Mr. Administrator, I need a ruling. Is it permissable here to point out that the restriction of "training" at BillsGunRange seems to be in accord with the claims made in September that under the new regulations after October 1 there would be only two certified organizations in the state of Minnesota and that this would be a "business opportunity" for both organizations? (Bills and AACFI.) Is it also permissable to point out that the new regulations came out of the sheriffs association meetings in which both BillsGunRange and AACFI participated? Is it permissable to suggest that what you call the "braggadocio" (sp?) by a Bills employee sounds like something an employee who had been given the impression that Bills would have a monopoly on training might say?

If so, is it also permissable to draw inferences from that?

I'm not sure what the connection between the two might be, but sure. Just because I don't see the connection doesn't mean that you can't argue that there is one.

That said, it's worth noting that regardless of what anybody said back in September, there are almost forty certified organizations now, and October isn't over. Well, it's permissable -- but it's not quite accurate. Close, though. The secret meetings at the MSA produced a set of recommended regulations; the ones actually adopted and in force are a bit different -- both in letter and, I think, very much different in spirit. Sure. But -- regardless of what impression a Bill's employee has or doesn't have -- there is no monopoly, or anything close to it. I'm certified by three different organizations, myself, and may pick up a couple more before the end of the year.Sure. Infer away -- just be polite when you do it, and don't engage in personal attacks.

Ya'll still going on about this?

YES thats because we up here in Minnesota don't have a life

That's why we spend all our free time in this damn forum lol

You are SO RIGHT

Wait till winter sets in.......way too much time

Well, yeah, depending on your values of "this." I think that's okay, myself.

I did get a response from Jim Franklin, which was reassuring in some ways, and unhelpful in others. I've asked his permission to post his email -- in its entirety -- here, and we'll see what he says.

Without quoting his email, though, I think it's fair to say that his position is that he didn't intend to have his kind words about Bill's -- as well as several other organizations' -- materials twisted into some sort of endorsement of Bill's, as apparently happened.

Which -- speaking on behalf of me, myself, and I -- was, I think, unfortunate.

I don't have any doubt that Bill's does a fine job of teaching shooting skills, and am sure that their classes can stand on their own merits, without puffery.

Well unless they've dramatically improved their standards of training material I find laughable the suggestion that Bill's materials would be chosen over any other materials. I'm just a civilian, not a trainer, but when I got my carry permit training at Bills I was very disappointed in the quality of their printed materials. Full of typos, and not very professional looking. Couldn't hold a candle to Joel's book. The instuctor himself was OK though.

My experience with Bill's is that they seem to have inconsistent training of their staff. I once called them to inquire about renting a particular gun. They assured me they had just what I wanted, and told me to come on down and try it out. I invested a stressful drive through rush hour traffic (in the rain) to do so. After luring me down there they informed me they wouldn't rent to me because I was alone, and didn't yet have a permit. I asked them why they hadn't told me of this requirement on the phone... they didn't have an answer for this I explained that while I didn't have the permit yet, I'd completed training (at Bill's!). No dice I asked them why another Bill's employee had rented to me just a month prior, without requiring me to have a permit or a baby sitter, "well he shouldn't have" (therefore my assertion on their inconsistent training) Bye bye Bill's. Bought my gun (the one I tried to rent) from Mark K. instead

As to the above questions on the Braemar range... they are open to the public, but they don't make it easy. I'll start a new thread on that.

My take on it is that (based on the initial post) there were two people talking and shuffling paper at a table. It wasn't clear whether there was training going on, so the employee asked. The answer, somewhat equivocal, was taken to be "yes", so they were told they needed to rent a classroom to do training. Had the answer been "No, we're just chatting about a new organization; we'll be shooting in 10 minutes" there would have been no problem.