Pakrat I think Im the only one that don't think it a good thing. MADFI,AACFI,SAFE etc.... thinks its a good one.

Just for clarification, I am a Board member of SAFE, and we have not taken any position on this. I have personal thoughts, but want to visit with the other Board members first. If either John, Miles or Glenn have expressed any opinion, it would be a personal opinion, not an organizational one. I hope to visit with them this week about this.

Know, Gary, I'm not going to fall for that little game, although I could.

I could say that apparently you don't really feel that you can defend your position, since it's taking so long -- and so many words -- to come around to actually stating it. I notice that you're not suggesting that a Vermont or Alaska-type law is a viable proposition in Minnesota anymore. So why bring it up in the first place?

If you don't like my disclaimer, ignore it, or you can, if you'd like, simply skip the entire Forum.

I repeat those disclaimers for good reason -- as you know, better than most, there are some people who have accused me, behind my back, of being too close to one particular training organization; I like to keep the record straight.

If me keeping the record straight is a problem for you, that's OK with me. If you continue to complain about it on this Forum, that's a problem for you.

You're perfectly in your rights to believe that it's not in our interest to open the Personal Protection Act this soon. That's fine. So why not just say that, instead of dancing around the subject, and in so many words, with so many posts? Why not come out and say it, plainly, in the first place?

Maybe it's because you know that's not a defensible position. Maybe it's because you know that it's going to be too late, if we don't do it before we lose one of -- well, at least one of -- the governor's office, the house, or the Senate.

Tim Grant is of the opinion that all of those are locked in apparently forever. I think he -- and you -- are wrong. That said, feel free to show up at the CCRN/GOCRA meeting -- I'm sure he'll be pleased at support from such a surprising source.

In the meantime, no, you don't get to both complain about too much secrecy and too much openness -- not without me calling you on it. If you want to do that, do it somewhere else.

I think I had one of my characters put it pretty well -- "there's no satisfying some people; the trick is to stop trying." I'm not trying to satisfy you that there is a necessity to fix the present law before we lose the ability to; you've decided that's not important.

That's fine.

Beyond that, you're wrong. Our qualifications don't precisely overlap, even given the exceptions that you specify -- there's at least two organizations that I'm certified by that you're not. (Or, at least, you're not, as far as I know -- did you pick up both KGS and IFIA certification recently? Please correct me if I'm wrong; as far as I know, the only Minnesota-certified training organization that you are certified by is your own.)

Beyond that, while you may well have all of the NRA certifications that I have (Pistol, Home Firearms Safety Personal Protection, and Range Safety Officer -- if you tell me you have all of those, I'll take your word for it) I don't have your USAF background, and you haven't been solicited by Lorman to do Continuing Legal Education for attorneys on gun law, as far as I know, and I have.

Please correct me if I'm wrong -- I'll be interested in seeing the outline for your CLE seminar.

It's really very simple, Gary -- you're entitled to your own opinions; you're not entitled to your own facts.

And neither are you Joel.

GS

All which is fine. I didn't consult with any organization -- including both the ones I listed and the ones I didn't -- before putting together my proposal and putting it out -- as Gary Shade suggests, quite reasonably (when he's not complaining, quite unreasonably, about too much discussion) there's been far too many private meetings in all this. I've talked to folks from many organizations since, of course.

My feeling that all three nonprofits -- NRA, SAFE, and MADFI-- should be included aren't based on any opinion or desire on the part of those organizations, either way, as to whether or not they should be. It's based in my analysis of what makes sense for Minnesota permit applicants primarily, and secondarily for Minnesota instructors.

Administrator hat firmly on:

Gary, you've now gone well over the line from criticism -- which is fine -- into personal attack, and that's not fine, nor is your condescending tone. You are hereby publicly admonished to cease that. If you want to continue that, please do so elsewhere.

Sincerely,

The Management

So just so I am clear on this Joel... when you say someone is wrong - it's OK but if someone else proves you to be wrong, it's a personal attack. When someone hangs their credentials out and state no one else has such a broad based education in firearms, and someone else does... then it's a personal attack.

I want to be clear on that - after all it is your forum.
GS

You're quite correct that it is my forum; you're quite incorrect when you feel that you can continue to misrepresent what I say here.

You are on probation. I've felt it appropriate to ban two users out of the couple of hundred who have signed up for the forum; you are likely to be the third momentarily.

I think you'd be more happy participating elsewhere, since you clearly choose not to abide by the rules here.

I was up on the CCRN web-site and notice that they only have a link to AACFI training web-site and no one else's. Now this maybe off topic, but it may not be. Why would a non-profit link to or support only one for profit training orgs?

Fortunately, that's a solved problem. Wrongdoing should be defined as a felony conviction any of the organization's officers.See above.

That would, of course, work just fine for me. If it comes down to the question of felony conviction, that's not really an issue of inappropriate discretion of the Commissioner.