Originally Posted by Katherine Derbyshire
Please define "trainer" for the purposes of this proposed license.
People who might forseeably get swept up in such a requirement include everyone from a guy coaching his son's Little League team to a traditional martial arts instructor. I assume (hope!) that isn't what you want, but the suggestion is a non-starter until you explain who should/would be covered
In addition to defining who's in and who's out is the issue of what is the level of need for licensure.
When the gov't gets into the act of certifying that some people are legal to do certain things, it should be in reaction to an objective need. This is usually identified by a pattern of problems, failures, abuse, deaths, injuries - really bad problems that show gov't intervention is required in order to forestall a greater public harm. If the problem is "that trainer is incompetent because he says squatting below parallel is bad for you", that hardly rises to the level requiring trainer licenses. It's incompetence + a large-scale pattern of serious harm to the public.
Too often special-interest groups push legislatures to enact licensing requirements only to protect turf and exclude competition.
I'm getting sick and tired of an avalanches of new laws every year that make more activities illegal or limited or needing a fee to pursue. If there's a need, OK, but what passes for 'need' gets lower and lower every season.