Index  •  FAQ  •  Search  

It is currently Thu Sep 20, 2018 3:58 pm

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.  [ 34 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
 AACFI - Minnesota's oldest CCW instructor certifying org 
Author Message
 Post subject: AACFI - Minnesota's oldest CCW instructor certifying org
PostPosted: Sun Oct 02, 2005 3:00 pm 
Wise Elder
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 7:48 pm
Posts: 2782
Location: St. Paul
American Association of Certified Firearms Instructors
(AACFI)
Managers: Tim Grant and Joe Olson
Phone: (612) 396-7213
Fax: none
Email: tgrant@citilink.com
Web Page: www.aacfi.com
Quote:
...AACFI is, at present, the oldest active certified carry permit instructor training organization in the State in Minnesota, having been certified by the passage and signature of the 2003 Personal Protection Act, and now into its third year of operation.
Joel Rosenberg, October 3, 2005. [edited to include ellipsis. JR]

Posted by Joe Olson, CEO, AACFI.


Last edited by kimberman on Sun Feb 05, 2006 4:08 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: That is not so!
PostPosted: Mon Oct 03, 2005 11:40 am 
Junior Member

Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2005 6:32 pm
Posts: 6
AACFI is not the oldest instructor certifying organization in Minnesota! Does the administraor of this forum allow false advertising?!


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 03, 2005 11:57 am 
1911 tainted
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 2:47 pm
Posts: 3045
Quote:
Minnesota's oldest CCW instructor certifying org


I saw this too, but decided to let it slide.

I will probably get flamed for this, but the more that I am exposed to AACFI, the more I feel that their credibility is lacking.
I am not directing this at the majority of their instructors, most of them are top shelf, but I think AACFI has some other issues.


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: That is not so!
PostPosted: Mon Oct 03, 2005 12:30 pm 
The Man
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:43 am
Posts: 7970
Location: Minneapolis MN
certified instructor wrote:
AACFI is not the oldest instructor certifying organization in Minnesota! Does the administraor of this forum allow false advertising?!


Administrator hat firmly on.

No, the administrator of the Forum (that would be me) doesn't allow false advertising, at least not knowingly.

That said, I specifically waive responsibility to verify everything -- or, for that matter, anything -- anybody posts here.

Beyond that: the AACFI listing is, well, a listing; not an ad. See the rules.

Administrator hat off.


Beyond that, we might as well address the substance of the issue.

In the 2003 Personal Protection Act, two certifying organizations were written into the law: AACFI and NRA. Both were simultaneously certified by the State of Minnesota, both operate in the State of Minnesota. While NRA is, of course, more than a hundred years older than AACFI, it is a national organization, not specifically a Minnesota organization, although it does have a legal and corporate presence in Minnesota, as I understand. Arguably, because of the preceding, NRA is the senior organization; arguably, also because of the preceding, AACFI is the oldest Minnesota carry permit instructor certifying organization under the 2003 law.

Arguably, of course, it isn't. The argument for that takes place in at least two forms.

One form of the argument is that there were, in fact, two or more organizations that were training and certifying instructors to teach Minnesota carry courses prior to the formation of AACFI. Deceptive Edge was; Darrell Mulroy's PlusP also was. There may have also been others. I don't know. (In fact, Darrell approached me to be certified and trained as an instructor by PlusP in late 2002 -- and, I believe, on one occasion before that. While I continued to take refresher carry permit training and informal other training from him, from time to time, it was mainly for fun -- up until the 2003 law was about to pass, I hadn't seriously considered doing much training myself. That said, I vaguely remember him making a similar suggestion in early 2003; by that time, I was working on my "Everything" book, and had no time for much of anything else.)

While PlusP was not certified by the State of Minnesota to train instructors for civilian carry courses during the years before the 2003 act, no organization conducting carry permit training for civilians was.

That said, I do know that at least several police agencies and officers -- including Chuck Donaldson of the MPD, who was in charge of issuing carry permits for the city of Minneapolis -- strongly encouraged people to take PlusP training. That's one of the reasons that I initially did, when I got my first carry permit.

PlusP was in business before AACFI; but, since there were no certified organizations for the many years that Darrell was in business, PlusP was not a certified organization until it was "validated" (technically not the same thing, but close enough in practice), some short time after AACFI was certified by the passage of the 2003 law.

(These days, while I understand that Deceptive Edge is still in operation in one form or another, PlusP appears not to be. As far as I know, Deceptive Edge has not, to date, been certified by the DPS.)

My conclusion from that argument -- you can make your own -- is that the NRA is the oldest firearms and self-defense-with-firearms instructor training organization operating in Minnesota; PlusP is older than AACFI, but in effect no longer in business; AACFI is, at present, the oldest active certified carry permit instructor training organization in the State in Minnesota, having been certified by the passage and signature of the 2003 Personal Protection Act, and now into its third year of operation.

The second form of the argument is that the 2005 law created a whole new situation. Under the 2005 law, IFIA, having been certified several days before any other 2005-certified organization, is the oldest such organization in Minnesota.

Under that argument, AACFI is something like the 28th certified instructor training organization in Minnesota.

My own conclusion -- speaking as a contributor, not a moderator or administrator -- is that, as a practical matter, in terms of organizations that are and have been conducting Minnesota-specific training while certified by the State of Minnesota to do so in one form or another, AACFI is pretty clearly the oldest such organization. NRA instructors certainly have been teaching carry classes in Minnesota, under their NRA credentials, from before -- well before -- the passage of the 2003 law through to the present -- but, in terms of an organization, NRA does not teach Minnesota carry permit courses; although NRA instructors do. There are rather minimal add-ons required to turn the NRA Personal Protection course into a Minnesota-specific carry course; many NRA instructors have been doing that, both under the old law, and under the umbrella of certifying organizations under the new law.

So: my own conclusion, speaking for myself, it is at least arguable that AACFI is the oldest Minnesota certified organization teaching Minnesota instructors to conduct Minnesota carry courses, and that while others can disagree, AACFI so representing itself is not "false advertising" or, for that matter, false at all; merely disputable. Reasonable people can disagree on such things.

Administrator hat back on.
But if they're going to do so here, they can do so with some heat, if they care to, but reasonably politely. I'd very much not want to read any further suggestions that the administration of the Forum is responsible for the accuracy of what's posted here.

If people want to criticize AACFI -- or any other organization -- here, they're free to do so, but conduct on the Forum will be in accord with what the other moderators and I feel is appropriate, and warnings -- private or public -- will be given as the management feels is appropriate, and other sanctions, including banning, will be applied as the management feels is appropriate.

With regard to this thread/topic, "Certified Instructor" who was previously privately cautioned about his manner, is now publicly admonished to be more careful and much more accurate in his use of loaded terms like "false advertising", and if his posting had not been critical of me, I'd likely have deleted it on the grounds of incivility. (I'll bend over backward not to delete posts critical of me or of my own courses. Let's not see how far I'm willing to bend, shall we?)

No other caution or admonition has been issued by me on his matter, public or private.

_________________
Just a guy.


Last edited by joelr on Tue Oct 04, 2005 5:29 am, edited 1 time in total.

Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: That is not so!
PostPosted: Mon Oct 03, 2005 1:15 pm 
on probation
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 6:50 am
Posts: 544
Location: minneapolis
joelr wrote:
certified instructor wrote:
AACFI is not the oldest instructor certifying organization in Minnesota! Does the administraor of this forum allow false advertising?!


Administrator hat firmly on.

No, the administrator of the Forum (that would be me) doesn't allow false advertising, at least not knowingly.

That said, I specifically waive responsibility to verify everything -- or, for that matter, anything -- anybody posts here.

Beyond that: the AACFI listing is, well, a listing; not an ad. See the rules.

Administrator hat off.


Beyond that, we might as well address the substance of the issue.

In the 2003 Personal Protection Act, two certifying organizations were written into the law: AACFI and NRA. Both were simultaneously certified by the State of Minnesota, both operate in the State of Minnesota. While NRA is, of course, more than a hundred years older than AACFI, it is a national organization, not specifically a Minnesota organization, although it does have a legal and corporate presence in Minnesota, as I understand. Arguably, because of the preceding, NRA is the senior organization; arguably, also because of the preceding, AACFI is the oldest Minnesota carry permit instructor certifying organization under the 2003 law.

Arguably, of course, it isn't. The argument for that takes place in at least two forms.

One form of the argument is that there were, in fact, two or more organizations that were training and certifying instructors to teach Minnesota carry courses prior to the formation of AACFI. Deceptive Edge was; Darrell Mulroy's PlusP also was. There may have also been others. I don't know. (In fact, Darrell approached me to be certified and trained as an instructor by PlusP in late 2002 -- and, I believe, on one occasion before that. While I continued to take refresher carry permit training and informal other training from him, from time to time, it was mainly for fun -- up until the 2003 law was about to pass, I hadn't seriously considered doing much training myself. That said, I vaguely remember him making a similar suggestion in early 2003; by that time, I was working on my "Everything" book, and had no time for much of anything else.)

While PlusP was not certified by the State of Minnesota to train instructors for civilian carry courses during the years before the 2003 act, no organization conducting carry permit training for civilians was.

That said, I do know that at least several police agencies and officers -- including Chuck Donaldson of the MPD, who was in charge of issuing carry permits for the city of Minneapolis -- strongly encouraged people to take PlusP training. That's one of the reasons that I initially did, when I got my first carry permit.

PlusP was in business before AACFI; but, since there were no certified organizations for the many years that Darrell was in business, PlusP was not a certified organization until it was "validated" (technically not the same thing, but close enough in practice), some short time after AACFI was certified by the passage of the 2003 law.

(These days, while I understand that Deceptive Edge is still in operation in one form or another, PlusP appears not to be. As far as I know, Deceptive Edge has not, to date, been certified by the DPS.)

My conclusion from that argument -- you can make your own -- is that the NRA is the oldest firearms and self-defense-with-firearms instructor training organization operating in Minnesota; PlusP is older than AACFI, but in effect no longer in business; AACFI is, at present, the oldest active certified carry permit instructor training organization in the State in Minnesota, having been certified by the passage and signature of the 2003 Personal Protection Act, and now into its third year of operation.

The second form of the argument is that the 2005 law created a whole new situation. Under the 2005 law, IFIA, having been certified several days before any other 2005-certified organization, is the oldest such organization in Minnesota.

Under that argument, AACFI is something like the 28th certified instructor training organization in Minnesota.

My own conclusion -- speaking as a contributor, not a moderator or administrator -- is that, as a practical matter, in terms of organizations that are and have been conducting Minnesota-specific training while certified by the State of Minnesota to do so in one form or another, AACFI is pretty clearly the oldest such organization. NRA instructors certainly have been teaching carry classes in Minnesota, under their NRA credentials, from before -- well before -- the passage of the 2003 law through to the present -- but, in terms of an organization, NRA does not teach Minnesota carry permit courses; although NRA instructors do. There are rather minimal add-ons required to turn the NRA Personal Protection course into a Minnesota-specific carry course; many NRA instructors have been doing that, both under the old law, and under the umbrella of certifying organizations under the new law.

So: my own conclusion, speaking for myself, but it is at least arguable that AACFI is the oldest Minnesota certified organization teaching Minnesota instructors to conduct Minnesota carry courses, and that while others can disagree, AACFI so representing itself is not "false advertising" or, for that matter, false at all; merely disputable. Reasonable people can disagree on such things.

Administrator hat back on.
But if they're going to do so here, they can do so with some heat, if they care to, but reasonably politely. I'd very much not want to read any further suggestions that the administration of the Forum is responsible for the accuracy of what's posted here.

If people want to criticize AACFI -- or any other organization -- here, they're free to do so, but conduct on the Forum will be in accord with what the other moderators and I feel is appropriate, and warnings -- private or public -- will be given as the management feels is appropriate, and other sanctions, including banning, will be applied as the management feels is appropriate.

With regard to this thread/topic, "Certified Instructor" who was previously privately cautioned about his manner, is now publicly admonished to be more careful and much more accurate in his use of loaded terms like "false advertising", and if his posting had not been critical of me, I'd likely have deleted it on the grounds of incivility. (I'll bend over backward not to delete posts critical of me or of my own courses. Let's not see how far I'm willing to bend, shall we?)

No other caution or admonition has been issued by me on his matter, public or private.
[Well the day that the 2003 law pass, I went over to the BCA the next day with my own outline for the carry class. Plus the ouline for any instructors who would teach my course outline for Koscielski's. In 3 days I was told I was good to go by the BCA. So its half of this and half of that...


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Sheeeeesh, can't we all just get along!
PostPosted: Mon Oct 03, 2005 4:37 pm 
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 4:34 pm
Posts: 216
Location: Hutchinson, MN
NOT :!: Which came first the chicken or the egg? Who really cares.... As long as your willing to shell out $700 for training, $300 for membership, $125 for this, $125 for that, and god only knows what else you too can be a member of the "oldest instructor certifying organization in MN". Or, you can come see the rest of us and get on board for next to nothing. You make the call. :evil: Some of us are in it for 2A and some for $$$$$.

_________________
JD
DDHT

Occam's Razor:
one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything.
Visit us at www.ddht.us


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sheeeeesh, can't we all just get along!
PostPosted: Mon Oct 03, 2005 4:46 pm 
on probation
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 6:50 am
Posts: 544
Location: minneapolis
durbin6 wrote:
NOT :!: Which came first the chicken or the egg? Who really cares.... As long as your willing to shell out $700 for training, $300 for membership, $125 for this, $125 for that, and god only knows what else you too can be a member of the "oldest instructor certifying organization in MN". Or, you can come see the rest of us and get on board for next to nothing. You make the call. :evil: Some of us are in it for 2A and some for $$$$$.
I know that I won't be shelling out that kind of money. Thats why we have a course at www.creditcardshotgun.com click on the Instructor button check it out....


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 03, 2005 5:25 pm 
Senior Member

Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2005 4:48 pm
Posts: 429
Location: Minnetonka
I know that I took a class from Plus P that was accepted, although not required, by a local police chief for a permit when permits were still "may issue." The refresher I took for a new and improved 5-year permit was pretty much the exact same class, with a few things added about places posting and such (posting was not a legal option when MN was "may issue").

Was AACFI around back then?

Things that make you go hmmmmmm????


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 03, 2005 5:41 pm 
on probation
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 6:50 am
Posts: 544
Location: minneapolis
goalie wrote:
I know that I took a class from Plus P that was accepted, although not required, by a local police chief for a permit when permits were still "may issue." The refresher I took for a new and improved 5-year permit was pretty much the exact same class, with a few things added about places posting and such (posting was not a legal option when MN was "may issue").

Was AACFI around back then?

Things that make you go hmmmmmm????
My x-Wife use to make me go HMMMMMMMMMMMMMM too :lol: :lol:


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 03, 2005 8:02 pm 
Delicate Flower

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 11:20 am
Posts: 3311
Location: St. Paul, MN.
Durbin 6 wrote "Some of us are in it for 2A and some for $$$$$."

2A all the way !!!!!!!! My guess is that come recertification time in 5 yrs the "hundreds plus" :roll: instructor certification costs will be gone or substantially reduced.

_________________
http://is.gd/37LKr


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: In response to email received from Joe Olson, AACFI
PostPosted: Tue Oct 04, 2005 8:35 am 
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 4:34 pm
Posts: 216
Location: Hutchinson, MN
Dear Joe Olson,

Why not discuss issues out in the open forum instead of inviting people to call you up to discuss things in private where nobody else can hear the conversation or give input? If you have a problem with my comments or if something I stated was incorrect please let the forum administrator know so he can remove the post.

I would be happy to post the Tim Grant email I received twice (I received the email twice BEFORE the AACFI was recognized and an Instructor Organization by the DPS and BCA) inviting me to training to become an instructor under AACFI with a breakdown of all of the fees you folks want to charge people. Why don't you post that information here in the forum yourself when you advertise you training class?

_________________
JD
DDHT

Occam's Razor:
one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything.
Visit us at www.ddht.us


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:27 am 
Delicate Flower

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 11:20 am
Posts: 3311
Location: St. Paul, MN.
Hmmmmm..... I received an invite for a phone conversation also, and I thought my comments above were pretty tame. I am strongly for 2A and I really do think that the competition will lower the instructor re-cert cost as well as hold class costs steady.

Which one warrants a phone call ??? Maybe it was the rolling eyes emoticon......that one might have been too much......nah

Your thoughts kimberman ?

_________________
http://is.gd/37LKr


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:31 am 
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 4:34 pm
Posts: 216
Location: Hutchinson, MN
ttousi wrote:
Hmmmmm..... I received an invite for a phone conversation also, and I thought my comments above were pretty tame. I am strongly for 2A and I really do think that the competition will lower the instructor re-cert cost as well as hold class costs steady.

Which one warrants a phone call ??? Maybe it was the rolling eyes emoticon......that one might have been too much......nah

Your thoughts kimberman ?



I am shocked that you would roll your eyes at such a thing.
:shock: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :shock:

_________________
JD
DDHT

Occam's Razor:
one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything.
Visit us at www.ddht.us


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:50 am 
Forum Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2005 11:37 pm
Posts: 1571
Location: Detroit Lakes, MN
Rightfully or wrongly, AACFI has been seen by some as an organization that not just appears to want to be the sole instructor firm in Minnesota, but that also has taken steps to advance that goal. I am not at all suggesting this to be true, but it is a perception held by many, particularly by NRA instructors.

This is not diminshed by comments that apparently have been made or infered to their current instructor base. I have a good friend that is AACFI certified and is very happy with them. He especially likes the ability for his students to register for classes on-line; he also thinks the materials are first rate etc. However, he has also told me that he was informed at a recent certification class that after 10-1, only the AACFI would be instructing students. I have no reason to think he is lying to me, but certainly he may be misinterpreting the comments.

But, I have heard enough of this type of comment (and then you add in the book problem) to give me concern.

If the cost was not so high, I suspect I might join. The people that I know that are AACFI instructors are all first rate. But for me, it is an dollar decision; others obviously have different feelings.

I suspect that the principals of the firm are not making any real money. It costs a lot to maintain the instructor base, and there appears to be funds expended to improve the classes and materials. Even the $300/year web fee is not outrageous...that is just $25 a month, and for a secure ordering site etc., I don't find that to be expensive assuming that you do not want to take the time to create and maintain the servers yourself.

I understand the rationale for asking to have calls rather than e-mail or public postings. I don't attribute any sinister motivation; rather, it is easier to address all the myriad questions that can flow on an issue in a telephone or face to face conversation as opposed to e-mail or postings. That is fair enough.

What the AACFI needs to do is to demonstrate that we all are on the same side...and we are. They have some bad PR at present, I suspect a lot is from rumor and innuendo. But, even if that is the source, it remains in the forefront.

Everyone can evaluate a firm based upon its service, its leadership, its costs etc....we all do that. I don't find fault with AACFI's costs. It is more than I can afford, yet...my friend says that "for him" it is a bargain.

Further, let's not forget that the principals of AACFI were, and are, instrumental in the political arena. Many others (us??) are also involved, perhaps to lesser (or greater??) degree. To the extent that AACFI costs are used to lobby and work for us, we are all the better.

I commend Joe and Tim for their work for the cause...we are all better off for their help.

I am not going to close this thread, as Joel has the final say here. But, it is getting dangerously close to personal attacks....

_________________
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: Rebuttle
PostPosted: Tue Oct 04, 2005 11:47 am 
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 4:34 pm
Posts: 216
Location: Hutchinson, MN
This is a touchy issue for me and please read this entire post before condemming me. My whole point in the discussion was not to bash the AACFI as an organization, just what fees they charge. Some may find it acceptable, others are going to feel like me and think it's outrageous. I think they have a quality curriculum and offer a fine class. This is more about making MPPA sucessful statewide and all of us attempting to be on the same page.

I have the same secure web access and ordering options for materials through the NRA and it only costs me $25/year, not per month. I also have many many many other benefits throught the NRA that are included in my $25 membership. I can also get support fram any NRA training counselor I want if I need it.

By sending out an email months in advance of being approved by the DPS was, in my opinion, putting the cart before the horse and caused some outrage in many of us on the NRA bench. Tim and I exchanged emails about this until 1:00am when I received the first email. Receiving the email a second time before the approved organizational standards were adopted and approved by the DPS didn't do much to help matters and was interpreted as rather arrogant on the part of the AACFI, especially when it is an NRA instructor on the receiving end and I had already had a very lengthy discussion on the topic a couple of months earlier.

We all know that Joe and Tim were a very strong presence in getting MPPA passed and this was never intended to be a "personal attack" on them. Again, nuff said about the whole thing. I apologize if I offended Joe or the administrators of this forum, please remove the original post if it found offensive by anyone..

_________________
JD
DDHT

Occam's Razor:
one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything.
Visit us at www.ddht.us


Offline
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 34 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  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