Index  •  FAQ  •  Search  

It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 7:28 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.  [ 47 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 Washington 250,000 / Mn. 60,000 =4x # of permits Why ??? 
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 29, 2009 9:00 am 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2005 12:37 pm
Posts: 1757
Location: Whittier
Well yes. That WAS the goal, however our reciprocity issues certainly won't improve by lowwering standards.

I agree with Big Blue on both counts. I got a lot of value out of going to a class. It kinda reminds me of the Motorcycle Safety Foundation class in the sense that taking and retaking the Experienced Rider's course every three to five years (as has been my habit) has not taught me a lot I didn't know in the sense of hard fact swerve/ don't swerve decission making, it has been of value reinforcing ideas and helping keep me safety minded and I have consequently not had a motorcycle accident despite some pretty extreme riding since I started takign the Experienced Rider course . . six years into being a motorcyclist, the first six years I had a few painful errors in judgement. I say all this to say that I found value in a class for experienced people (Carry classes aren't for beginner shooters, similarly) and repeating the classes has had a positive effect on my safety. I moved here from PA where I got my first carry permit. No training was required there. From a pure accesabilty point of view the PA system was certainly better, however, I feel I got a genuine benefit from taking a class . . . just like my motorcycle safety class I don't think I'll be complaining when renewal time comes around and I have to retake a permit class. I think ongoing traing for things like motorcycles and firearms carry makes sense.

On the other topic, "dealing with the appeal of a good-faith denial" is not what I want my permit money to go to. "Good faith" in my experience of MN law enforcement is an excuse to see if you can out lawyer bill an honest citizen. I don't want sheriffs sitting on piles of cash they can burn on lawyers to screw over citizens. The law says "not to exceed the actual and reasonable direct cost of processing the application" that is processing the application, NOT processing the application
and building up a civil abuses fund. It needs to sting a bit in the Sheriff's budget when they deny somebody maliciously. Making bad denials cost the dept puts a motivation on the Sheriffs to be honest . . . giving them funds to cover it up undoes that.

Editing to add: On the class issue I can see the argument for no mandatory classes. Kinda like helmet laws, I guess I don't care if the law requires them or not, because I alwasy wear one. Of course it is natural for me to say I don't care if the law requires a firearms carry class, because I'd take one anyway. In an ideal world everybody would be self motivated to take more saftey classes for what ever activities they do . . . . however.

Hey, here is another idea from the motorcycle world: In alot of states, if you take (pass) the Beginning Rider course with the Motorcycle Safety Foundation, the state waives your rider test, you take a 20 or so question multiple choice and get your motorcycle certification. Maybe the way to go would be to modify that a bit - Allow the Sheriffs to raise the fee to $200 or $250, but require them to waive the fee entirely for people demonstrating that they have gone through a certified carry class. While accessability is important, what we all want is more safety, right?

_________________
Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a
lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become
a law unto himself; it invites anarchy .” Olmstead v. U.S., 277 U.S. 438


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 29, 2009 10:17 am 
Member

Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 11:56 am
Posts: 28
Location: Rochester, MN
Another reason is that Washington state has issued permits for a long time; comparatively, Minnesota's permit law is young.

_________________
"When do you think the movie began to take itself too seriously? Before or after they shot the flying buffalo with the bazooka?"


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 30, 2009 1:51 am 
Wise Elder
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 7:48 pm
Posts: 2782
Location: St. Paul
Washington state and Pennsylvania have 40 to 60 YEARS on us. Carry permit numbers grow over time.

Also, both states require no training, have very low fees, and are NICS compliant so your permit avoids any delay when purchasing another firearm.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 30, 2009 8:15 am 
On time out
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2005 10:18 pm
Posts: 1689
Location: 35 W and Hiway 10
I just see forced instruction as an infringement. Its a modern version of a poll tax in my mind. Its a RIGHT not a privilege. Why do I have to pay some to exercise my rights. Driving is called a privilege, hence they can charge for it.

Compare this to First Amendment rights. Imagine the screaming and howling if reporters had to take a state mandated class and pay a fee to excercise their Constitutional Right to free speech.

Have taken your Equal Protection class and paid for your Equal Protection Permit? How about your Fifth Amendment class and paid for a lawyering up permit? You don't have your right to an attorney without your permit.

Quite Frankly, wanting the class is supporting Infringement.

_________________
molan labe


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 30, 2009 8:31 am 
Wise Elder
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 7:48 pm
Posts: 2782
Location: St. Paul
1911fan wrote:
I just see forced instruction as an infringement.


This is Minnesota where education is widely considered to be a substitute for intelligence.

It was a political necessity. We would not have CCW without the training requirement. But, notice how "wide open" the training requirement is.

Compare what NRA had to agree to in Michigan.
Quote:
Section28.425j. Requirements for pistol training or safety programs; form and contents of certificates of completion; offenses relating to certificates of completion

Sec. 5j. (1) A pistol training or safety program described in section 5b(7)(c) meets the requirements for knowledge or training in the safe use and handling of a pistol only if the program consists of not less than 8 hours of instruction and all of the following conditions are met:

(a) The program is certified by this state or a national or state firearms training organization and provides 5 hours of instruction in, but is not limited to providing instruction in, all of the following:

(i) The safe storage, use, and handling of a pistol including, but not limited to, safe storage, use, and handling to protect child safety.

(ii) Ammunition knowledge, and the fundamentals of pistol shooting.

(iii) Pistol shooting positions.

(iv) Firearms and the law, including civil liability issues and the use of deadly force. This portion shall be taught by an attorney or an individual trained in the use of deadly force.

(v) Avoiding criminal attack and controlling a violent confrontation.

(vi) All laws that apply to carrying a concealed pistol in this state.

(b) The program provides at least 3 hours of instruction on a firing range and requires firing at least 30 rounds of ammunition.

* * *

(d) The instructor of the course is certified by this state or a national organization to teach the 8-hour pistol safety training course described in this section.


NRA has an EXCLUSIVE statutory right to certify civilian instructors.


Last edited by kimberman on Thu Apr 30, 2009 10:20 am, edited 1 time in total.

Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 30, 2009 8:42 am 
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2008 7:59 am
Posts: 434
Location: Twin Cities
1911fan wrote:
I just see forced instruction as an infringement. Its a modern version of a poll tax in my mind. Its a RIGHT not a privilege. Why do I have to pay some to exercise my rights. Driving is called a privilege, hence they can charge for it.

Compare this to First Amendment rights. Imagine the screaming and howling if reporters had to take a state mandated class and pay a fee to excercise their Constitutional Right to free speech.

Have taken your Equal Protection class and paid for your Equal Protection Permit? How about your Fifth Amendment class and paid for a lawyering up permit? You don't have your right to an attorney without your permit.

Quite Frankly, wanting the class is supporting Infringement.


Wow...

Ok, I WANTED to take the class. Personally, I don't see it as over-the-top. While I see your point, and in principal agree, that this is a constitutionally protected right that we should not have to pay to exercise, this is a very different situation than free speech or the right to legal council. Make no mistake about it, we are choosing to exercise our rights to defend ourselves and stop a threat, which hold a high likelihood of causing death. IANAL, but as my attorney pointed out to me, if I had to defend myself and the perp died, I am still technically committing the felony of murder. Whether that felony is justified or not is up to a jury and the prosecutor to decide.

I WANT to make absolutely certain that I not only know the law, but completely understand it and have a chance to ask questions for clarification. I could not have gotten the solid understanding of the MPPA without my instructor's vast knowledge and patience with my questions both during class and after (thank you Andrew :!: ). Do you really think the average person could get this level of understanding from simply reading the bill and taking a test? A few examples:

*The use of deadly force is justifiable to prevent a felony in your place of abode. What is the legal definition of abode? Where do I go to find it? Do you really think the average person is going to take the time to look it up?

*GBH Same issues as above.

*Concealed vs. Open carry and its legalities

Most people are not lawyers or politicians, and are pretty lost when it comes to tracking definitions, or even knowing which words are important and need to be researched in greater detail. By taking the class from a good instructor, this information is given to you, and post-class follow-up is also included.

To be perfectly clear, I do not support infringement, however I do feel that it isn't necessarily such a bad thing to training as part of the process. In fact, I know that from a political standpoint, it has made several anti's that I've spoken with MUCH more comfortable about people carrying, which only works in our favor.

_________________
“...whoever rescues a single life earns as much merit as though he had rescued the entire world”
-The Talmud

Protect yourself and the ones you love.

NRA Certified Instructor
MADFI Certified Instructor


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:16 am 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2007 9:55 pm
Posts: 742
Location: Twin Cities
nmat wrote:
1911fan wrote:
...
Quite Frankly, wanting the class is supporting Infringement.


Wow...

I think 1911fan means wanting the class to be part of statutory requirement, not wanting to take a class to educate oneself.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 30, 2009 10:14 am 
Forum Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2005 11:37 pm
Posts: 1571
Location: Detroit Lakes, MN
It was stated:

To be perfectly clear, I do not support infringement, however I do feel that it isn't necessarily such a bad thing to training as part of the process. In fact, I know that from a political standpoint, it has made several anti's that I've spoken with MUCH more comfortable about people carrying, which only works in our favor.


---
Yes...a feeling. Nothing more. No facts. None. Because none exist. There is no objective data that says that having a training requirement makes one iota of difference in the safety of the public or the permit holder. There is not one scintilla of evidence that suggests that there is any difference in the percentage of justifiable (or not) shootings in States that require training over those that do not. It does not exist.

It is 100% bogus that training makes any real difference. It is nothing more than a "feeling".

Having said that, it seems logical to me (i.e., "I feel...) that a training component makes sense from a personal perspective...it seems like a good thing to do. But of course, the second amendment does not say that the right to bear arms is conditioned upon training. In fact, it seems to say just the opposite.

Training may be a political necessity...evidently it was in Minnesota. Now, go tell me that permit holders are causing issues in ..oh...Indiana, Pennsylvania, Vermont, New Hampshire, Alaska, etc etc. Oh wait, don't "tell" me....show me...with objective data. Can't be done.

_________________
Paul Horvick
http://shootingsafely.com
---
Contact us to schedule a class for you and your friends, and check our website for more information http://shootingsafely.com


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 30, 2009 10:22 am 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2005 8:52 pm
Posts: 826
Location: MN
I've got mixed feelings about classes. A number of years back when I was a RSO at a gun club I saw new gun owners swing around with loaded weapons, shoot into the ground in front of them or into the overhead covering with no regard for how dangerous their weapon was. At that time I would have almost been in favor of training just to own a gun. :roll:

It used to be fathers and grandfathers taught safe gun handling to the kids. Still true today in many places but a lot of gun training comes from TV in areas where people buy guns but have no family history with guns.

I may be biased (since I live in AZ 4 months out of the year) but as far as training goes, I think AZ does it right. You take a class for your initial permit where you learn the laws and pass a shooting test. Training is almost exactly like it is here in MN. After that you can renew by mail with no more training required. Carry law changes are posted on the state website where it's your job to read and understand them. If you have questions, you can contact them by email or phone to get answers. All permits are issued by the state from a central location, not individual counties. Your permit also qualifies as a NICS check so none is required when you buy a gun.

I will say, our MN carry law is much more liberal in where we can carry so in many respects our law is much better than AZ and many other states.

Considering the normal MN political climate, I'm still amazed that we even got a carry law passed when we did. I doubt it would happen today.

So, if I have to take classes to renew in MN, I won't complain as long as we protect our right to carry as it exists today.

_________________
Ron
NRA Life Member
USS Bristol DD857
_________________________

If life was fair, Robins couldn't eat worms...


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Some history requested
PostPosted: Thu Apr 30, 2009 11:10 am 
Yes, *that* David Gross
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2008 9:15 am
Posts: 7
Location: Faribault area
Carbide Insert wrote:
Thanks for your replies. I sense a little bit of tension (perhaps defensiveness?) in some posts subsequent to mine, so I should be a little clearer with my request for information:

It should be said that I am in favor of instructors charging whatever they see fit for their services. I certainly believe that anyone is entitled to charge whatever they wish, and whatever the market will bear, and that that same market, over time, will develop a standard price range as to what it should generally cost for excellent, good, fair, poor (and everything else in between), instructional services. My intention was not to create a heated debate about why instructors should lower their course fees; it was only to pose the question out of genuine curiosity as to why most instructors charge in the range of what they do, and why that standard seems to have fallen in the mid 100's range. Andrew's post was particularly enlightening.

Of course, I'm of the opinion that everyone ought to, of their own accord, seek out good training, but that there ought to be no mandatory course inserted into law. However, that's an entirely different issue from what we are discussing here. We're talking about quantity of permits, their relatively low numbers, and (in my posts at least), the specifics regarding the cost factor of that issue.

What I do think ought to be lowered, considerably, is the sheriff's fees. The ceiling ought to be no more than $20. A pro-2A lawman could run his department or campaign on $10 if he wished, but the current statutory limit of $100 is way too high. I'm still looking for some seasoned veterans to shed some light on what I really was wondering about, which would be the following:
Carbide Insert wrote:
I would be really, very much interested to know the story behind the $100 maximum written into law for sheriffs fees. It had to be known beforehand that they would charge the maximum amount, legal or not, until it got hashed out by numerous "actual cost" complaints from many people. It had to be known when the law was written that it would not cost more than $10-$20 for a sheriff to process their end of the deal. Who put the $100 ceiling in? Our side or the antis?

What happened way back then to give us the price we're paying today?

:?:


Carbide Insert sent me a note, yesterday, calling my attention to this thread. At his invitation, I chime in with MY view of the history of the $100 maximum and the training requirement according to a minimum, standard, curriculum. I'll stand debate and correction from those who claim to know better, but "Hell, I was there!"

Last issue first: the free market determines the price of a standardized product or service. Period. Variations on a theme, additions, embellishments, qualifications, etc., determine the fair market value. The costs of production or delivery may vary and account for variations in price. There are some certified instructors who compete on price and/or either with outrageous claims, eye-bleeding advertising, or volume "processing." They think that they are making "widgets" of the minimum quality and performing a public service. Others of us believe that the highest quality is the most important thing and in service to our students and who set minimum class sizes to make that extra effort economically feasible and worthwhile to perform.

The requirement of training, according to the statute (scope specified) was in furtherance of the CCRN theme that "responsible, competent, adults" should be able to obtain a permit to carry at will and to exercise it at their individual judgment and discretion just like the Second Amendment, and Heller, says: it's a "right." BUT, all rights come with "responsibilities" in their exercise. Therefore, it was believed that such training was a reasonable end compelling reason, in the exercise of the police power to regulate and to promote the constitutional right with a minimum requirement of "competence," training, to reasonably believe that the individual would be both responsible and competent and have minimum knowledge and demonstrated skills in the exercise of that right. That came from the constitutional doctrine that allows a necessary limitation on the exercise of a constitutional right that is 1) compellingly shown and within the general "police power" in the pursuit of "public safety;" 2) not directed at suppressing the right, but impacts it only indirectly; 3) narrowly fashioned to address DIRECTLY the compellingly-shown, public safety "problem;" and 4) is the MOST NARROWLY available solution to the problem.

Let's face it; we all learn something about the law and circumstances, our approach to "carry" when we teach or attend a class, or any discussion, of the issues. We engage our brains and we think. Can you imagine what would be if a person who had never thought about the legal and practical issues, and who had never handled a handgun before, was faced with a deadly force decision? "Plans" and scenarios are always best when they are pre-conceived and thought out beforehand. That's training which one can fall back on and execute. Formulating a plan of action when every fiber of one's being is primordially falling back into a raw survival mode, narrowly focusing on perceived threats and shutting out other possibly relevant information, with judgment clouded by panic and haste ("fight or flight") is simply a bad idea. It's about judgment, responsibility, and competence. In the opinion of not only those at CCRN, but also the legislature, and law enforcement, and the general public, it was unanimously agreed that SOME form of training and exposure to the law, and a demonstration of minimum competence, was necessary as an exercise of common sense in the pursuit of public safety. Remember, these are minimums. The argument was ONLY about what level of training would be required, not whether there would be any training requirement. Certainly, citizens should not be required to train as thoroughly and often as our law enforcement public servants who are duty-bound to respond to ambiguous situations and to be pro-active in the public's interest and and possible liability, as public servants. THAT WAS suggested. The individual citizen is faced with a "self-defense," personal protection, scenario, much more limited and personally focused, and immediate, in the exercise of a constitutional right. The public's interest is more remote (NOT non-existent) and indirect, and calls for a much lesser level of training in order to effectuate that remote, indirect consideration. The tail doesn't wag the dog; but the dog and the tail both are required in order to wag and to be wagged. It's about "perspective" and reasonable, compellingly necessary factual basis. These are judgment calls that are circumscribed by the constitution(s). This training requirement, I believe, follows the dictates of the general constitutional rule of directly addressing the compelling problem in the narrowest possible manner, only indirectly impacting the exercise of the right and not suppressing it. The requirements are only that one be "exposed" to the issues and demonstrate minimum competence and exposure. Just about everyone can "pass" the course. Those that do not pass the course probably should not, being unable to demonstrate the slightest bit of responsibility and competence. OK?

The prior law concerning carry also had a demonstration of competence in it according to the unfettered discretion of the law enforcement agency that issued the permit. The ONLY specified "competence" that had to be accepted by the Chief/Sheriff was the DNR Hunters' Safety course, which had absolutely nothing to do with personal protection and knowledge of the law to guide the exercise of one's planning or judgment. Most accepted a DD214 discharge paper, but not all did so. So, we had a situation where the "need" determination was arbitrary and capricious; the competence requirement was vague and indefinite, as well as arbitrary, capricious, and irrelevant; and the entire situation was rife with corruption and political correctness. Had it not been for the Richfield Police Chief testifying at a hearing in 1996 that he wouldn't follow the law as it existed, then, and defying the legislature to do anything about it, we might not have had such a good start in our 7-year quest. He proved to the legislature what we had been saying all along, that the Police Chiefs were arrogantly not following the law and claiming to be able to set state "policy" on such matters. Therefore, what we argued to be a constitutional right (and we WERE proven right, finally!), was able to be exercised ONLY if you lived in the right zip codes or had the right political connections; and, then, sometimes, not even then. We WERE able to convince the legislature that the permit to carry system in the state of Minnesota was 1) fundamentally flawed, 2) broken, and 3) in need of repair. The training requirements were one of those repairs. Cutting out appointed Police Chiefs and substituting elected Sheriffs was another.

Prior to the MCPPA, the cost for a 1-year permit to carry was $10. So, for a 5-year permit, given the continuing supervision required and performed, $50 was not at all unreasonable. But, that $10 had been in place for 18 years without "adjustment." Yes, there was the argument that one should not have to pay anything for the license to exercise a right; but that is NOT the reality. Hence, there is the limitation that licenses in Minnesota MUST reflect ONLY the costs of administration in order not to be a "tax." You must pay for regulatory services rendered in the pursuit of the public interest so that you are not being subsidized by others' tax dollars; and that is the reason that the actual costs computation is required to be made. The limit was placed on the initial fee for service in order to make sure that the Sheriffs didn't engage in any "creative accounting" in order to allocate unnecessary public resources to the process in order to raise the price, as a hidden tax in order to subsidize "other" activities or to use a hidden tax in order to suppress the right. Of course, government is not supposed to be able to tax the exercise of a constitutional right. Crandall v. Nevada, 6 Wall. 35, 44 (1868) (right to travel). Let's just say that "This shit has been tried, before."

Some cynics might say that we "bribed" the Sheriffs in order to get them on board with the MCPPA and in order to get them to "dump" the Police Chiefs in the "solidarity forever; we stand together" efforts of law enforcement when things were approaching "crunch time" in 2003. Because of the history of differential, discriminatory, and corrupt application of the old law between (1975 and 2003) and the efforts of the Police Chiefs to "tighten up" the permit to carry process in retaliation for our efforts to reform the system,(which efforts, incidentally, only reinforced our proof that the system as applied by the Chiefs was corrupt, broken, and in need of repair, as they were now denying long-time permit renewals - it was SO obvious, as well as, sometimes, even, arrogantly, declared to be so!), the Sheriffs were persuaded to dump the Police Chiefs as a "boat anchor" around them, dragging them down. The alternative suggested was to process permits to carry through the DMV, as in Washington State, and to centralize the whole process at the Department of Public Safety. You KNOW which way the Sheriffs went with that choice; they "blinked." It wasn't just about money; it was about pride and self-worth. The legislature developed a spine and basically told them that "we, by law, are responsible for your job description, as your employer; and we make the decisions which you must follow." It was about time! That's the difference between a police state and a democracy. And the Sheriffs' opposition evaporated, because, basically, they are good guys and believe in the constitution, having taken an oath to protect, preserve, and defend the same, as elected officials.

It is up to us to enforce the "actual cost" provisions, and no one has stepped forward to challenge anything, based simply on laziness and the apparent reasonableness of the situation that was negotiated. It seems like a compromise, a reasonable one, and it is. Welcome to the real world of real law and politics. There is a line in the sand that we drew and enforced so far. We need to protect it from erosion and blatant abuse. If YOU want to enforce some of the other provisions concerning accounting issues, I encourage you to do so. But YOU have to do the work, not me, because I "gave at the office" for a long time. We gave you an excellent system and a set of remedies to pursue. Use them. Don't expect me to hold your hand and do it for you.

Thanks for this opportunity.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 30, 2009 11:22 am 
Forum Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2005 11:37 pm
Posts: 1571
Location: Detroit Lakes, MN
David...thanks for replying and outlining facts and thoughts etc.

I would take issue with one comment, and perhaps it again is just an overly sensitive issue with me...but...you stated regarding fees...

"Others of us believe that the highest quality is the most important thing and in service to our students and who set minimum class sizes to make that extra effort economically feasible and worthwhile to perform. "

I believe that at least to some instructors...me for example...it is not only an unfair characterization that I do not "believe that the highest quality is the most important thing"....it is also false.

Just because a person is willing to accept a class of one (and I do that a lot) and also charge on the low end, does not automatically mean that quality suffers or that the instructor does not place a very high pride premium on quality.

But...I can see the light. I don't charge enough. That can be remedied.

_________________
Paul Horvick
http://shootingsafely.com
---
Contact us to schedule a class for you and your friends, and check our website for more information http://shootingsafely.com


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 30, 2009 11:35 am 
Poet Laureate
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 19, 2006 11:36 am
Posts: 760
Location: Hutchinson, MN
Great post David. Thanks so much for all your labors on the MCPPA! They are much appreciated by many.
Thanks Kimberman too, for your response and efforts. Since you sent it via return PM, I'll leave it to you if you wish your comments added to the thread.

I'm now wishing I had ruffled some more feathers when I originally paid for and acquired my permit back in '06.

8) :D Test case! :D 8)

_________________
It's not always easy these days to tell which of our two major political parties is the Stupid Party and which is the Evil Party...
But it remains true that from time to time they collaborate on something that's both stupid and evil and call it bipartisanship. -Thomas E. Woods Jr.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 30, 2009 12:01 pm 
Poet Laureate
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 19, 2006 11:36 am
Posts: 760
Location: Hutchinson, MN
Don't get disheartened, phorvick. You provide great value at a great price. I was very pleased with your instruction and plan to renew with you in the future. Us outside-metro kind need to stick together! :wink:

I only hope that by outing myself as one of your students, it will only relflect well on your instruction, attendance, and positively impact potential revenue at the current price schedule for you now, as well as when I'm back in 2011! :D 8)

I'll try to bring a friend or two so that our mere pittance of a course fee will allow you an extra meal out with the wife. :lol:
(Just so you know, the line above is in jest; sometimes sarcasm does not come across well in print!)

_________________
It's not always easy these days to tell which of our two major political parties is the Stupid Party and which is the Evil Party...
But it remains true that from time to time they collaborate on something that's both stupid and evil and call it bipartisanship. -Thomas E. Woods Jr.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 30, 2009 1:35 pm 
Raving Moderate
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2006 12:46 pm
Posts: 1292
Location: Minneapolis
Carbide Insert wrote:
Don't get disheartened, phorvick. You provide great value at a great price. I was very pleased with your instruction and plan to renew with you in the future. Us outside-metro kind need to stick together! :wink:

I only hope that by outing myself as one of your students, it will only relflect well on your instruction, attendance, and positively impact potential revenue at the current price schedule for you now, as well as when I'm back in 2011! :D 8)

I'll try to bring a friend or two so that our mere pittance of a course fee will allow you an extra meal out with the wife. :lol:
(Just so you know, the line above is in jest; sometimes sarcasm does not come across well in print!)


+1 to all of that. :D

_________________
I'm liberal, pro-choice, and I carry a gun. Any questions?

My real name is Jeremiah (go figure). ;)


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 30, 2009 2:49 pm 
On time out
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2005 10:18 pm
Posts: 1689
Location: 35 W and Hiway 10
David. I will agree only when other Rights are accepted when fees are paid. There is no difference. Do reporters have fees or required training before they can report. If there was a difference then Vermont would not have worked as well as it has.

Bringing up unskilled and untrained hypothetical people causing mayhem is a false trail. The kinds of responsible people who are legal to carry under a Vermont style law are just that. Responsible and legal.


That said. I do appreciate the efforts you both (Prof. Joe and you) put in to pass as good as a Bill as you did.

_________________
molan labe


Offline
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 47 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  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 33 guests


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