone that is of age in your car that is not your parent or legal guardian and having any alcohol in the car is a crime called "Minor Transporting". NYS it is nothing at all as long as the container is not open. Now how would the effect this if you lived and wanted to teach in NY but were convicted in Ma.


----------



## Guardian (Feb 24, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> You can imagine it, but that doesn't make it so - and the history of local licensing of various professions does not bear that out.
> 
> As to quitting if you have be licensed, so mote it be.
> 
> I note that most people who promised to 'leave the country' after various elections seem not to have done so. I would tentatively predict that most martial arts instructors who wanted to continue to operate would comply with local licensing laws. People who threaten the loudest to do a Cartman just seem the least likely to actually do it.


 

At one point in time, I would have said oh heck no, not in this life time.  Bill Mattocks here makes some valid points on licensing of various professional careers/jobs.  Though  some are not Governmental licenses per say, they are professional licenses from professional organizations which does not lend much credence to that wiring credibility for your room LOL.  A license it is no less.  

I would venture to say that a State License over a Federal might be a safer and less intrusive way to go as with states that sanction boxing events (not saying events, just using this as a comparison).  This license could cost as little as say $50 a year and some benefits that could be derived from that is you would be listed in State Associations and Licensing Bureaus and such, advertisement per say. 

Just a thought folks.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Feb 24, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> You can imagine it, but that doesn't make it so - and the history of local licensing of various professions does not bear that out.
> 
> As to quitting if you have be licensed, so mote it be.
> 
> I note that most people who promised to 'leave the country' after various elections seem not to have done so.  I would tentatively predict that most martial arts instructors who wanted to continue to operate would comply with local licensing laws.   People who threaten the loudest to do a Cartman just seem the least likely to actually do it.




And posting a reply to everyone to make sure YOUR point is told over and over does not make it true either.

Show me one piece of data that even comes close to what you are saying in reference to martial arts? 

My life experience with the "SYSTEM" may be different from others, but is just as valid as anyone else. 

My point is that your point has no more validity than mine. 

My point has no more validity than yours.

Making it over and over, only is a trick that is used to get people used to an idea so when it happens they are not surprised by it. 

Tell someone they suck enough and they believe it. 

Tell someone they are never wrong and guess what they begin to think they are never wrong.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 24, 2009)

Sorry, Rich, I've just been making conversation.  I can see you're getting angry.  Take care, I'm all done and won't bother you again.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Feb 24, 2009)

Carol,

Bill Mattock's initial Post on the issue we seem not to be able to communicate on:


Bill Mattocks said:


> New Hampshire currently requires that Martial Arts instruction centers be licensed:
> 
> http://doj.nh.gov/publications/nreleases2008/072408.html
> 
> ...




My Post which reference the first link:



Rich Parsons said:


> From the first site:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


*

With in that first link:



			New Hampshire Attorney General Kelly A. Ayotte announces that all health club and martial arts school owners in the State of New Hampshire are reminded to register with the Consumer Protection and Antitrust Bureau.
		
Click to expand...


Where in this sentence does it say required? It says reminded. 




			New Hampshire law requires that both health clubs and martial arts schools register annually and those registration statements contain important consumer safeguards.
		
Click to expand...


This quote above from same link is the second sentence that does say require. 


Above in my quote I said Reminded not Required. 

My point then and now is that it is not clear. 

Under what a reasonable man should be able to be expected to understand and follow. What would the reasonable man do if he is only reminded to do something. It is like homework. One is reminded to do it. One is not required to do it. Are their consequences for not doing it? Yes. But required and reminded do not equal. There is confusion. 

My point was that to the initial post that these links were supposed to be clear and concise points of data to "SHOW" the point of the initial poster that Licenses should be done and here is why. 



Carol Kaur said:



			Rich, they are required.  Look at the segment that you posted:



The AG uses the word "reminder" because...well...we are a friendly state...LOL.  In all seriouslness...its because up until recently, martial arts were not considered to be "health clubs" and therefore not subject to this registration and not required to post and offer consumer information.  The statement from the attorney general was another way to reinforce the information - particularly to martial arts schools that have not had to worry  about such forms of legal complinance in the past.
		
Click to expand...


I think you missed the first sentence which was my point for the confusion. 



Rich Parsons said:



			Carol,

The previous line of the paragraph I quoted has "reminded". The second one you brought up says Required. 

As I deal with requirments every day. It is my business. 

This is conflicting requirements, and I would love to spend time and the money of the system in a court having them prove to me which is the important word. Reminded or Required. 

If they want to get specific they should word it with a "SHALL" to avoid confusions.  

Click to expand...


Here I bring up the confusion, but it seems not to be enough. So I guess I have to be wrong. Fine my point is invalid because you look at one sentence and I look at the other. When this whole confusion was my point in the first place. But I guess I am not communicating well.



Carol Kaur said:



			It is not conflicting requirements. The first is a news release.  The second link that Bill posted referenced the proper statute.  Which, btw, uses the word "shall".     

Source:

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XXXI/358-S/358-S-mrg.htm

Click to expand...



Yes it does contain the word "SHALL"

First two usages of SHALL



			IV. ""Martial arts school'' means any establishment primarily operated for the purpose of teaching a form or forms of self-defense, such as judo or karate. As used in this chapter, the term ""martial arts school'' shall not include, and this chapter shall not apply to, services rendered by:
		
Click to expand...


Third usage of SHALL



			VI. ""Prepayment'' means any payment for services or the use of facilities made before the services or facilities are made available by the martial arts school. It is not a prepayment if a payment for services or the use of facilities is made on the same day the services or use of the facilities is provided. Money or other consideration received by a martial arts school from a financial institution upon the assignment or sale of a contract shall be considered a prepayment to the extent the member is required to make prepayments to the financial institution pursuant to the contract.
		
Click to expand...


Here is the fourth usage of SHALL



			I. Any person operating or intending to open or operate a martial arts school within this state shall file a registration statement with the department of justice, bureau of consumer protection and antitrust. The registration statement shall contain the name and address of the martial arts school; the names and addresses of the officers, directors, and those stockholders who hold in excess of 20 percent of the martial arts school and its parent corporation, if such an entity exists; the type of available facilities; a written list of each piece of equipment and each service which the school has available for use by buyers; approximate size of the martial arts school measured in square feet; whether or not a shower area is provided; type of membership plans to be offered and their cost; and a full and complete disclosure of any completed or pending litigation initiated against the martial arts school and any of its officers or directors within the last 3 years. A new registration statement shall be filed annually by the anniversary date of the filing of the original registration statement. Each registration statement shall be accompanied by a registration fee of $100. Any person failing to file a registration statement within 90 days of the date due shall be subject to an administrative assessment of $1,000.
		
Click to expand...

And the above does state that one SHALL file if they plan on having a martial arts business. 

The fifth usage :



			II. Each martial arts school registered under this chapter shall maintain in the files of the martial arts school a copy of its registration statement filed pursuant to this section. A current registration certificate issued by the department of justice, bureau of consumer protection and antitrust shall be posted or placed at all times in a conspicuous place and the registration statement shall be made available for inspection by current members or prospective purchasers of martial arts school memberships; provided, however, that the addresses of employees need not be disclosed, nor shall the department of justice publicly disclose such addresses except in connection with the prosecution of legal proceedings instituted under this chapter or another provision of law.
		
Click to expand...

It is the responsibility of the person filing to maintain the record.

The next usage:



			III. Except as provided in paragraph IV, each martial arts school registering pursuant to this chapter shall post a surety bond in an amount of $50,000, or the equivalent in cash, marketable securities, letters of credit, or escrow accounts, with the department of justice. The type of bond shall be designated by the department of justice. No surety bond shall be accepted for filing unless it is with a surety company authorized to do business in this state. The surety may cancel the bond at any time upon giving 30 days' written notice to the department of justice. Any person who is damaged by any violation of this chapter, or by the seller's breach of contract for sale or any obligation arising therefrom, may bring an action against the bond or its equivalent to recover damages suffered and any other amounts allowable by law. The department of justice, in any action brought under this chapter or any other applicable provisions of law, may likewise proceed against the bond or its equivalent. In no event shall the aggregate liability of the surety for all claims exceed the bond amount. The department of justice may reduce the amount of the surety bond or its equivalent if a martial arts school's membership refund liability warrants such a reduction.
		
Click to expand...

This one is nice. As a $50,000 bond is required to be posted by the person filing. Do Plumbers and Professional Engineers have to post a BOND as well?


The next usage talks about the exceptions:



			IV. The department of justice shall exempt from the bonding requirement set forth in paragraph III any martial arts school that meets any of the following conditions: 
       (a) Provides the department of justice with a statement that the martial arts school accepts membership fees on a monthly basis only. 
       (b) Establishes to the satisfaction of the department of justice that its membership refund liability does not exceed $5,000.
		
Click to expand...


So the Bond is not required if the DoJ "feels" like it. What if the DoJ is never satisfied? 


The next usage:



			V. Any seller who intends to open or operate a martial arts school within this state and who solicits or accepts membership fees before a martial arts school begins operating shall place all such fees in an escrow account and shall identify the date the martial arts school is to begin operating. The seller shall provide each member a written receipt for the membership fee and shall provide each member a copy of the contract required under RSA 358-S:3 on or before the date the martial arts school begins operating. If the martial arts school does not begin operating within 10 days of the date originally identified by the seller, the seller shall notify, within 15 days of the date originally identified by the seller, each member of the new date that the martial arts school shall begin operating. If the new date for beginning operations is not within 45 days of the date originally identified by the seller, the seller shall refund the membership fees to the members plus interest. Under no circumstances may a seller hold membership fees in escrow for more than 60 days after the date originally identified by the seller as the date the martial arts school would begin operating. A seller may withdraw funds from the escrow account 10 days after the marital arts school begins operating. The escrow account required by this paragraph shall be separate from any escrow account required under paragraph III. 
    VI. Any initiation fee shall not exceed 100 percent of an annualized monthly fee.
		
Click to expand...

This is the legal wording about handling monies obtained before operation has begun. Also how to handle refunds. 


The next usage:



358-S:3 Contract Requirements;  Disclosure of Cancellation Rights.  
    I. A fully completed copy of each contract shall be delivered to the buyer at the time the contract is signed. Every contract shall constitute the entire agreement between the seller and the buyer, shall be in writing, shall be signed by the buyer, and shall designate the date on which the buyer signed the contract.
		
Click to expand...

This is how to handle the contract to the person purchasing the service or training will know what the contract sates. 

The next usage:



			II. Each contract shall state in at least 10 point boldface type the following: 
       (a) ""NOTICE TO BUYER: DO NOT SIGN THIS CONTRACT UNTIL YOU HAVE READ ALL OF IT. ALSO, DO NOT SIGN THIS CONTRACT IF IT CONTAINS ANY BLANK SPACES.'' 
       (b) ""STATE LAW REQUIRES THAT THIS MARTIAL ARTS SCHOOL REGISTER WITH THE BUREAU OF CONSUMER PROTECTION AND ANTITRUST OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND MAY REQUIRE THAT THIS MARTIAL ARTS SCHOOL POST A BOND TO PROTECT CUSTOMERS WHO PAY IN ADVANCE FOR MEMBERSHIP OR SERVICES IN THE EVENT THIS MARTIAL ARTS SCHOOL CLOSES. YOU SHOULD ASK TO SEE EVIDENCE THAT THIS MARTIAL ARTS SCHOOL HAS EITHER POSTED A BOND IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAW OR HAS BEEN EXEMPTED FROM THIS REQUIREMENT BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BEFORE YOU SIGN THIS CONTRACT. IF THIS MARTIAL ARTS SCHOOL HAS NOT POSTED SUCH A BOND, AND YOU PAY THIS MARTIAL ARTS SCHOOL FOR MORE THAN ONE MONTH'S MEMBERSHIP OR SERVICES IN ADVANCE, THEN YOU ARE PAYING FOR FUTURE SERVICES, AND YOU MAY BE RISKING THE LOSS OF YOUR MONEY IN THE EVENT THAT THE MARTIAL ARTS SCHOOL CEASES TO CONDUCT BUSINESS.''
		
Click to expand...

More legal wording

The next usage:



			III. Every buyer shall be entitled to cancel his or her contract within 3 business days by notifying the martial arts school in writing by midnight of the third business day following the date of the purchase of the membership contract. Written notification is deemed given if mailed or delivered by midnight of the third business day. All money collected pursuant to the contract shall be refunded to the purchaser exercising the right to cancel.
		
Click to expand...

This handles the buyers remorse clause.



I concede the second link does use SHALL. But, my point was that in the first it should have used SHALL file and not remind nor required nor both as they are confusing.*


----------



## Rich Parsons (Feb 24, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Sorry, Rich, I've just been making conversation.  I can see you're getting angry.  Take care, I'm all done and won't bother you again.




I am not angry.

I am just making a point.


----------



## Carol (Feb 24, 2009)

Rich Parsons said:


> So the Bond is not required if the DoJ "feels" like it. What if the DoJ is never satisfied?



Sorry Rich, its not what the Department of Justice feels like...note the statute also uses the word "shall".  

In the first section, community, non-profits, etc. are exempted from registering and by definition exempt from the bond requirements.  



> IV. The department of justice shall exempt from the bonding requirement set forth in paragraph III any martial arts school that meets any of the following conditions:
> (a) Provides the department of justice with a statement that the martial arts school accepts membership fees on a monthly basis only.


This one is quite simple. If your membership fees are month-to-month only, you don't have to provide a bond.



> (b) Establishes to the satisfaction of the department of justice that its membership refund liability does not exceed $5,000.


This is for the schools that insist on using contracts.  Remember, no contract = no bond.  

Realistically, no school that insists on using contracts is going to be able to prove that their refund liability is less than 5,000 unless their tuition is far below market rate, or they don't have many students and can demonstrate they won't have many students

The intent is clear...the point of the law is NOT to discourage martial arts instruction, it is to discourage schools from entering binding contracts without having a surety bond that will protect the consumer from loss of services paid for if the school goes belly up.


----------



## Kreth (Feb 25, 2009)

Meh, it's NH. What's the population there, like 47? :lol:


----------



## KempoGuy06 (Feb 25, 2009)

Andy Moynihan said:


> No.


i agree

B


----------



## JadeDragon3 (Feb 25, 2009)

KempoGuy......where in Louisville do you live?  I'm in Lexington.  Ever make it down this way?


----------



## Carol (Feb 25, 2009)

Kreth said:


> Meh, it's NH. What's the population there, like 47? :lol:



Yup.    But its a state that not big in to regulations.  I mean....regulations...that's for states with income tax.  And sales tax.  :lol2:


----------



## Xue Sheng (Feb 25, 2009)

Carol Kaur said:


> Yup.  But its a state that not big in to regulations. I mean....regulations...that's for states with income tax. And sales tax. :lol2:


 
And you get 47 insanely happy people..... DAMN, if I could just convince the wife we could make it 51


----------



## Kreth (Feb 25, 2009)

Carol Kaur said:


> Yup.    But its a state that not big in to regulations.  I mean....regulations...that's for states with income tax.  And sales tax.  :lol2:


And subsequently funds to pay for roads. Seriously, your state flag should have a washed-out road on it. :lol:



Xue Sheng said:


> And you get 47 insanely happy people..... DAMN, if I could just convince the wife we could make it 51


Um, XS? Generally the voices in your head don't get tallied in the census.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Feb 25, 2009)

Kreth said:


> And subsequently funds to pay for roads. Seriously, your state flag should have a washed-out road on it. :lol:


 
Don't laugh to hard, if our Governor gets his way ours should too and we have more roads


----------



## Carol (Feb 25, 2009)

Kreth said:


> And subsequently funds to pay for roads. Seriously, your state flag should have a washed-out road on it. :lol:



You sure you're not mixing NH up with MA? The roads are in a lot better condition up here.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Feb 25, 2009)

Carol Kaur said:


> Sorry Rich, its not what the Department of Justice feels like...note the statute also uses the word "shall".
> 
> In the first section, community, non-profits, etc. are exempted from registering and by definition exempt from the bond requirements.
> 
> ...




Please define satisfaction.

How does the state of NH define it?

How does the DoJ of NH define it? 

The point I am trying to make is there is confusion. 

You can continue to dig and try to make it a point about shall, but even if there was a shall with the remind and the require, I am confused. Is ti reminded or required or it a shall?

But, once again I say I am not communicating well, and I have to be wrong for everyone to get over it then I am wrong.

I just do not understand what your point is. 

You come at it from 90 degrees to what I am trying to talk about to justify your post. 

Fine it is justified.


----------



## Uchinanchu (Feb 25, 2009)

Hmm...  Seems that there are several pros and cons to having Govt. regulations... key word being 'SEEMS'.  Well, the way I see it, if you want to get an idea (a broader perspective) of what it might be like to have our govt. controlling what we do/teach, then I have just two words for you: China & Wushu.

For those here who are familiar with what the Chinese govt. did to some of its (China's) greatest styles and teachers, that is all I need to say.  Granted, the U.S. is by far, nothing like China, but that certainly did not stop the Bush administration from doing its best (worst) to step on the constitutional rights of its citizens. 

My appologies, my comment might be better suited for a political thread.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Feb 26, 2009)

Constitutional rights have been getting stepped on for decades.  Sometimes it is more blatant than at others.

So, no, I don't think that your comment belongs in a political thread.  It is certainly pertinant to the topic.

I am completely against any involvement on a federal level.  On a state level, I'll pose two questions:

What can licensing do with regards to the building that OSHA regulations don't already mandate?  Pretty much any commercial building has to meet certain standards and are required to have specific first aid supplies on hand.  

Could martial arts studios simply be required to meet the same requirements of any fitness center?

Daniel


----------



## Don Daly (Oct 24, 2013)

NO!  Many of us from 60-70s style Tang Soo Do have been left without an organization.  We know the real pre-sports Tae Kwon Do stuff, but would probably be required to join somebody who would want us to give up our traditional art.  If the government got involved it would probably be just like Korea when General Choi took over and they tried to shut down the Moo Duk Kwan.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Oct 24, 2013)

Bill Mattocks said:


> So licensing is not that unusual.
> 
> With regard to the pugilistic arts, most states license, regulate, and monitor professional boxing, and many are now beginning to accept professional MMA bouts as well.  South Caroline is considering it now, Michigan has just accepted it, as well as a number of other states.



Those fall under the category of professional sports with a clearly defined set of rules which require licensing, not just for safety but to also ensure fair competition. Therefore it would not be unusual for them to be regulated.




Bill Mattocks said:


> Examples include barbers and hairdressers, skilled trades such as  plumbers, electricians, and carpenters, private investigators, and  public school teachers.  All vary by jurisdiction, of course.



A professional can be licensed and still do a shoddy job of things.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Oct 24, 2013)

What would give the government the right to tell martial arts instructors what and how to teach in a free country?

Who in the government outside of a particular martial arts system would be qualified to judge the quality and effectiveness of that system or it's instructors? 

Maybe the government could have a broad set of requirements for a martial art that an instructor could fulfill to get licensed to teach government departments and employees or school programs that could enable the martial arts school to qualify for funding, tax exemptions or rebates that is totally voluntary.

Requiring all martial arts instructors to be licensed would be untenable.


----------



## Fritz (Oct 24, 2013)

Could it happen here in the USA? 

Sure why not.

Do I think it will happen? Not anytime soon- where is the money to be made in it for the gov? It is not a product or service that everybody owns like a car, or cell phone. 

Besides, would it change anything except for McDojo owners who will have yet another layer on the business?

The rest of us will just move practice into the basement and continue as usual.


----------



## geezer (Oct 24, 2013)

Fritz said:


> The rest of us will just move practice into the basement and continue as usual.



That's exactly what I'd do.


----------



## yak sao (Oct 24, 2013)

geezer said:


> That's exactly what I'd do.





I didn't think you guys had basements out there.


----------



## WaterGal (Oct 24, 2013)

In my state, martial arts schools are required by state law to get a gym license, even if you're teaching out of your home.  But it's not about proving that you teach For-Real Authentic Martial Arts or are a good teacher or whatever - how can that even be licensed?  The license is just to show that your membership terms are fair and legal and you're not ripping people off.


----------



## geezer (Oct 25, 2013)

yak sao said:


> I didn't think you guys had basements out there.



True! LOL. But if I have to I'll dig one. Or use the garage or park.


----------



## Veee (Oct 26, 2013)

No, the government is already too deeply involved in our lives.


----------

