Index  •  FAQ  •  Search  

It is currently Tue Apr 24, 2018 4:26 am

This is a static archive the Twin Cities Carry forum, maintained as a public service by the current forum of record, The Minnesota Carry Forum.

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 108 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
 Not entirely hypothetical question 
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Not entirely hypothetical question
PostPosted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 5:34 pm 
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2007 1:00 pm
Posts: 373
plblark wrote:
Context makes all the difference. In a private setting among peers, a question was asked. He's trying to determine what should be on the certificate to specifically comply with the law and make sure it's not used to get a permit in MN.

The overwhelming response (including respected members of this board): I wouldn't issue a certificate without a date. That's the wrong way to solve this problem. ... Sam is owed an apology. Joel has posted a carefully slanted hypothetical and called this man names. He's posted as evidence a link to a MCPPA instructors only section so the people commenting, aside from those with access to that section have only a slanted introduction and damnation to go on.


Context doesn't have anything to do with this from what I can tell. The guy set his own context with the original post and his questions. He is supposed to be an instructor and not some novice who needs coaching and hand holding on what to do.

Everyone would think a cop was a scumbag if they ever suggested a fraudulent act to either help or hurt someone. Why should a Permit to Carry instructor be treated any differently?

I might have some compassion if he said that he was sorry and that didn't mean to suggest doing something illegal. Instead he apparently tries to sluff off his idiotic (scumbag?) suggestion as being "ENTIRELY a hypothetical question", that was never being entertained.

_________________

In a big country dreams stay with you, like a lover's voice fires the mountainside. Stay alive.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Not entirely hypothetical question
PostPosted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 5:52 pm 
The Man
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:43 am
Posts: 7970
Location: Minneapolis MN
White Horseradish wrote:
And how does "no evidence" translate into "sufficient cause for investigation"?
Easily. The BCA is charged with supervision of the instructor organizations, and should be doing just that. Why not start with this (at best) boob?

_________________
Just a guy.


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Not entirely hypothetical question
PostPosted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 5:54 pm 
The Man
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:43 am
Posts: 7970
Location: Minneapolis MN
gyrfalcon wrote:
plblark wrote:
Context makes all the difference. In a private setting among peers, a question was asked. He's trying to determine what should be on the certificate to specifically comply with the law and make sure it's not used to get a permit in MN.

The overwhelming response (including respected members of this board): I wouldn't issue a certificate without a date. That's the wrong way to solve this problem. ... Sam is owed an apology. Joel has posted a carefully slanted hypothetical and called this man names. He's posted as evidence a link to a MCPPA instructors only section so the people commenting, aside from those with access to that section have only a slanted introduction and damnation to go on.


Context doesn't have anything to do with this from what I can tell.
Near as I can tell, by "context" Paul means that he likes drinking with the guy, and, evidence to the contrary, thinks he's just an utterly swell fellow -- you know: like Martin and Tousignant. But, clearly, not as bright.
Quote:
The guy set his own context with the original post and his questions. He is supposed to be an instructor and not some novice who needs coaching and hand holding on what to do.
And this is hardly the only case of Scott Olson needing hand holding on some basics. Honest.
Quote:

Everyone would think a cop was a scumbag if they ever suggested a fraudulent act to either help or hurt someone. Why should a Permit to Carry instructor be treated any differently?

I might have some compassion if he said that he was sorry and that didn't mean to suggest doing something illegal. Instead he apparently tries to sluff off his idiotic (scumbag?) suggestion as being "ENTIRELY a hypothetical question", that was never being entertained.
Yeah. It's one of those who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes? sort of things.

_________________
Just a guy.


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Not entirely hypothetical question
PostPosted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 6:05 pm 
The Man
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:43 am
Posts: 7970
Location: Minneapolis MN
White Horseradish wrote:
Why do you think that would be a good thing?

I think it would be a great thing if the incompetent and/or dishonest and/or boobish instructors had reason to worry that the BCA might take a look at them. It's clear that they don't.

Shall we get to another example of some who said -- and I quote -- "we're again offering you to get your Minnesota permit or renew your Minnesota permit at a ... price of $49.95"? (I'm sure that everybody here -- possibly excepting Scott D. Olson -- knows that instructors don't issue permits, but certificates that an applicant can take a copy* of, along with [generally] $75 or $100, to their local sheriff to apply for a permit. I'm also sure that not everybody knows that, and that some people might well have been misled. In context.)

I'm ready to go ahead with that, if you'd like. Hardly the only example of misleading practices that the BCA ought to be looking into, and likely will, sooner or later.

__________________________________
*In Ramsey County, substitute "original certificate".

_________________
Just a guy.


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Not entirely hypothetical question
PostPosted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 8:23 pm 
The Man
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:43 am
Posts: 7970
Location: Minneapolis MN
FYI. It's been up for a week -- more than a month after Scott D. Olson posted his "PURE HYPOTHETICAL." (Sure.)

Image

_________________
Just a guy.


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Not entirely hypothetical question
PostPosted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 9:31 pm 
In the time out chair
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 7:22 pm
Posts: 106
He was asking a question and got a very firm answer from a well respected source. that pretty much ends it there......


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Not entirely hypothetical question
PostPosted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 10:12 pm 
Journeyman Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 10:28 am
Posts: 88
all the other hubbub aside..



Entertaining the thought of not dating an important legal document?



er.... FAIL.

_________________
This makes sense to me. Perhaps not to the letter, but well said.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gIHDHZf ... annel_page


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Not entirely hypothetical question
PostPosted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 10:13 pm 
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2007 1:00 pm
Posts: 373
Blued Steel wrote:
He was asking a question and got a very firm answer from a well respected source. that pretty much ends it there......


It's a bit disconcerting that someone in such a position is asking such a question in the first place. Joel and others have fought fairly hard to get Minnesota Permit to Carry law where it is today. I can understand if any of them are upset with a yahoo instructor who presents an asinine/fraudulent question and then tries to pass it off as "hypothetical".

If the BCA and the pro-carry community do not regulate instructors well, bad things will happen to the carry law eventually. Since it's fairly obvious the BCA has no incentive, and probably a reason not to police instructors then maybe a different form of instructor certification should be drafted into law?

The current standards for instructors seems fairly weak (Especially if you compare it to syllabus that other instructors need to pass and follow):

http://www.dps.state.mn.us/bca/Invest/Documents/StandardsforFirearmsInstructors.html

One black sheep instructor signing off on his buddies or improperly issuing certificates could wreck it for everyone.

_________________

In a big country dreams stay with you, like a lover's voice fires the mountainside. Stay alive.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Not entirely hypothetical question
PostPosted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 10:56 pm 
In the time out chair
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 7:22 pm
Posts: 106
For those defending Joel here, please go here


http://minneapolis.craigslist.org/csw/c ... 18147.html



and then ask yourself, if this is the kind of behavior that you want being seen as from the "spokesman" of the carry community?


It is NOT the behavior one would want of anyone, and as I said, strong movements do not air their dirty laundry in public.

Joel what possible good for the community can you ever think would come from that.

I see it only as food for your ego.


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Not entirely hypothetical question
PostPosted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:00 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2005 9:52 pm
Posts: 700
Location: Northeast Minneapolis
gyrfalcon wrote:
Everyone would think a cop was a scumbag if they ever suggested a fraudulent act to either help or hurt someone.
There is a difference between suggesting (maybe you should) and asking advice (should I?). This was asking advice.

gyrfalcon wrote:
Why should a Permit to Carry instructor be treated any differently?
In what way are they the same as cops? I don' recall PTC instructors being sworn in and having arrest powers.

joelr wrote:
The BCA is charged with supervision of the instructor organizations, and should be doing just that. Why not start with this (at best) boob?
Simple. Because he didn't do anything. He merely talked about doing something. Unless, of course, you got some proof. Which you said you didn't.

joelr wrote:
And this is hardly the only case of Scott Olson needing hand holding on some basics. Honest.
This is the only one I see. But I suppose I should believe you and not my lying eyes.

joelr wrote:
I think it would be a great thing if the incompetent and/or dishonest and/or boobish instructors had reason to worry that the BCA might take a look at them. It's clear that they don't.
I would really rather the word "boobish" was not in the lexicon of any government agency. I have yet to see it in the text of a law and I really don't want them trying to define it. .

joelr wrote:
Shall we get to another example of some who said -- and I quote -- "we're again offering you to get your Minnesota permit or renew your Minnesota permit at a ... price of $49.95"? (I'm sure that everybody here -- possibly excepting Scott D. Olson -- knows that instructors don't issue permits, but certificates that an applicant can take a copy* of, along with [generally] $75 or $100, to their local sheriff to apply for a permit. I'm also sure that not everybody knows that, and that some people might well have been misled. In context.)
Was this the same guy? If not, that is not particularly relevant.

Regardless, I would be inclined to take this as bad ad copy rather than evil intent. Fairly large numbers of people can't write to save their lives. It's not a crime, however pathetic it is. Now, if the owner of that ad was told of the mistake and refused to correct it, that would be a different story.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Not entirely hypothetical question
PostPosted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:17 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2005 9:52 pm
Posts: 700
Location: Northeast Minneapolis
gyrfalcon wrote:
It's a bit disconcerting that someone in such a position is asking such a question in the first place.
Everybody has a brainfart once in a while. Sometime a rather large one. Given that this had no practical consequences and we don't have information that would point to this being a pattern of behavior I would say that "Bad idea, don't do it" is a good enough response.

gyrfalcon wrote:
Joel and others have fought fairly hard to get Minnesota Permit to Carry law where it is today. I can understand if any of them are upset with a yahoo instructor who presents an asinine/fraudulent question and then tries to pass it off as "hypothetical".
You got something that proves he did it? If you don't it is hypothetical.

gyrfalcon wrote:
If the BCA and the pro-carry community do not regulate instructors well, bad things will happen to the carry law eventually.
What form would you like this community regulation to take? Seems like he considered doing something bad, the community told him "don't", and then he didn't. Looks like regulation to me. What more would you like to happen? TP on his house? A kick in the nuts?

gyrfalcon wrote:
Since it's fairly obvious the BCA has no incentive, and probably a reason not to police instructors then maybe a different form of instructor certification should be drafted into law?
That sounds like a "bad thing happening to the carry law" in and of itself. When has more government regulation of anything been a good thing?

gyrfalcon wrote:
One black sheep instructor signing off on his buddies or improperly issuing certificates could wreck it for everyone.
Did that happen? Or are you looking for more regulation "just in case?" You might want to take a look at the switchblade laws to see an example of that.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Not entirely hypothetical question
PostPosted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:51 pm 
Journeyman Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 10:28 am
Posts: 88
replicant_argent wrote:
all the other hubbub aside..



Entertaining the thought of not dating an important legal document?



er.... FAIL.

Egos, brouhaha, innuendo, assumptions, and hypotheticals asisde... isn't this enough to wonder what would become of the current training/certification community if the legislature wants to chew a bone? I think it is important that instructors would look at this situation and have NO question that this particular happenstance never exist in the first place, as it is completely below contempt.

_________________
This makes sense to me. Perhaps not to the letter, but well said.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gIHDHZf ... annel_page


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Not entirely hypothetical question
PostPosted: Fri Sep 18, 2009 5:51 am 
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 7:41 pm
Posts: 234
Location: Apple-Mount Farming-Ville
OK.... Calling this Fraud is a BIG leap from what actually happened....

Fraud is an intentional perversion of truth...

Someone over there claims they have a Utah Training cert from Joel with no date on it... Even if that is true, Joel didn't commit fraud... The Fraud comes when someone puts an inaccurate date to mislead.

At best, SAM asked a stupid question that is a no-brainier to most instructors... It was an unusual situation, and I'm personally glad he took the time to ask fellow instructors before doing something stupid... That shows that he is humble enough to verify things he's not sure about, which I think is good for the instructor community as a whole...
It shows SAM has concern for the way he conducts his class, and wants to do the right thing.
It does not show that he is a scam artist that feels he is above the rules, and doesn't care what anyone says, or wants to commit fraud.

2 hours later DeanC POLITLEY told Sam it's a bad idea... and offered a suggestion. Others soon replied saying the same.

It's not like SAM was qualifying people with airsoft, or doing online courses for carry permits... He asked a stupid question, was corrected, listened to the counsel of peers, and nothing bad happened from it. I'm a new instructor myself, and am glad these communities exist to help me be a better instructor...

I'm a bible reading man, and there's a biblical principle that works extremely well when confronting issues within "the body " Go to the person one on one, and advise them, if they still don't listen, take 2 or 3, if they still don't listen, bring it before the community.
I think we can do a lot more good for each other and our cause if we privately coach and rebuke each other, rather than publicly ridicule.

_________________
NRA Instructor (BP, PPITH, PPOTH, Shothell + Metallic Reloading, RSO)
Certified Glock Armorer

MNbasecamp.com - Minnesota Outdoors Community


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Not entirely hypothetical question
PostPosted: Fri Sep 18, 2009 8:01 am 
The Man
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:43 am
Posts: 7970
Location: Minneapolis MN
IncaKola wrote:
I think we can do a lot more good for each other and our cause if we privately coach and rebuke each other, rather than publicly ridicule.

Then go ahead and do that. Please. If you can get the bad instructors to clean up their act that way, it'll be great. But do remember: when this stuff comes up for review in the legislature, it's far more effective to have demonstrated success than it is to talk about how you might be able to, at some point, demonstrate success.

_________________
Just a guy.


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Not entirely hypothetical question
PostPosted: Fri Sep 18, 2009 8:17 am 
The Man
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:43 am
Posts: 7970
Location: Minneapolis MN
Blued Steel wrote:
For those defending Joel here, please go here


http://minneapolis.craigslist.org/csw/c ... 18147.html



and then ask yourself, if this is the kind of behavior that you want being seen as from the "spokesman" of the carry community?
You're being silly, BS.

If you think that a: I'm the "spokesman" for the carry community (and I think there is an argument -- a weak one, but an argument -- that I am), and b: you think the spokesman for the carry community should do things differently, there's a simple solution:

Replace me.

Work so that it's you -- or somebody who does whatever you think he or she should do -- who reporters call when they've got a question about what's going on with carry permits, or legislation.

Put yourself, or somebody you prefer, in the position where they get invited to speak on Second Amendment stuff at a Tea Party, and then have legislators come up to you and thank you for their work on the issue. Make the online forum or blog that you prefer be the place where people who want to know about the issues choose to go.

Write a better book than I did -- with the help of Professor Olson and David Gross and some from Tim Grant -- on carrying in Minnesota, and promote it, or find somebody to do that and promote it.

Find a better spokesman. Don't just talk about it. Do it. Otherwise, it's just, well, BS.

Remember Rule 11: "The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative."

Here, implementing the constructive alternative is* the successful attack on my supposed status as the spokesman for the carry community.

If you can, through whatever methods you choose, clean up the bad instructors' acts, you'll have earned credibility.

If you can show that social pressure from within the movement can get rid of things like almost unflunkable ten-round quals with a borrowed, pre-loaded .22, anybody arguing (as I, by the way, won't) that the law should be changed to require thirty rounds and a major caliber will be providing a solution in search of a problem.

If you can, through social pressure, get rid of a MN carry class based on the Utah law, with Minnesota-specific stuff thrown in at the end, kind of as an afterthought, anybody arguing that the law ought to be changed to require Minnesota carry rules and regulations to be taught first will be providing a solution in search of a problem.

If you can, through social pressure, put together an informal instructors' organization that will apply more social pressure to clean things up, anybody arguing that the law ought to be changed to require the BCA to actually do their job in maintaining instructor organization standards will be providing a solution in search of a problem.

So don't just talk about it: do it. Maybe you already are. If so, good. If not . . . well, don't expect a lot of credibility when you're trying to build a reputation for yourself with things you might someday do among those of us who actually have, you know, done stuff. Talk's cheap; work's expensive. You can be far more effective expending some elbow grease than by whining about how others do stuff.

So: get to work. There's plenty of it to be done, and if you want to promote yourself or somebody you like as spokesman for the carry movement, you've no time to waste.

Get to it.

Replace me.

Lots of luck. I really mean that: lots of luck.
_________
* Or, more accurately, "would be." I doubt that enough -- if any -- of the folks whining about this are actually going to get off their butts and get to work. Much easier to just order another round, and whine some more.

_________________
Just a guy.


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 108 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

This is a static archive the Twin Cities Carry forum, maintained as a public service by the current forum of record, The Minnesota Carry Forum.

All times are UTC - 6 hours


 Who is online 

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron


 
Index  |  FAQ  |  Search

phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group