Index  •  FAQ  •  Search  

It is currently Mon May 20, 2019 8:27 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.  [ 36 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3
 The gun you qualify with - 
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: I'm probably in the extreme minority here
PostPosted: Sat Aug 27, 2005 7:52 am 
The Man
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:43 am
Posts: 7970
Location: Minneapolis MN
saintpaulguy wrote:
But I don't even OWN a handgun. Never have. I just might someday.

I took one of Joel's first classes, and I only had one purpose--I wanted to find out whether to post my business or not. I have not been involved in the movement at all, and I had no idea what this was all about.

Honestly, I expected to see a bunch of cowboys and various people compensating for various inadequacies. I found a room full of normal folks, and in Joel I found a guy who did a good job of explaining what NOT to use a gun for.

I qualified with a revolver I borrowed from Joel. It was the first time I had shot a handgun since I was in the service in the late 80s.

If I had to have had a weapon prior to taking the class, I never would have. And I wouldn't have had the experience, and I probably would still have an unfavorable opinion of permit holders.

Long post short--don't create a barrier where there doesn't need to be one. You just don't know who you might exclude.

I don't have much to say about this post, other than to add a strong and loud (and entirely secular) amen.

_________________
Just a guy.


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 29, 2005 12:31 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 10:24 am
Posts: 6767
Location: Twin Cities
Quote:
I do not interpret the MCPPA to require any marksmanship skills to get a permit. That may change with the new standards as of 10-1-2005, but the current law as I interpret only requires safe use and handling skills.


The only thing that may change is instructor standards. What is taught may not be changed by the BCA -- it's set in the law.

_________________
* NRA, UT, MADFI certified Minnesota Permit to Carry instructor, and one of 66,513 law-abiding permit holders. Read my blog.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 29, 2005 3:22 pm 
Forum Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2005 11:37 pm
Posts: 1571
Location: Detroit Lakes, MN
Matt Payne wrote:
Quote:
I do not interpret the MCPPA to require any marksmanship skills to get a permit. That may change with the new standards as of 10-1-2005, but the current law as I interpret only requires safe use and handling skills.


The only thing that may change is instructor standards. What is taught may not be changed by the BCA -- it's set in the law.
Well, of course I don't disagree with that, but ... (and apparently we will see in a few days)... one of the things that the DPS/BCA wanted to see in the instructor training firm certification process was a mandate that there be a reasonable course of fire required for permit applicants. Although they (the DPS/BCA) can't legislate/require/mandate that directly, they can, through their approval or disapproval of training firm applications, secure the same as if it were directly mandated. I.e, who is to say that the DPS/BCA will not grant training firm certification unless the firm promises to require its instructors to meet a minimal course of fire etc. Sort of like back-door legislation.

Having said that, the rumors are flying fast and furious that these standards will be changed quite a bit from what was originally proposed, so this may all be an interesting mental exercise and that is all. I guess we all agree that shooting proficiency is required, but how that is interpreted by instructors since 2003 varies greatly from one instructor to another.

_________________
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: Tue Aug 30, 2005 6:26 am 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2005 2:39 pm
Posts: 1132
Location: Prior Lake, MN
That's what happens when words like "reasonable" are put into a statute.
Open to infinite interpretation. In this case, I'm ok with it.

_________________
Brewman


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Oct 08, 2005 5:43 pm 
Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 7:26 pm
Posts: 36
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Quote:
A bit over a week ago, I took the CCW course. I have to confess here - I was far and away the worst shot of the six of us during qualification.

That said - there was only one other person on the line for the qualification (besides myself) using a gun they intended to press into service as their carry piece. The best shot in the bunch was using a target .22 with a 7" barrel. Another guy who was a really good shot was using his IPSC piece! (and he readily admitted he had NO intention of actually carrying a 1911. The other two shooters had full size nines that they didn't intend to carry.


Sounds like sour grapes to me.
Look mate, it's NOT a competition. If you shot well enough with your gun that's what matters. That someone shot better than you using a 22 makes no difference.

From our experience we know that the more bright ideas we come up with the more restrictions they slap on us. Be careful what you wish for!!
For qualification purposes the instructor should make an overall assessment, is this person safe in the way they handle a firearm?
Believe me strict requirements (laws) do not amount to public safety.

_________________
The CALIBER of YOUR ABILITY is what matters!!


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 18, 2005 9:30 am 
Journeyman Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2005 12:46 pm
Posts: 92
Location: Lakeville, MN
Quote:
Sounds like sour grapes to me.
Look mate, it's NOT a competition. If you shot well enough with your gun that's what matters. That someone shot better than you using a 22 makes no difference.

From our experience we know that the more bright ideas we come up with the more restrictions they slap on us. Be careful what you wish for!!
For qualification purposes the instructor should make an overall assessment, is this person safe in the way they handle a firearm?
Believe me strict requirements (laws) do not amount to public safety.

Sour grapes? How in the hell did you get that out of my post? Where did I complain (and thereby indicate "sour grapes").

Where did I say ANYTHING AT ALL about legislation, laws, or rules?

Where did I ever say I thought it was a competition?

Where did I ever say I cared one little bit that somebody shot better than I?

Did you missread everything I said on purpose?

I was merely suggesting that one MIGHT WANT TO REGULATE ONES SELF. If you personally know you can shoot your .45 combat piece as well as your .22 target gun - go for it.

Oops - sorry. Never mind the bits about freedom, and knowing how well you shoot any given gun. I didn't notice you were in Australia.

_________________
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" Carl Sagen


Offline
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 36 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

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 5 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