Concealed Carry Reform NOW!
Post Office Box 131254
St. Paul, MN 55113

Position Statement
(revised March 20, 2006)

Use of low-recoil (squib, primer, pellet, or whatever) rounds in the shooting “exercise” portion of the carry permit course is allowed.

The shooting exercise required by the MPPA (2003; 2005) was entirely Governor Ventura's idea during the 2002 session. It was never discussed in any detail by him, or at any legislative hearing, or on the floor of either house.

Subdivision 2 of section 624.714 requires a "shooting … exercise" of the instructor's design. There is intentionally no required course of fire (in states that have them, they are very elementary), no minimum caliber (unlike Alaska), no limits on type of gun or model (unlike Nevada), no "live fire" requirement (unlike Arizona), etc, etc. The intention was for the student to experience safe handling, elementary shooting skills, and the actual firing of a gun.

It is not intended to be an accuracy, proficiency, or skill "test". It is not focused on any particular handgun (student's, instructor's or rental; revolver or semi-auto; conventional or air powered). As the statute says, it is an "exercise," not a test.

Many students will desire to take a separate "shooting course" either before or after the carry course. The carry course is not intended to be a shooting or tactics course.

Is a pellet gun sufficient? Yes.

The definition of "firearm" most often used in construing Minnesota law is found in Minnesota Statutes, section 97A.015, subd. 19, which defines the term as meaning "a gun that discharges shot or a projectile by means of an explosive, a gas, or compressed air." A .22 will suffice. A pellet gun will also. Both the DNR and the courts have ruled that pellet guns are "firearms" as so defined.

Is a “low powered” round sufficient? Yes.

If it expels a projectile, that's enough. Cartridges in .22 short with "gallery" loads are sufficient. The Simunitions (TM) ammunition that police trainers use in "real" Glock pistols is sufficient (they can cause a bloody and painful flesh wound). If it's good enough for law enforcement "live fire" training, it's good enough for an "exercise" (which is, after all, only a small part of the basic CCW course).

The Minnesota statute takes a "minimalist" approach to “mandated” training. It is designed to let the marketplace work. The authors of the MCPPA sought to allow lots of trainers (freely choosing among a variety of certifying organizations) to provide a variety of training courses so long as they met the "basic training" criteria set forth in section 624.714, subd. 2a(b). Instructor training organizations get to set their own curriculum. Instructors get to choose which organization they'll join.

A comment: “... the shooting exercise should be more than primer loads... .”

So where should one draw the line?

.44 Special, 357 Magnum, 9mm (regular, +p, or +p+), or 38 Special (regular [whose?] or +p)?

Should "lesser" calibers be allowed? Many people choose, because of their threat/social environment, to carry pistols or revolvers in .380, .32, .25, and even .22. If a .22 is good enough, does it have to be loaded with CCI Mini-Mags or will a .22 short suffice?

If a .22 short round will suffice, isn't a .38 Special "primer" round or a pellet gun round about the same in muzzle energy?

There is a reason why the statute leaves the details of the "exercise" to the choice of the instructor (it's drafters knew that other states are much more specific - Nevada requires "qualification" on an easy course of fire with a specific handgun which is the only one you can carry and some states do have caliber limits, action classes, etc. - 624.714 intentionally avoids all of that) -- to let the marketplace operate.

The statute intentionally does not use the term "live fire" either, although it could have. Had it done so, that requirement would have decreased the opportunity for instructor creativity and provided a significant advantage to those instructors who have easy, often free, access to informal "backyard" ranges. The proponents knew that there are each year fewer public ranges in Minnesota and very few public ranges in many parts of the state.

Some are confusing two separate issues. (1) What to recommend for use in a life and death gunfight (and thus to carry) and (2) what to require for a minimal demonstration of safe gun handling (and thus for training).

In my permit classes, I also recommend more powerful calibers for actual carry on the street. Although I'll admit to carrying on occasion a Seecamp .32 ACP when I deem it appropriate considering the threat/social environment I'll be facing.

But the carry permit course is something else; it is an educational activity.

We use all sorts of models to teach that we'd not choose for actual work. The statute calls for an "exercise." It is only part of a learning experience (not the final product). As another said "The spirit of the law seeks to protect the public by a demonstration of safe handling and firing control, whether it be firing a .22 short, squib [primer] loads, a pellet gun round or trudging through the snow to blast away with a .40 S&W or even a .44 magnum."

Instructor certifying organizations and individual instructors are, of course, free to choose to exceed the minimal requirements of the statute.


Joe Olson
President, CCRN

That's an interesting place to choose ellipses. Here's the full line



So we have additional questions:

Why is the word "actual" included? Is that actual shooting as opposed to simulated shooting? And then we have to ask, is a pellet gun real shooting or simulated shooting?

In the context of a class to carry a real gun, I think it's quite reasonable to interpret "actual shooting" to also require a real gun.

Why is the word "qualification" included? Merriam-Webster defines qualification as "a condition or standard that must be complied with (as for the attainment of a privilege)." In the absence of a statutory definition, we must give the word "qualification" its usual and customary meaning, and conlude that the legislature did indeed intend to require a test of some sort, and not merely an exercise.

I have no doubt that there is a rational legalistic basis for CCRN's interpretation. But I also believe that testing the minimums (an dbelieve me, they will be tested -- maybe in Hennepin County courts) is a counterproductive to the movement.

Andrew,

Once again, I want to stress I agree with your logic, just not your mandate,

“I actually shoot a pellet gun, I actually shoot a .22” and if I choose to defend my life with either one, I have that right.

Minimalist or not, it is the individuals right to make the choice. That choice may be foolish and you as a conscientious instructor want the individual to make a choice that will server them the best, but if the law doesn’t require something, you should not either. According to the law, your job is to provide the required information and adjudicate an exercise which qualifies the individual, when you go beyond that you are “Making Law”.

I disagree -- I think it's more likely to be Ramsey, rather than Hennepin. McGowan's retiring; Fletcher isn't, although Finney's running against him. Fletcher likes rolling the dice on denials. I don't know of anybody in the Metro area using pellet guns or rubber bullets for shooting qualifications -- and would very much rather not know* -- but it's an obvious line of political attack.

Would it be worth it -- to Fletcher -- to roll the dice with a few thousand bucks of his county's money?

I don't like that bet.

That said -- and here's where it gets complicated -- I think it's not unreasonable for an advocacy group to take the most favorable, liberal (you should pardon the expression) view of the law as possible.

And that said, using the same definition that Joe does, the qual could be done with a soda straw and spitballs, or any kind of airgun, including a Nerf one. Definitely a paintball gun.

Me, I'd much rather argue for repeal of the qualification requirement in the legislature than see an argument in Judge Finley's court about whether or not using a pellet gun fills the requirements of the law.




_______________________
* I'm just a guy. I don't have a responsibility to monitor subordinate instructors in my organization, because, well, I don't have a certified training organization.

I don't know how many more ways I can express this. Here is the ENTIRETY of the law's direction on classes:


That very high level description REQUIRES that I exercise discretion.

Am I "Making law" when I force my students to sit through topics such as choosing a carry pistol, holster selection, and using the restromm while carrying?

Maybe we should focus more on the "shooting qualification exercise". Is it "shooting qualification exercise" or "shooting qualification exercise"? I think we've already defined "actual shooting".

Maybe it's just redundant? You could remove the capitalized words and it would mean about the same:
ACTUAL shooting QUALIFICATION exercise

Should we add an item to the growing list of things to change in MN's gun laws- Remove the word qualification from 624.714. ?

My opinion right now, the DPS should have mandated what a qualification was with the instructor organization certifications. Since they have not, they must not have any complaints about the way instructors are doing it.

2) successful completion of an actual shooting qualification exercise; and

And as we have seen, that can be--and has been--parsed/interpreted to death here the past few days.

Point 1 ....... could without any problem be accomplished with ANY Pistol
Point 2 ....... could without any problem be accomplished with ANY Pistol
Point 3 Does not require an actual pistol!

I suppose that there is a difference - both distinct and intellectual about the word "actual" -

(I love debate like this one - so don't take this any other way please.)

I understand that the LAW states that an airgun is a firearm for purposes of this discussion only - but is it really in all practicality? Not in my eyes...... (oh i know what you are thinking - what would happen if someone pointed a pellet gun at you - same thing as if someone pointed a howwitzer at me - same deal here)

Legality and Practicality are 2 different things - sure you can choose to defend yourself with the finest airgun Crossman manufactures - but in all PRACTICALLITY is that really the end goal of a permit holder? Come on....

My original point and query was - as an instructor - what are your standards for qualification and have you had anyone that you would not qualify? (Added question) And for what reasons?

In all practicallity - as an instructor - someone shows up with a crossman airgun - are you going to qualify them? I certainly hope not.

People can split hairs about the letter of the law - and that is fine - but there has to be some measure of practicallity here........

I know what the law defines as a firearm - but I know what I reasonably qualify as a firearm. I cannot agree with their definition as it pertains to this discussion or the ACTUAL shooting exercise within the MNPPA requirements.

Look, I am not trying to bash anyone or make a personal attack. But in light of the fact that it is an AACFI instructor that has been doing exactly what you advocate as legal, I am curious...

1. how are policy statements determined; did you survey your membership, or is this just your opinion or that of a small core group

2. is this also AACFI's position

3. and other that the opinion expressed in your post, that it is legal, under what authority do you issue a legal ruling? have you asked for an AG opinion? have you asked for the opinion of the DPS/BCA?

I realize you do not share my opinion, but putting out that this is OK does no one, except one instructor, any good. I know for a fact that there are AACFI members concerned about the organization that would find the opinion very disturbing.

I am an attorney also. My opinion is that your interpretation is not just legally incorrect, but also very detrimental to the "cause" and can only lead to more restrictive legislation. I understand that YMMV. I just do not agree. Perhaps that is one reason there are two sides to every litigation.

Oh, and before I get inundated from folks that wonder why I think this is detrimental, here is the headline I see:

State's Largest Permit to Carry Instructor Firm Says Training With Pellet Guns is Acceptable

This is not going to fly well with any legislator that I know. Perhaps you talk to different ones

I'm sorry, I missed this last section.

No, you are not making law by teaching these things, however if the student decided to get technical (and foolish) about it he could skip that part of the class. You would also then refuse to issue a certificate, which the individual could challenge.

That said, the informational areas are useful and are part of the value of the lesson package, but the actual choice of gun is personal and you don't necessarily have all the information needed to make that choice for every individual. Therefore as the law does not require you to make that determination, you should not.

Perhaps a hypothetical will help.
Student is a guy who seems to be perfectly fit and healthy. He brings out a small Beretta and wants to qualify with it. You say no, he, having an ego the size of New York gets ticked off and leaves, the next day he gets mugged and killed.
What he didn’t tell you is that he has a medical problem in his wrists and cannot shoot a caliber larger that the .22 without serious pain, (there are many medical conditions that can cause this type of problem).

Now do you see my point, even though both parties are at fault, it is your extra rule that has created the problem.

Nope. Instructors may always determine who passes and fails the class, and that decision is not subject to any meaningful challenge.



You can wave this red herring around all day if you like, but once more, I AM NOT CHOOSING A GUN FOR THEM. I am placing reasonable limits on one exercise in my class. That is the prerogative of any instructor.



Well, first of all, it can take up to thirty days to get a permit issued, so the "next day" thing is silly.

Putting that aside, I will always work to provide accommodations for students with special needs. But I can't do that if the student doesn't tell me.

I might be inclined, for example, to fail or remove a student who keeps swearing in class, or one who inexplicably walks out every 15 minutes. But if they communicate to me that they have Tourette's or a bladder issue, we can work around it.


Listen: Try putting together a curriculum for a six-hour class -- based on a thirty-word description, for students at all levels of experience and ability -- and see how many decisions you have to make. Believe me that the answer is "a lot."

I'm comfortable with this particular decision. I communicate it to my students when they register, and they are free to go to an instructor that uses a ping-pong ball gun (which meets CCRN's definition of a firearm) if they don't like my rules.

So far, it hasn't been a problem.

That's an argument that might fly in some quarters. In their secret meetings proposal, the MSA went into a lot of detail about what the regulations should be, and they didn't address kind of gun, caliber, or whatever. Arguably, if they thought that that was important, they would have mentioned it.

That said, don't be surprised if the MSA goes back to them and asks for some changes...

Absolutely. I interpret the lack of specificity not to mean that it was not relevant, but that it was likely not conceived as realistic that someone would say that pellet guns were acceptable.

This is all getting too complicated, so let me complicate it further. (And, again: I speak for me, not for CCRN, COCRA, FSI, AAA, or anybody else.)

1. CCRN/GOCRA is a civil rights organization, like the ACLU. Civil rights organizations protect civil rights, not necessary civil-right-things-to-do. Nobody at the ACLU thought Ernesto Miranda was a good guy. As a civil rights organization, CCRN/GOGRA should be pushing the limits of what's allowed. Much better to have the battle in unimportant territory, like pellet guns.

2. CCRN/GOCRA is a lobbying/PR organization, like the Financial Services Institute is for what they call "financial professionals." (You and I would call them "insurance salesmen.") As a lobbying/PR organization, CCRN/GOCRA should be concerned not only about what is bad, but what looks bad, and encouraging PR-defensible behavior, and discouraging things that give the other side, err, ammo.

3. The training requirement happened because that's what the lege decided, not because it came down on stone tablets. As somebody whose position is that Pennsylvania's permit law -- which doesn't require any training -- is preferable to Minnesota's, I should be arguing that any attempt to minimize the training requirement is good.

4. As somebody who does training, and prides himself (rightly or wrongly) on going beyond what's required by law, I should be arguing that any practice of minimizing training requirements -- skating as close to the edge as is legally possible -- while permissable, is something that I'd not do, and would discourage others from doing.

5. As somebody who, when discussing my carry class, says, "it's about how to conduct yourself safely, comfortably, and legally -- it's not about shooting," I should be arguing that meeting the absolute minimum shooting requirements is a good thing.

Complicated enough?