I got a VERY cooperative response talking today with the operations manager of the state park system.

He says hearing from an instructor certifying organization gives him a reason to push for a quick decision. ("Quick," in governmentese, means a matter of four to six weeks, of course.)

I'm sending him the email as above. Please, everyone else, hold off. I think we can win this one quietly and with honey, not vinegar.

bah! I just bought a bottle of vinegar. The big one too!

I would emphasize the fact that it is more than 1 instructor cert org. My guess is a poll would show 100% support or close to it.

I have a *very* interesting vinaigrette recipe you can use it for.

Of course.

We should talk about having an association of instructor cert orgs.

That sounds like a great idea, to me.

I think we are already doing that informally here in the forum. Of course it would be nice to create an offical Certified Instructor Organization complete with membership and meetings and such. I think we will have much more power organized than we do alone.

I think so, too.

Given the number of certified instructor organizations that have already informally signed on, I think the idea is good to go, although there's obviously some next steps.

And for that, I think a new topic is in order...

Why all the emphasis on the "Exclusivity" clause? I know the DNR posted a previous response in which they referred to that clause, but truthfully, that clause prohibits setting up other procedures. Rather than let them frame the discussion, let's just point out that Subd 1. states where we can carry: "... public place, as defined in section 624.7181, subdivision 1, paragraph (c)," Go to that section and voila, you have included State Parks. That to me would seem a much stronger argument to make to the DPS or DNR. I would avoid the whole exclusivity thing altogether.

Does anyone agree?

I see what you are saying. What they are probably thinking is, the DNR controls natural resources and can make up rules for anything that falls under their umbrella. Thus, they would likely argue it's not technically a public place. (example- if they charge admission, is it a public place?).

So, the exclusivity clause says no governmental agency can touch this. Guaranteeing our right to carry anywhere that's not specifically excluded.

The DNR does get state funds to help pay for the State Parks regardless if I go to a park or not. So they are public place because they accept funds from the MN general fund! Seems clear to me...

But does it seem clear to them?

Hit them with the public place section, if they fight it then hit them with the preemption.

Andrew, it has been almost a month since you spoke to your contact at the DNR, have you had a chance to bring this issue up with him/her again? I know they are probably quite busy this time of year trying to get their ELS system to work but it never hurts to inquire politely.

Following MADFI's request for clarification, the DNR has now stated for the record that permit holders can carry in state parks.

See http://www.twincitiescarry.com/forum/vi ... .php?t=440

Thanks for the great work!

Steelheart