After reading the 1st post from ttousi and the reply from Dr. B I guess I have some questions:

1) Since when does going over a few forms and chatting equal training?
2) Why hassle people that are about to spend money with you?
3) Why hassle instructors, who might bring large classes to spend money (range fees and possibly gun purchases) with you?

It just doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me.

Please note: I have no dog in this fight, I am just asking. I am not an instructor, nor have I had a problem with bills (under the current owner), nor would I hold the current owner responsible for the actions of the previous owner, and I use the bills north range for my practice shooting.

Thank you for stepping up and clarifying this. I now see I may have misunderstood your policy. Here is how I read this, please correct me if I am wrong.

1. Instructors who are using the range for qualification can use the range for the cost of range fees, and may give a safety breifing prior to using the range.

2. Instructors who wish to go beyond a short safety breifing (ie, review class material or teach a class) are required to rent a classroom.

That's a reasonable situation as I see it.

That's good to hear; I was surprised to hear of a Bill's employee suggesting otherwise.Hmmm... I've talked to Jim Franklin several times since the secret meetings, and I think he's of the opinion that it was, in retrospect, probably not a great idea for the MSA to get involved in the secret meetings, given their history of obstructionism of carry reform, and their general lack of familiarity with civilian self-defense firearms training. (I may be wrong, of course, about what his opinion is -- but I hope I'm not. The sheriffs in general and the MSA in particular have earned enough bad karma.)

The sheriffs -- at least some of them -- know quite a lot about LEO training; civilian training is rather a different issue, for the obvious reasons.

(All in all, I think that staying out of matters where they don't know much would be a good decision on their part; the issues are very, very different, and the MSA has some unfortunate history to live down, or to live with.)

Just to pick one obvious example: Mr. Franklin -- although I'm sure he meant well -- was surprised to learn that there wasn't an NRA MN-law-specific carry course, and that NRA wasn't likely to leap through the hoops that the new regulations provide for...

... and, embarrassingly, he only learned that after the proposed regulations had come out of the secret meetings at the MSA. For whatever reason -- I'm going to assume it was his and the sheriffs' stark unfamiliarity with civilian self-defense firearms training -- he had been of the opinion that the opposite was true, and had written quite a lot about a mythical "NRA PPA" course, which he admitted he hadn't seen but was sure was quite good.

Supporting one organization over another probably wouldn't be a good idea, either. I think he ought to reconsider that, myself.

[Update: I've sent a query to Jim Franklin; I'll let you know what he responds.]

Would the employee @ Bills have said or done anything different had I clarified and said it was closer to a "get to know one another" for the purposes of defining my organization and his possible interest in same??

His demeanor was that we where obviously spending too much time....yes we were looking at forms...instructor criteria...mission statement etc. Real technical training. Seems that type of information is posted all over the lobby area for people to read. Must be ok if you stand up and read it.

Another 10 minutes and we would have been on the range.

Dr. B. said "Apparently they felt that a coffee shop was a better place to conduct there training activites. We couldn't disagree more. This projects a bad example that casts a shadow over everyone in the training business. We all need to be more professional than that."

A coffee shop is a great place to get to know someone and discuss areas of interest. (Which, by the way, is what we were doing.) I hardly think that the non committal answers given to the employees question in the original posting ( kinda and Instructor stuff) would warrant the " coffee shop...training activities...bad example....shadow ....more professional " conclusion reached by Dr. B.

The conclusion is incorrect and inappropriate.


_________________

It's pretty clear, I think. Bill's has an idiosyncratic and fairly unusual definition of "firearms training", which includes a couple of people sitting at a table, talking about matters of mutual interest and going over some paperwork for a few minutes, while planning to go out on the range sometime after that.

That's okay; Bill's is entitled to its own definitions for what goes on at Bill's, and can restrict "training" -- by their definition -- at Bill's.

Where I think -- and here I am most definitely putting on my moderator's/administrator's hat -- it's not okay is when Dr. B applies that unusual definition to what goes on outside of Bill's, and suggests -- inappropriately -- that it's "unprofessional" to sit at a table, talking about matters of mutual interest and going over some paperwork for a few minutes.

That goes -- slightly, but definitely -- over the line into the realm of personal attack, and I hope it is the sort of thing that won't be repeated.

Can't we all get along??? Why did I put my ASP

Well, I think..... on second thought I think I will just keep my mouth shut.

My own guesses, with my moderator/administrator hat clearly off: They get to decide what constitutes "training." Bill's clearly would like those instructors who want to do anything more than a shooting qualification (plus, possibly, a brief safety briefing) to rent space from them. That's fine, IMHO. While the costs of classroom and range at Bill's are quite high when compared to other places ($50 for a full day at most VFWs/American Legions for classroom space for up to 50 students; $10, including targets, at Burnsville for a shooting qualification; classroom use at KGS included with KGS certification), they're not utterly unreasonable, and renting out the classroom is one of the ways Bill's makes its money. Perfectly fine, IMHO.My assumption -- and it's just that -- is that Bill's has decided that, on balance, their increased ability to control what goes on in their facility and additional profit from classroom rental is worth whatever sales of range time that they might lose. Perfectly reasonable. I don't think that Bill's can give better terms to non-affiliated instructors than they do to their own instructors -- the ones who have signed up to teach only Bill's courses, use only Bill's materials, and not compete with Bill's. See http://www.billsgs.com/FIP.pdf for a description of their instructor offerings.I've shot at Bill's twice since John Monson took over -- once taking the AACFI Instructor "upgrade" session, and once with the Pink Pistols. It's a pretty good place to shoot, and while their prices on handguns aren't competitive with KGS, Frontiersman, Streichers or Gunstop, they do have a very wide selection.

All in all, I prefer Burnsville Pistol Range to both Bill's locations, but I think there's room for a lot of different ways to run a range business -- and John Monson's Bill's is, I think, a definite improvement over the previous ownership.

I think for the most part (if not the all part) you are correct. I just can’t help getting the feeling that they are being more than a tad arrogant and monopolistic. I am probably wrong; I just keep re-reading DR B’s. posts and they disturb me.

(I mean no slight at anyone; I am just describing how the posts affected me.)

I really like what the new owner has done to fix up bills north; it is a much nicer place to shoot. I can actually shoot there and not have an asthma attack like the ones I would get when Armored Fire owned the range.

Although...

I just think I will start spending more time in Burnsville shooting. The owner has always been very pleasant and helpful to my wife and myself.

As for guns you are very correct, I like Sportsman’s Warehouse in Coon Rapids, or Mark’s (last gun shop), or a friend with an FFL (I told him about this forum and he can do his own advertising).

PS: I have got to believe that the best fix for any problems real or perceived are to have more ranges to shoot at.

[quote="

PS: I have got to believe that the best fix for any problems real or perceived are to have more ranges to shoot at.[/quote]It would be nice to have more gun ranges. But like Minneapolis and so many others they have bann them a long time ago.

And the banning is a bad thing!

I don't want to get off the original topic but has anyone heard any more information about a range being built in Edina? Years ago I enjoyed the range off Hwy 169. The name of the facility slips my mind at the moment.

Breamer or Bremar... Whatever.

I believe they built a police training facility in/around there. I do not think they opened the range to the public.

Moon Valley? Closed for good last year.

VFW, St. Louis Park. South side of Highway 100 @t 36th Street.

Moon Valley, Eden Prairie. North side of 212, east of Flying Cloud Airport

Braemar, Edina. Located within the golf course property. East side of 169, just north of 494.

First two, closed. Do not know if Braemar still exists. Assume if it does, it is not available for public anymore