Fortis Security Technology Firearms Training

Pistol Packin' Mamma's

2010-05-04T18:55:00.000-07:00

Great article supporting a right so primal that we see it exercised by very nearly every warm blooded creature on the face of the Earth...A Mother's right and responsibility to defend her children from the dangers posed by a violent world.

I encourage all readers to click the link in the headline and read the comments to the article on it's original website. The public opinion tide may just be turning.

Mothers In Arms

July 29, 2008 by Kathy McManus

Moms pack many things—endless lunches, bottles, diapers, snacks, toys, wipes, overdue library books, and of course kids.

But does a responsible mom also pack a gun?

The question was recently raised on the website BabyCenter, which chronicles all things motherhood, from conception to inconceivably picky eaters and back-talking three year olds.

On the site, a mom blogger described the terrifying experience of a mother who was attacked at home in a safe neighborhood by a rapist with a gun. The woman fought, the attacker fled, and the blogger posed a question: “Do you think that every mother should own a gun?”

The point-blank debate about point-blank defense revealed that some moms are packing heat.

“I carry a Keltec 380 (small pistol) on my hip everyday,” revealed a mother of a one year old and a two year old. “I feel comfortable knowing that I will be able to defend my kids and I if we are in a life-threatening situation.”

Another mother—eight months pregnant and with a toddler—wrote that her husband works the night shift, and “our gun is the only way I could defend myself and my children should someone intend to do us harm.”

And there was this disclosure from a police officer mom: “I keep a loaded 9mm in my Coach diaper bag.”

Suddenly, it seems, mothers with guns are everywhere--movie star moms included. Recent news reports quote actress Angelina Jolie as saying she keeps a gun at home for security, and that “if anybody comes into my home and tries to hurt my kids, I've no problem shooting them.”
Tell us what you think: Should a mother’s responsibility to protect her children include having a gun?

Source: The Responsibility Project Sponsored by Liberty Mutual

PBS Says "Most Americans Support Gun Ownership"

2010-05-03T21:49:00.001-07:00

I never thought I would see the day when PBS was airing comments in support of gun rights!

Florida Bank Customer Stops Bank Robber

2010-05-01T20:04:00.000-07:00

For the love of God, if you are ever involved in a justified use of force incident, DO NOT SPEAK TO THE MEDIA!

Bank Customer Stops Knife-Wielding Robber
Customer: 'I Split Him Like A Pinata'
POSTED: 12:24 pm EDT May 1, 2010
WESH TV Orlando
TITUSVILLE, Fla. -- An armed robbery at a Titusville bank Friday night was thwarted by a customer, police said.
It was the second incident in as many days in the area that a Good Samaritan had taken down a bank robber.
"I should have blown him away," said David, who asked not to have his last name released.
He was a customer at Riverside Bank when a man held up the place with a knife.
When the robber ran out, David said he chased him through the mud in his socks and caught him.
"I split him like a piñata," David said. "There were $20 (bills) all over the place."
David had his .357-caliber Magnum on him. He said his concealed weapons permit and right to carry a gun are very important to him.
"Everybody get a gun," David said.
Another concealed weapons permit holder, Ruben Torres, foiled a bank robber in Palm Bay 24 hours earlier. In that case, the guy gave up easily. This was different, David said.
"He was trying to use his knife," he said. "I pistol-whipped him and split his head open and got blood all over me." Police identified the suspect as 55-year-old Michael Peterson, of Titusville.
He was put under observation at a nearby hospital before being taken to jail.

New Mexico No Longer Recognizes Utah CFP

2010-05-01T19:58:00.000-07:00

New Mexico DPS Press Release

New Mexico No Longer Recognizes Utah Concealed Carry License

April 23, 2010
Contact: Peter Olson
(505) 827-3361

Santa Fe—Effective immediately New Mexico will no longer recognize concealed carry licenses issued by the State of Utah for the purposes of reciprocity in New Mexico, as the requirements for licensure in Utah do not meet the standards required in New Mexico statute. Rules governing the concealed carrying of weapons and issuance of licenses require that training and other provisions be as stringent or substantially similar to New Mexico requirements.

Questions concerning licenses obtained from Utah by New Mexico residents have made it necessary to reevaluate which states will be recognized as valid in New Mexico.

“We’ve had situations where certain concealed carry instructors in New Mexico solicit clients with the promise that if they train here and obtain a Utah license, which entails significantly less training than does a New Mexico license, it will qualify here,” said Department of Public Safety Secretary John Denko. “This is incorrect, and is nothing less than an effort to circumvent New Mexico concealed carry requirements which are designed to protect the public safety while honoring individual rights under the Second Amendment of the constitution.”

The state will also review the status of eighteen other states currently recognized on an informal basis, with the intent of entering into written agreements with these states to ensure compliance with New Mexico law. These states are: Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and Wyoming.

New Mexico currently has a written reciprocity agreement in place with Texas; the status of this agreement will remain unchanged.

Chicago Mayor Takes His Anti-Gun Fight to World Court

2010-05-01T11:38:00.000-07:00

Chicago Mayor Daley: Send Gun Industry to World Court

April 27, 2010
BY FRAN SPIELMAN City Hall Reporter

Six years after the state Supreme Court dismissed his $433 million lawsuit against the gun industry , Mayor Daley today called for a change of venue — to the World Court normally reserved for disputes between nations and crimes against humanity.

Wrapping up the sixth annual Richard J. Daley Global Cities Forum , Daley convinced more than a dozen of his counterparts from around the world to approve a resolution urging "redress against the gun industry through the courts of the world" in The Hague.

"This is coming from international mayors. They're saying, 'We’re tired of your guns, America. ... We don't want those anymore because guns kill and injure people,' " Daley told a news conference at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

"If we ship over poison to a country, don’t you think we should be responsible for it? That’s what they’re saying: 'Be responsible for what you manufacture and sell in my country.' ... You have to think outside the box. You have to be [aggressive] about how you protect your people."

Mexico City Mayor Marcelo Ebrard Casauban noted that the Mexican government is waging a brutal war against drug cartels that get “85 percent” of their weapons from the United States.

"The U.S. government says, 'We cannot do a lot of things to stop this,'" Casauban said. "We should take actions with legal effects in order to stop this trade between the United States and Mexico."

Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter acknowledged that using the World Court is a long-shot. But, he said “you never know until you try” and it’s worth a try to counter the political muscle and money of the National Rifle Association.

"We have to do different things. The political establishment in many state capitals — and certainly in Washington — [is] so deathly afraid of the NRA that people cannot make the right decision for their own constituents," Nutter said.

He added, "People are being killed every day in the United States of America with illegal weapons. I love the 2nd Amendment. [But], I have a 1st Amendment right not to be shot."
Gun violence also dominated a panel discussion earlier in the day at the Global Cities Forum.
It happened when Daley argued that Chicagoans have to "open our hearts and our pocketbooks" to save another generation from being lost.

"We don't say, 'Come to us.' Government has to go to them. They’re isolated. Maybe they have a substance abuse problem. The grandmother is 70 years old and raising grandchildren. ... We have to intervene in a different way we never have before. We have to have more homes for children, such as Boys and Girls Town to help them at earlier ages,” the mayor said.

"This idea of losing a 14-year-old to gangs and drugs in America is unacceptable. It is not a criteria we should ever live with."

Daley’s 1998 lawsuit accused the gun industry of creating a public nuisance by using irresponsible suburban gun shops to flood the city with guns that traffickers supplied to criminals.

The city and the county sought reimbursement for policing, emergency services and prosecutions tied to gun violence using nuisance laws normally reserved for polluters. In 2004, the state Supreme Court refused to create, what it called "an entirely new species of public nuisance liability."

Source: Chicago Sun – Times

Penn & Teller Explain the Second Amendment in 60 Seconds

2010-03-03T17:41:00.000-08:00

In Defense of Glocks

2010-03-03T15:42:00.000-08:00

Glock pistols are the victims of a number of urban legends. Statements about them range from "they can just 'go off'" to "they have no safery" and "they explode". I think this article does a great job of dispelling most of these rumors.

Is the Glock Inherently Unsafe?
by Ed Miller And Phil Elmore
03/02/2010
You've seen the endless discussions on internet discussion sites. You've read the articles. You've seen the topics discussed ad nauseam by gun owners who range from novices to experts. What all these pundits have in common is a simple enough prospect, but one in which they hold the firmest of convictions and the most powerful of faiths: They are convinced that the Glock pistol is inherently unsafe.
In fact, the Glock is a remarkably popular weapon with civilians and law enforcement agencies alike. There are very good reasons for this. If the Greek philosopher, Plato, could have imagined a handgun in his world of forms-those concepts that embody the ideal versions of all we are capable of imagining, the earthly manifestations of which are but imperfect copies-he would have envisioned a combat firearm with a simple means of sighting, a barrel, a hand grip, a simple and light trigger, and a cocking and ignition mechanism that fires when the user pulls the trigger (but does not fire unless the trigger is pulled).
The closest "imperfect" manifestation of this Platonic form would be the Glock. Available in multiple popular calibers, the Glock comprises precisely the minimum number of features a combat handgun must possess. It has a comfortably sized, slip-resistant grip for the average male or female hand, which remains comfortable across a broad range of ambient temperatures. It offers a simple, easily upgradeable sighting system. It exhibits reasonable combat accuracy at 25 meters. It has an acceptable light trigger that is long enough on the first shot to permit mere mortals to recognize that the trigger finger is moving, but it has a very short trigger reset that permits rapid fire of multiple shots. There is no manual mechanical safety the user must remember to use, nor are there complicating features such as decockers or double- to single-action transitions in operation. Consisting of relatively few parts, yet customizable and available with accessory rails, The Glock can be tailored to suit almost any operator.
The Glock's specific design for clearance in the generously sized chamber promotes feed reliability. The light trigger and soft recoil afforded by the modified Browning action also enables new shooters to quickly master the gun or simply to qualify with it. Glocks are also relatively inexpensive (and may cost less in today's dollars than they did when initially introduced). They are also inexpensive to manufacture.
Glock was the right gun at the right time for the US police market. The Glock appeared just as the transition from revolvers to semi-automatic pistols began in earnest. The Glock 17 and 19 poured gasoline on the blazing "wondernine" revolution of the 1980s, which saw police trading in their six-guns for 9mm automatics to fight the drug wars exploding on American city streets. The Glock, like the AK-47, became one of the icons of "the ghetto," of urban, hip-hop culture. Even as the latest crop of rap stars go on at length about criminal activity and the Glocks they carry, even more of these weapons are riding in the duty holsters of law enforcement officers. Why then are so many shooters (members of the firearms community, the gun culture itself) so convinced that the immensely popular Glock is inherently unsafe? Why do they delight in reproducing anecdotal accounts of civilians and law enforcement officers who have experienced negligent discharges while carrying or reholstering Glocks. And why are they so quick to blame the gun rather than the operator?
The reason that the weapon prompts so much outrage, scorn, suspicion, and debate probably stems from the fact that it slaughtered a lot of sacred cows when it was introduced. You may remember the outrage in the popular press about the supposed "plastic pistol" that was going to be slipping past metal detectors left and right. This innovative pistol caused similar outrage among the firearms community, simply because it was so very different. It was and is a polymer-framed, striker-fired automatic with no manual safety. In a world previously (and arguably still in some circles) dominated by the steel-framed, single-action, exposed-hammer, grip-safety and frame-safety equipped 1911, in concert with various other all-metal automatics festooned with decockers and other safeties in double-action, the Glock bucks multiple trends.
The Glock's long-term success has gone a long way to mute criticism of the weapon, but rumors, myths, misinformation, and general suspicion of this simple, robust, easily maintained firearm remain.
Some experienced gun enthusiasts rejected the weapon outright on principle, deriding it as "combat Tupperware." Pistols should be made of metal, they argued (and still argue). Glocks should have narrower chambers (sometimes referred to as "tighter tolerances" in slang terminology), they insisted. Glocks should not ride on such small slide rails, they stated. Glocks should not have such light triggers, they warned. Glocks should have manual safeties, these critics proclaimed (and still proclaim). Does this in fact mean that the guns are inherently unsafe? Has Glock succeeded in deceiving so many gun owners? Is there a lurking danger of which we should be made aware?
As we will see, the factors that contribute directly to the Glock's success are also the root causes of the Glock detractors' criticisms. Let us succinctly list the alleged dangers of the Glock as posited by critics:
1. Glocks have too light of a trigger.
2. Glocks do not have a manual safety.
3. Glocks do not have a magazine disconnect.
4. Glocks suffer more "kabooms" than other handguns.
Glocks do have a light trigger. If they are in good repair, they don't go off when dropped, when racking the slide, or when the trigger is not pulled. The standard-weight trigger is 5 to 6 pounds. It can be increased to 8, or 10 to 12 pounds. The light, fast-resetting trigger is, however, one of the reasons Glocks are favored as defense, law enforcement, and combat/defensive style competition handguns. The standard light trigger requires users to practice the basic rules of gun safety and gun storage. Glocks should NEVER be stored loaded when not in use. In use means on or near one's person when used for self-defense. If not in use, storage requires unloading the gun and securing it and its ammunition separately under lock and key. The light trigger makes it much easier for a child or untrained individual who has access to the gun to experience a negligent discharge when handling the weapon.
A negligently stored 12 pound pull revolver might be harder for some children to shoot unintentionally, while the sight of the cartridges in the cylinder might give some adults pause. A Glock, by contrast, allows for no mistakes. Quite honestly, no gun does and all of them require proper storage, but guns with heavier triggers and more complex manual safeties are more forgiving because they do some of the operator's thinking for him or her. After all, that is what a safety is intended to do. It stops the user from firing the gun unintentionally, even if the trigger is pulled. The Glock, by contrast, does none of the thinking for the operator.
The Glock's light trigger does not slow down the user. A heavier trigger pull provides a psycho-physical barrier in the form of the greater force required to move through it. This greater force likely reduces the risk of negligent discharge because the user must, on a heavier double-action, both pull a heavy trigger and move the finger across a wider arc. This provides two mental stimuli to the effect of, "Hey, you're pulling the trigger on the gun. Did you mean to do that?"
In contrast, Glocks afford the operator much less of a psycho-physical barrier when pulling the trigger. Civilians and law enforcement alike seem to have more incidents with Glocks than other firearms. This is not primarily due to some danger inherent to the Glock's design. Rather, it's a function of probability. The sheer numbers of Glocks sold mean that there are many Glocks out there. Their low price, high availability, and iconic status mean that many new shooters acquire them, often as a first gun. If they don't know what they're doing and don't keep their fingers off of the triggers, the guns will fire. This is not the fault of the gun, which is doing what it was designed to do. This is the fault of the inexperienced operators.
The fact that the Glock is often used in dangerous, stressful encounters and fast shooting sports (and the fact that it is perceived as ideal for these activities) also means that it is more likely to be used at the edge of the operator's envelope of performance. The Glock shooter may therefore experience a disproportionate number of negligent discharges when compared to those experienced with guns used in other, slower, less stressful activities, or when compared to firearms that make it more difficult for the operator to fire the gun. This added difficulty also inhibits the gun's operator from deploying the weapon quickly and possibly as accurately (without much more training).
You can search the Internet to find negligent discharge stories. It only takes a few minutes on GlockTalk.com to find the DEA agent shooting himself in the leg or stories and questions from inexperienced shooters who really require the NRA basic pistol course. Despite all of this, Glocks are not unsafe. They don't go off when in proper condition unless the trigger is pulled. Hence, the first four rules of gun safety again are being ignored. Keep your finger off of the trigger!
As an aside, Glocks are also likely to contribute to the poor state of marksmanship and limited trigger control exhibited by many shooters today. The lack of learning to handle a 10 to 12 pound trigger contributes to poor shooting. The Glock's moderate accuracy discourages the shooter from learning to fire a precision handgun, shooting bull's-eye or some other demanding target sport, therefore diminishing the average shooter's ability and belief in his or her ability to learn to shoot well.
Fans of traditional pistols like the 1911 love to liken the Glock to a cocked and unlocked .45. You wouldn't carry a 1911 in that fashion because of the danger it would entail, so why would you carry a Glock with a round in the chamber? This criticism is specious. Glocks have a manual of arms like that of a revolver, but with one notable exception. The Glock, with its light trigger pull, must be carried in a holster that completely covers the trigger guard. Those who don't cover the trigger guard risk negligent discharges. Those who foolishly use cheap holsters, carry inside-the-waistband and without a holster (Mexican style), or try pocket carry are a negligent discharge waiting to happen. The occasional self-inflicted groin or buttocks wound attests to this. Glock users' propensity to disregard the manual's injunction to always use a [proper] holster contributes to the risk. Those who use gadgets that block the trigger (which are supposed to magically leap free when a firing grip is taken), or who use such a widget in conjunction with a Clip Draw accessory are courting disaster. Law enforcement often criticizes Glocks for lacking a manual safety or magazine disconnect. Again, this is a trade-off made by design.
Glocks are intended to be holstered if not being shot. Holding a suspect at gunpoint was not the primary concern when Gaston Glock designed his Austrian military pistol. A Glock holstered in a proper retention holster provides excellent protection from disarming attempts. However, once the gun is out and a suspect is covered, it is up to the officer, his training, and his physical abilities to secure the gun. In a struggle, there is no means to drop the magazine or engage a safety to avoid having your own gun used against you. Some departments mandate magazine disconnects for this very reason. It is often asserted that Glocks suffer catastrophic explosive failures (kbs, or kabooms) more often than do other guns. You can't search long on the internet before finding a picture or video of an exploded Glock. The question we must ask is what really failed? In nearly all cases of kabooms, the use of poorly reloaded and/or high-pressure ammunition is to blame. Glocks have a loose chamber that promotes feed reliability. As a result, they should not be used with reloads and definitely not with lead ammunition because lead ammo fouls the polygonal barrel and results in higher pressures.
If you look for instances of kabooms, you will find that unlike 1911s (which may shatter their slides and throw metal) and revolvers (whose frames may bend while the exploding weapon throws chunks of cylinder), Glocks that suffer catastrophic explosive failure generally blow downward. This destroys the frame and blows the magazine out, but in lighter calibers at least, the explosion does not result in serious injury. Hand injuries are likely to occur, but for the most part, the "kabooms" are contained. This does not mean they are not very dangerous or potentially deadly. Typically, however, the explosions are the result of bad ammunition or ammunition with pressures that are not within the Glock's specifications. These problems are not inherent to the Glock itself.
Finally, the biggest issue that the Glock faces has nothing to do with the company or the handguns that it manufactures. The biggest safety problem inherent to any Glock is the Glock user. Well-educated and trained gun enthusiasts and police officers love Glocks because they get exactly what they need from them and nothing they do not need. Inexperienced shooters and some poorly trained police in over-stressed situations, however, sometimes push themselves beyond what they can handle. The result is that they discharge their Glocks accidentally, or they use the multiple-shot speed that one can wring from the Glock to use what might be considered excessive force in the public eye.
Inexperienced gun owners may also find that the light trigger, the need to press that trigger before disassembling the Glock, and the ability to fire when the magazine is removed all constitute hazards around the home. Perhaps their maintenance activities or dry firing practice results in executed televisions, bullet holes in the walls, or errant shots that pass into neighbors' apartments. This is negligence at its most egregious. Before pulling the trigger of a firearm for any reason whatsoever, the user must, by habit and painstakingly inculcated ritual, check the chamber, check it again, and then check it once more before checking it again. The gun is not safe for dry firing or maintenance until the user has assured himself multiple times that there is no round in the chamber and no live ammunition anywhere in the vicinity.
The Glock is an excellent weapon that does what it is designed to do very well. It is simple, robust, easy to maintain, and easy to operate. Glock owners, like all firearms owners, must train diligently, obey all the rules of gun safety, and carry their weapons in quality holsters. They must observe the proper handling and manipulation of their weapons with an almost religious fervor. This must be done so that doing things the right way becomes habit, something that is done out of ingrained custom without conscious thought. The same is true of any gun owner, but it is perhaps more so with a weapon as simple as the Glock. There is nothing inherently unsafe about the pistol, but there is nothing artificially safe about it either.
Thanks to our friends at the United States Concealed Carry Association for this article. Want more concealed carry info? Get the Armed American newsletter – it’s free. (http://www.usconcealedcarry.com/awblp/eagle/eagle2.html) ________________________________________
Ed Miller is a firearms enthusiast. His coworker, Phil Elmore, is the publisher of The Martialist: The Magazine for Those Who Fight Unfairly.
________________________________________

Support Starbucks For Supporting the 2nd Amendment!

2010-03-01T14:42:00.000-08:00

All of a sudden I feel like a Grande Non-Fat Suger Free Almond Mocha!

Starbucks: Bring on the guns
By Janis Mara
Contra Costa Times
Posted: 02/05/2010 05:04:57 PM PST

Starbucks has brushed aside a request from a gun control advocacy group to ban the display of guns in its retail locations, saying it will abide by laws that allow patrons to openly carry unloaded weapons.
The national Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence made the request in the wake of a series of meetings in local restaurants over the past few months by Bay Area Open Carry, a group that hopes to make it legal to carry loaded guns in California. Peets Coffee & Tea and California Pizza Kitchen responded to similar requests by banning displays of weapons in the companies' coffeehouses and restaurants.
"Starbucks does not have a corporate policy regarding customers and weapons; we defer to federal, state and local laws and regulations regarding this issue," Starbucks' customer relations department said in response to the Brady Campaign's request.
The head of a local chapter of the Brady Campaign was disappointed by the response.
"I don't want someone who carries a gun into a store to be making life-and-death decisions. I don't think it's safe for them to be there," said Griffin Dix, who leads the Oakland-Alameda County chapter, which has more than 500 members and
other chapters in San Mateo and Contra Costa counties.
The Brady Campaign has sent e-mails to its approximately 180,000 members nationwide suggesting that they e-mail Starbucks asking the coffee giant to create an anti-gun policy.
An active participant in the Bay Area Open Carry chapter hailed Starbucks' approach.
"We definitely applaud Starbucks for allowing law-abiding citizens to defend themselves and we will continue to patronize them as long as they do," said Brad Huffman, who is also a National Rifle Association-certified instructor and member of Bay Area Open Carry, which lists 610 members on its Facebook page.
Huffman said Open Carry advocates often visit Starbucks displaying unloaded weapons, either during formal events or informally. The Antioch chapter of the group has had about six meetings at a Starbucks there, he said. Other meetings have taken place at a Peet's in San Ramon and in Livermore at Panama Red Coffee Co.
Open Carry has a scheduled an event today in Walnut Creek, but has not announced a location.

Olympia Considering End to Department of Fish & Wildlife!

2010-02-25T22:16:00.000-08:00

The NRA Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) just issued this bulletin today regarding the proposed dissolution of the Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife and an absorbtion of their responsibilities into the Washington Department of Natural Resources. This would be devastating to the interests of Hunters, Fishermen, Shooting Sports Enthusiasts and others who enjoy outdoor activities as the WA DNR has repeatedly shown apathy towards the interests of the outdoor oriented public in their policies. Please contact your State Representatives and let them know that you do not support the dissolution of the Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife!

Olympia Considering End to Department of Fish & Wildlife!
Hunters and Sportsmen MUST Contact their Legislators Immediately!
The Senate budget released this week would zero out the Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife (WDFW) budget and transfer all WDFW functions to the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) in a merger of the two agencies. Further, it would reduce by $10.5 million the amount spent on the functions that have been handled by WDFW.
To those involved in the shooting sports, the net result of such a transfer of authority would likely be devastating. Gun owners and sportsmen have been fighting DNR for years with regard to shooting and hunting on DNR land. Leadership in DNR is, at best, indifferent to the interests of sportsmen and, more likely, hostile and antagonistic.
The majority of hunters and sportsmen in Washington State agreed last year to surcharges on their licenses to keep important WDFW functions in place. Every hunting (and fishing) program and every dedicated fund is at risk for reduction or termination. Sportsmen’s support of the department could be wiped out if the Senate Budget is allowed to advance with the merger language in it.
It is critical that hunters and sportsmen contact the members of the Senate Ways & Means Committee immediately! Tell them to OPPOSE THE MERGER OF WDFW INTO DNR! Please leave messages for your Senator and Representatives, as well.
Following are the email addresses for the 22 members of the Senate Ways & Means Committee, including Senator Rodney Tom who is the author of the merger effort:
State Senator Margarita Prentice (Chair) - prentice.margarita@leg.wa.gov
State Senator Karen Fraser (Vice-Chair, Capital Budget) - fraser.karen@leg.wa.gov
State Senator Rodney Tom (Vice Chair, Operating Budget) -tom.rodney@leg.wa.gov
State Senator Joseph Zarelli (Ranking Minority) - zarelli.joseph@leg.wa.gov
State Senator Dale Brandland - brandland.dale@leg.wa.gov
State Senator Mike Carrell - carrell.michael@leg.wa.gov
State Senator Darlene Fairley - fairley.darlene@leg.wa.gov
State Senator Mike Hewitt - hewitt.mike@leg.wa.gov
State Senator Steve Hobbs - hobbs.steve@leg.wa.gov
State Senator Jim Honeyford - honeyford.jim@leg.wa.gov
State Senator Karen Keiser - keiser.karen@leg.wa.gov
State Senator Adam Kline - kline.adam@leg.wa.gov
State Senator Jeanne Kohl-Welles - kohl-welles.jeanne@leg.wa.gov
State Senator Joe McDermott - mcdermott.joe@leg.wa.gov
State Senator Ed Murray - murray.edward@leg.wa.gov
State Senator Eric Oemig - oemig.eric@leg.wa.gov
State Senator Linda Evans Parlette - parlette.linda@leg.wa.gov
State Senator Cheryl Pflug - pflug.cheryl@leg.wa.gov
State Senator Craig Pridemore - pridemore.craig@leg.wa.gov
State Senator Debbie Regala - regala.debbie@leg.wa.gov
State Senator Phil Rockefeller - rockefeller.phil@leg.wa.gov
State Senator Mark Schoesler - schoesler.mark@leg.wa.gov
Your Senator and his or her email address can be found here:
https://dlr.leg.wa.gov/MemberEmail/Default.aspx?Chamber=S
The toll-free Legislative Hotline number for those wanting to leave a phone message for their legislators is (800)562-6000.
Please call and email these legislators immediately! A Ways & Means vote on the Senate Budget with the merger language could occur as early as tomorrow morning.
Source: NRA-ILA http://www.nraila.org

Yet Another Case Demonstrating Why You Need Training If You Are Going To Keep A Firearm For Personal Defense

2010-02-24T22:21:00.000-08:00

This story from the Pensicola area of the Florida Panhandle illustrates an unlawful use of force by residents against newspaper deliverymen who the residents believed to be burglars.

Armed citizens must remember that the use of deadly force is only justified when the person using that force reasonably believes that his/her aggressor is presenting imminent force which could result in the death or serious bodily injury to the armed citizen or a third person.

Mistaken ID: Man, Neighbor Chase Down, Shoot At Newspaper Delivery Men
February 24, 2010
An Escambia man and his neighbor ended up chasing down and shooting at three newspaper delivery men this morning thinking they were actually burglars.
Sgt. Ted Roy, spokesperson for the Escambia County Sheriff’s Office, describes what happened:
“At approximately 3:45 a.m., Escambia Deputies responded to a shots fired disturbance in the 5500 block of Turkey Rd. While en route information was being received that a white vehicle was being chased by a pick up truck and an SUV. When deputies arrived they observed three vehicles running in an open field. Deputies secured the vehicles and then observed several people within the field.
“All parties were secured and the following information obtained from the resident at the Turkey Road address: Douglas Weinberg stated that his wife woke him and stated that she observed someone inside the back yard creeping along the fence. Weinberg stated he armed himself with his black semi-automatic handgun and
exited his residence to see a white colored vehicle exit a side street one house from his. Weinberg stated his neighbors began exiting their residences due to the commotion.
“Weinberg’s neighbor, Jerry Stefani exited his residence with a revolver firearm and observed Weinberg yelling at a white vehicle. Stefani entered his pick up truck, picked up Weinberg and began chasing the white car. Another neighbor had entered his vehicle and tried to follow Weinberg and Stefani.
“Weinberg and Stefani pursued the white car, occupied by three people into an open field on Turkey Rd. The three occupants, later identified Dylan Duffewn (19), David Crittenden (32), and Daniel Hayes (22) got the car stuck in the mud in the open field and fled on foot due to Weinberg and Stefani being armed. Weinberg and Stefani then fired several rounds at the three fleeing occupants and into the air in an attempt to stop them from running into the woods. Victim/Duffewn stopped and laid down out of fear of being shot and the other two continued into the woods. Investigation revealed that Weinberg and Stefani had exited their residences with the above described handguns.
“The three occupants of the white vehicle were actually delivering newspapers for the Pensacola News Journal and were not involved in the attempted burglary at the Weinberg residence and fled only because they observed the two homeowners armed with guns and believed they were about to become the victims of a robbery.
“The actual burglars were not apprehended and left the area in the confusion. The Sheriff’s Office is investigating that case and has developed suspect information.
“Warrant Affidavits have been sent off for judicial review charging both Weinberg and Stefani with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon without intent to kill.”
Source: North Escambia.com http://www.northescambia.com/?p=14917

Even the police are prevented from using deadly force against unarmed fleeing felons who do not pose an imminent serious threat of death or serious bodily injury to the officer or public. This principle is established by the U.S. Supreme Court Case of Tennessee v. Garner.

U.S. Supreme Court
Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)
Tennessee v. Garner
No. 83-1035
Argued October 30, 1984 Decided March 27, 1985*
471 U.S. 1
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
SIXTH CIRCUIT
Summary
A Tennessee statute provides that, if, after a police officer has given notice of an intent to arrest a criminal suspect, the suspect flees or forcibly resists, "the officer may use all the necessary means to effect the arrest." Acting under the authority of this statute, a Memphis police officer shot and killed appellee-respondent Garner's son as, after being told to halt, the son fled over a fence at night in the backyard of a house he was suspected of burglarizing. The officer used deadly force despite being "reasonably sure" the suspect was unarmed and thinking that he was 17 or 18 years old, and of slight build. The father subsequently brought an action in Federal District Court, seeking damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for asserted violations of his son's constitutional rights. The District Court held that the statute and the officer's actions were constitutional. The Court of Appeals reversed.
Held: The Tennessee statute is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the use of deadly force against, as in this case, an apparently unarmed, nondangerous fleeing suspect; such force may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others. Pp. 497 U. S. 7-22.

States Loosening Gun Laws

2010-02-24T15:16:00.000-08:00

This is a step in the right direction. Bear in mind that the New York Times has a political slant, but if you can get past that, there is some encouraging information in the story.

Fearing Obama Agenda, States Push to Loosen Gun Laws
When President Obama took office, gun rights advocates sounded the alarm, warning that he intended to strip them of their arms and ammunition.
And yet the opposite is happening. Mr. Obama has been largely silent on the issue while states are engaged in a new and largely successful push for expanded gun rights, even passing measures that have been rejected in the past.
In Virginia, the General Assembly approved a bill last week that allows people to carry concealed weapons in bars and restaurants that serve alcohol, and the House of Delegates voted to repeal a 17-year-old ban on buying more than one handgun a month. The actions came less than three years after the shootings at Virginia Tech that claimed 33 lives and prompted a major national push for increased gun control.
Arizona and Wyoming lawmakers are considering nearly a half dozen pro-gun measures, including one that would allow residents to carry concealed weapons without a permit. And lawmakers in Montana and Tennessee passed measures last year — the first of their kind — to exempt their states from federal regulation of firearms and ammunition that are made, sold and used in state. Similar bills have been proposed in at least three other states.
In the meantime, gun control advocates say, Mr. Obama has failed to deliver on campaign promises to close a loophole that allows unlicensed dealers at gun shows to sell firearms without background checks; to revive the assault weapons ban; and to push states to release data about guns used in crimes.
He also signed bills last year allowing guns to be carried in national parks and in luggage on Amtrak trains.
“We expected a very different picture at this stage,” said Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, a gun control group that last month issued a report card failing the administration in all seven of the group’s major indicators.
Gun control advocates have had some successes recently, Mr. Helmke said. Proposed bills to allow students to carry guns on college campuses have been blocked in the 20 or so states where they have been proposed since the Virginia Tech shootings. Last year, New Jersey limited gun purchases to one a month, a law similar to the one Virginia may revoke.
But recent setbacks to gun control have been many.

For the rest of the article please see the full New York Times story at the following link http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/24/us/24guns.html?th&emc=th

Washington State Supreme Court Incorporates 2nd Amendment into the 14th Amendment

2010-02-24T15:03:00.000-08:00

I'd have never thought that the Washington State Supreme Court would have declared that the 2nd Amendment is applicable to the states and that it is an individual right that should not be interfered with by the government, but it just happened!

WA Supreme Court: ‘2nd Amendment applies to the states via 14th Amendment due process clause’

February 18, 11:28 AM Seattle Gun Rights Examiner Dave Workman

The Washington State Supreme Court delivered a haymaker to anti-gunners – and strong reinforcement to gun rights advocates – Thursday morning when it handed down an opinion in the case of State v. Sieyes that states bluntly, “We hold the Second Amendment applies to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause.”

The majority opinion, written by Justice Richard B. Sanders, was signed by five other justices including Chief Justice Barbara A. Madsen, with a (sort-of) concurring opinion from Justice Debra L. Stephens that takes issue with the incorporation premise, and a partly-concurring and partly-dissenting opinion from Justice James M. Johnson that argues the majority ruling isn’t strong enough.

Although the issue of incorporation is at the heart of McDonald v. Chicago, the Second Amendment Foundation's case now before the United States Supreme Court for which oral arguments are scheduled March 2, Sanders notes in his majority state-level opinion that even though the high court “did not expressly consider incorporation of the right to bear arms” in the June 2008 Heller ruling, “that need not stop the rest of us.” He maintains that lower courts “need not wait for the Supreme Court” on the question of incorporation. (Read more about the McDonald case here.)

UPDATE: Naturally, the Associated Press story that now appears in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer does not mention any of this. The story merely alludes to the court's rejection of the notion that Sieyes' arrest and conviction violated his constitutional rights.

To read the full article please visit Dave Workmans Column at http://www.examiner.com/x-4525-Seattle-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2010m2d18-WA-Supreme-Court-2nd-Amendment-applies-to-the-states-via-14th-Amendment-due-process-clause

Concealed Firearms Once Again Allowed in National Parks

2010-02-24T14:57:00.000-08:00

This has been battled back and forth in the Courts over the last few years. Hopefully the issue is settled for a while.

New Rule on Guns in Parks Takes Effect February 22
Tuesday, February 09, 2010
On February 22, a new law on guns in national parks takes effect. The law repeals a National Park Service rule that has long prohibited Americans from lawfully possessing firearms in national parks for self-defense.
The new law, passed last spring by an overwhelming bipartisan vote in the U.S. Senate, will allow people to possess, carry and transport firearms in national parks, in accordance with state law.
However, many details remain to be worked out. Reports indicate that National Park Service officials are debating issues such as the definition of “federal facilities,” where firearms will remain prohibited under a different federal law.
NPS officials are expected to issue further information as February 22 approaches, and some parks have already published information on their new policies. Because state laws vary greatly, before you visit a national park, you should check the park’s website or call the park headquarters for more information. NRA will also provide updates as they become available.

Source: NRA-ILA http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=5370

Slow Fire Drill For Tightening Groups

2010-01-31T16:00:00.000-08:00

I found this drill on the website for the college radio station associated with Southern California University of Health Sciences believe it or not!

Freestyle Group Shooting

Teaches: accuracy, ideal sight picture, making every shot count.

Put a 1" target dot on a blank sheet of paper and run it out to 25, 50, 75, or 100 ft--whatever distance stretches your ability to put them in the center when taking your best shot. Load ONLY ONE round into the magazine and cylinder, and make the shot as precise as you can, taking all the time you need. After every shot, step out of your shooting position, collect the brass, or do something else to rest. Put a new target out every 10 shots.

Try to call your shots. If you are perfectly focused on the front sight at the moment the shot breaks, you will be able to tell if the shot was high, low, or off to the side. Wherever the sight is when it lifts, that's the direction the shot will go.

Handle the gun exactly as you would for more aggressive shooting--loading the gun with the proper procedure and shooting from your normal stance. Pay attention to how your stance and grip feel to you; slow, careful shooting can show you where unwanted tension is coming from. If you feel tired, take a break.

You can measure your groups with a ruler or caliper. Date and file your best target to see how your shooting changes over a period of months or years.

Supreme Court Allows NRA To Argue on McDonald vs. Chicago

2010-01-31T14:49:00.000-08:00

Just got this update on McDonald vs. Chicago from the NRA-ILA. It's not a certainty that they Supreme Court is going to incorporate the 2nd Amendment into the 14th Amendment, but this is a good sign.

NRA-ILA GRASSROOTS ALERT
Vol. 17, No. 4 01/29/10
U.S. Supreme Court Grants NRA Motion
For Divided Argument In McDonald
v. City of Chicago

On Monday, January 25, the U.S.Supreme Court granted NRA's motion to allow it to participate in the upcoming oral argument in McDonald v. City of Chicago. We are pleased with the Court's decision to grant our motion," said NRA ILA Executive Director Chris W. Cox.

"NRA's solitary goal in McDonald is to ensure that our fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms applies to every law-abiding American in every state. We are hopeful that the Court will share our view that the Framers
of the Fourteenth Amendment clearly intended to apply the Second Amendment to the states."

Last September, the Court agreed to consider the case, on appeal from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. That court incorrectly claimed that prior Supreme Court precedent prevented it from holding in favor of incorporation of the Second Amendment. NRA believes the Seventh Circuit should have followed the lead of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' decision in Nordyke v. King, which found that Supreme Court precedent does not prevent the Second Amendment from applying to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. As a party in McDonald, NRA looks forward to participating in the upcoming oral argument.

Massive Turnout Against WA SB6396 At Judiciary Committee Hearing

2010-01-27T10:34:00.000-08:00

There was a great turn out at the Washington State Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing regarding SB6396 “Banning the Sale of Assault Weapons”. A post by “Phil_In_Seattle”, the moderator for the AR15.com Washington Hometown Forum brings us the following message from Joe Waldron of the Washington Arms Collectors and the Gun Owners Action League:

I just finished scanning the sign-in sheets on the bill.

313 signed in

14 signed "pro" (yes) on the bill
299 signed "con" (no) on the bill.

Actually, it was 11 "yes" and three blank, but they were in a bunch, all
from Ceasefire, so I gave them the benefit of the doubt.

Congratulations to Washington gun owners on a fine turnout! It doesn't
quite beat the count for the gun show bill three years ago (SB 5197),
but it was close!!!

Some signatures of interest:

One WASPC rep signing "con"

A couple each of "open carry" and "militia" "con"

Two "bicycle club" members signing "pro"

Several signers listed various gun clubs

Don't Be Lulled By Press Reports On Poor Chances for WA Gun Ban Bill

2010-01-26T13:29:00.000-08:00

As I have stated in the past, we cannot be complacent about protecting our gun rights. A hearing on SB6396 was held in Olympia today and from what I saw over the internet feed, it was quite clear that Senator Kline is set on seeing this Bill become law. Senator Pam Roach did a great job of standing up for our firearms rights, but we must each stand up as well and let our houses of legislature know that the public does not support measures such as this which limit the rights of law abiding citizens while doing nothing to prevent criminal activity.

Press Sounding ‘Taps’ Over Kline Legislation, Hearing Turnout Could Cinch Bill’s Demise

By Dave Workman

Although the press corps is already sounding Taps over Senate Bill 6396, which would ban the future sale of so-called “assault weapons” and heavily regulate those already in private possession, gun owners are planning a strong turnout in Olympia Tuesday morning for a hearing on the measure.

They want to “send a message” to the bill’s sponsors – State Senators Adam Kline(37th District), Jeanne Kohls-Welles (36th District), Darlene Fairley (32nd District) and Joe McDermott (34th District) – and their colleagues that banning guns in the Evergreen State is an idea that simply will gain no traction among gun rights voters.

Backers of the bill have been practicing graveside politics to push the measure. The slayings of five police officers – four at the Parkland massacre and one in Seattle – and a Pierce County deputy sheriff have been fully exploited by Washington CeaseFire and the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

Ralph Fascitelli, CeaseFire president, was spouting alarmist rhetoric in an Associated Press story over the weekend about the eight officers who were shot last year, arguing that this is not enough "to confront gun violence in the state." He doesn't trust people with firearms, judging from his remarks.Gun owners are an "angry" lot, facing a repressed economy, he argues.

Ralph is being a bit disingenuous. Five of the officers were killed with handguns, which are not covered by Kline's bill. Only Seattle officer Timothy Brenton was killed with a rifle, a .223-caliber semiautomatic from Kel Tec that even the manufacturer notes is not a "military style" rifle. It's a sporter carbine, period.

Read more at the Seattle Gun Rights Examiner

Utah CFP Course Gains Popularity!

2010-01-26T00:23:00.000-08:00

I just spent the last couple of days in Western Washington delivering my Utah Concealed Firearm Permit Weapons Familiarity Course. I was lucky enough to have a couple of firearms bloggers from the "Wet Side" attend my course and here is what they had to say!

From the "Liberty & Freedom For All Blog"

Recommended: Utah CFP Class January 24th, 2010
Today I had the pleasure of spending 4 hours in a classroom with a few of my fellow GunBloggers — D.W.Drang from The ClueMeter, Phil and Scott from Random Nuclear Strikes and I attended Shawn Mahood’s Utah CFP Class. Utah is one of the most pro-2nd Amendment states in the country. They have worked hard to make their Concealed Firearm License accepted by as many states as possible (33 states recognize Utah resident permits, several of these will not honor a non-resident permit). The requirements for a non-resident Utah permit are that you need to take a class from an instructor certified by Utah, and be able to pass a background check. If you have a WA CPL then you should have no problems obtaining a Utah permit.

In the interest of full disclosure, not because the .gov tells me to but because its only fair to those reading, I won the chance to attend this class for free. I have attempted to make sure that did not affect my opinion of the class.

The class was held at the Federal Way Wholesale Sports location, we had about 12 people in the class with varying backgrounds. Several were former military, some were former cops and the rest were normal folks like me. Mr. Mahood was an excellent speaker, easy to understand, dynamic and interesting to listen to. The class covered a wide range of subjects from the 4 rules, to firearms nomenclature to detailed Utah laws covering the use of deadly force. The material could be a bit dry at times, but Shawn did an good job of holding my interest and I didn’t find myself looking at the clock once. We took breaks every hour and spent some time getting to know our fellow classmates, including one guy who was present at the Tacoma Mall shooting.

I highly recommend this class for anyone interested in being able to exercise their rights in as many states as possible. I plan on doing some camping next summer and this will come in handy for those western states that don’t recognize my Washington CPL. Shawn’s company is also running a NRA Basic Pistol and WA Concealed Carry Basics classes in February. Check his website for details.

Once you have completed the class and received the stamp on your application you have 1 year to submit it to Utah along with a passport photo, a fingerprint card, copy of your driver’s license and $65.25. They are supposed to process them within 60 days, but because of the popularity they are running at about 65 days or longer. Once you have your permit you can then legally carry in states that recognize non-resident Utah permits. You can use sites like Carry Concealed as a guide to which states recognize your new permit — but you really need to verify directly with the state, as well as familiarize yourself with that state’s laws. Internet sites are not always up to date. For example Nevada no longer recognizes the Utah permit, but Nebraska now does.

I tried to find something about the class to complain about. The only thing I can come up with is that it would have been nice to have some extra time for more ad-hoc discussions. I’d like to thank Shawn for the chance to take his class. I encourage you to tell your friends and family about this excellent resource that we have available to us.

Blogger Phil from The "Random Nuclear Strikes Blog" says that the Fortis Security Utah CFP Course is "Worth Every Penny."

"The Clue Meter Blog" simply states "Bottom line: Worth it."

Our next Western Washington Utah CFP Course is scheduled for the Federal Way Wholesale Sports on February 13th from 2pm - 6pm.

Also, don't miss our inaugural Washington Concealed Carry Basics Course scheduled for February 27 - 28 at the North Central Washington Gun Club in East Wenatchee. This class is essential for Concealed Carry Practioners in Washington State!

Call 509-884-8927 for Registration!

Dot Torture Training Drill

2010-01-15T21:10:00.000-08:00

Here's a great training drill from Pistol-Training.com. When you first start shooting this drill you are only 3 yards away, which doesn't sound like a lot until you actually shoot it. This is a great drill for polishing up your fundimentals and working on your breath and trigger control.

Dot Torture
This is a great marksmanship drill that came from David Blinder at personaldefensetraining.com.

Start at 3 yards. You have to get all 50 hits to pass. Once you can shoot the whole drill without a single miss, either increase the distance or add time pressure. For instance, try to finish the entire drill in under 5 minutes while maintaining 100% accuracy.
(click here to bring up the full-size version which you can then print out)
Dot 1 – Draw and fire one string of 5 rounds for best group. One hole if possible, total 5 rounds.
Dot 2 – Draw and fire 1 shot, holster and repeat X4, total 5 rounds.
Dots 3 & 4 – Draw and fire 1 shot on #3, then 1 shot on #4, holster and repeat X3, total 8 rounds.
Dot 5 – Draw and fire string of 5 rounds, strong hand only, total 5 rounds.
Dots 6 & 7 – Draw and fire 2 shots on #6, then 2 on #7, holster, repeat X4, total 16 rounds.
Dot 8 – From ready or retention, fire five shots, weak hand only, total 5 rounds.
Dots 9 & 10 – Draw and fire 1 shot on #9, speed reload, fire 1 shot on #10, holster and repeat X3, total 6 rounds.
Training with firearms is an inherently dangerous activity. Be sure to follow all safety protocols when using firearms or practicing these drills. These drills are provided for information purposes only. Use at your own risk.

Form Letter Opposing SB 6396

2010-01-15T09:33:00.000-08:00

I found this form letter on the "Oppose SB 9369" Facebook page and thought I would post it up for my readers. You can find the contact information for your State legislators here.

Dear (INSERT YOUR LEGISLATOR HERE),

I am writing to express my opposition to SB 6396, "Banning the sale of assault
weapons."

Should it become law, this bill is unlikely to prevent any crimes. It would, however, severely impact your law-abiding constituents' exercise of their right to bear arms under both the United States and Washington State Constitutions.

This alone should be sufficient justification to vehemently oppose SB 6396.

The bill's provision for warrantless searches (section (5)(a)), however, is simply breathtaking in its reckless disregard for our traditions of freedom, and hopefully provides you with even firmer grounds for opposition. The very idea of forcing law-abiding citizens to arbitrarily open their homes to State police powers is repugnant and alarming.

I sincerely I hope that I can count on you uphold liberty by standing in opposition to this irresponsible bill.

Sincerely,
(me)
(my address)

It would also be beneficial to contact the members of the Judiciary Committee and urge the bill defeat before it is allowed to reach the floor of the Senate. Contact information for the members of the Judiciary Committee may be found below, however, be advised that Senator Adam Kline and Jeanne Kohls-Welles are primary sponsors of the legislation.

Senator Adam Kline (D-37^th Dist)
kline.adam@leg.wa.gov
223 John A. Cherberg Building
PO Box 40437
Olympia, WA 98504-0437
(360) 786-7688
Fax: (360) 786-1999

Senator Debbie Regala (D-27^th Dist)
regala.debbie@leg.wa.gov
233 John A. Cherberg Building
PO Box 40427
Olympia, WA 98504-0427
(360) 786-7652
Fax: (360) 786-1999

Senator Bob McCaslin (R-4^th Dist)
mccaslin.bob@leg.wa.gov
112 Irv Newhouse Building
PO Box 40404
Olympia, WA 98504-0404
(360) 786-7606
Fax: (360) 786-1999

Senator Mike Carrell (R-28^th Dist)
carrell.michael@leg.wa.gov
102 Irv Newhouse Building
PO Box 40428
Olympia, WA 98504-0428
(360) 786-7654
Fax: (360) 786-7819

Senator Randy Gordon (D-41^st Dist)
gordon.randy@leg.wa.gov
409 Legislative Building
PO Box 40441
Olympia, WA 98504-0441
(360) 786-7641

Senator James Hargrove (D-24^th Dist)
hargrove.jim@leg.wa.gov
411 Legislative Building
PO Box 40424
Olympia, WA 98504-0424
(360) 786-7646
Fax: (360) 786-1323

Senator Jeanne Kohl-Welles (D-36^th Dist)
kohl-welles.jeanne@leg.wa.gov 219 John A. Cherberg Building
PO Box 40436
Olympia, WA 98504-0436
(360) 786-7670
Fax: (360) 786-1999

Senator Pam Roach (R-31^st Dist)
roach.pam@leg.wa.gov
202 Irv Newhouse Building
PO Box 40431
Olympia, WA 98504-0431
(360) 786-7660
Fax: (360) 786-7173

Stop the Proposed WA State Assault Weapon Ban

2010-01-14T15:02:00.000-08:00

Anti-gun Democrats from Western Washington have proposed SB6396 "A Bill Relating to Banning the Sale of Assault Weapons" this week. All gun owners and freedom loving citizens of the State of Washington need to contact their legislators to voice their opposition to this inherently flawed and unconstitutional piece of legislation.

Washington citizens can find the contact information for their legislators at the following url: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/DistrictFinder/Default.aspx

Here is the bulletin that the NRA Institute for Legislative Action disseminated.

11250 Waples Mill Road · Fairfax, Virginia 22030
1·800-392-8683

Washington: “Assault Weapons” Ban Proposed in Olympia!

Wednesday, January 13, 2010

Please Stand-Up and Make Your Voices Heard!

A group of four State Senators has introduced Senate Bill 6396, legislation that would bring California-style gun-control to the Northwest and ultimately ban many semi-automatic firearms commonly owned by Washingtonians.

This legislation would establish far-reaching restrictions on semi-automatic firearms (dubbing them "assault weapons") and ammunition magazines. SB6396 affects every firearm modified to conform with the now-extinct Clinton Gun-Ban plus many other semi-automatic firearms that have no lineage to those rifles or any military-style orientation whatsoever.

Like the failed Clinton Gun-Ban that sunset in 2004, this bill is about demonizing certain firearms based on how they look, not about crime fighting. This gun ban scheme will only punish law-abiding citizens and will do nothing to curb crime or keep criminals from obtaining firearms illegally. This is simply another attack on our Second Amendment rights in Washington State.

Please contact both of your State Representatives and your State Senator TODAY at 800-562-6000 and politely urge them to oppose SB6396. More contact information for your legislators can be found here.

Find this item at: http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=5293

2010-01-12T22:47:00.000-08:00

It's nice to see an elected official who understands and respects the rights of the people that they have been chosen to serve. I would like to publically thank Sheriff Harum for taking this stand for common sense and the rights of the average law abiding American.

Sheriff:
Gun law changes will not prevent officer killings
By Dee Riggs
World staff writer
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
WENATCHEE — Maurice Clemmons, who gunned down four Lakewood police officers Nov. 29, was an evil man and no changes in gun laws are going to prevent murders like he committed.
That is a conclusion that Chelan County Sheriff Mike Harum said he came to while serving on a panel of law enforcement officers looking into the shootings. He was appointed by Gov. Chris Gregoire to a panel that was asked to determine if changes in state laws might have prevented the murders, or if any changes could prevent similar murders in the future.
“Our fear was that if a legislator has a knee-jerk reaction to this whole
incident, he might come up with something that we would not be able to work with as a community,” Harum said.
The panel met Dec. 29 in Olympia. Harum was the only law enforcement officer from North Central Washington on the eight-member panel.
Harum said he has heard rumors that some legislators want to ban assault weapons and others want to require that all guns be registered.
“Maurice Clemmons violated many firearms laws before he murdered the officers, so it seems rather dubious to argue additional laws might have prevented this tragedy,” Harum said.
He noted that the gun Clemmons used in the murder was stolen, and that he
stole a gun from a police officer during the shooting rampage.
“If people talk about registering every firearm in the state of Washington, that’s going to put a tremendous burden on law enforcement, and won’t do anything to solve the problem,” Harum said, noting criminals will continue to get their weapons illegally.
Harum called Clemmons “a very evil person” and said, “You have to put total responsibility on him for what he did. ... Even if we had a state of the art system, it would not have prevented him from killing.”
Maurice Clemmons was under supervision by the state Department of Corrections when authorities say he shot and killed four Lakewood officers at a coffee shop before the start of their shifts. Clemmons was shot and killed by police after a two-day manhunt.
His parole from Arkansas had been transferred to Washington state, where he was living at the time of the murders.
Harum said the members of the review panel agreed with him that any changes in the system would not have prevented the killings. He summarized other panel observations:
• Since very few criminals engage in violent crime early on, all who go
through the criminal justice system must be held accountable for minor
violations.
• The state should require mental health screenings before accepting
prisoners from out of state for community custody.
• Police chiefs and sheriffs must have more discretion in denying concealed pistol licenses to mentally ill people.
• Legislation should be considered to hold those who knowingly provide
firearms illegally more accountable for their actions.

Some People Are Just Evil

2010-01-08T22:10:00.000-08:00

When I was 20 or 21 years old, I was sitting in one of my Criminal Justice classes at the small university in Eastern Washington State which I attended. We were in the midst of a discussion of criminal intent and why people commit crime when after several politically correct answers from the pre-law folks, my no-nonsense professor exclaimed "Some people are just $%#&*+@ evil!" At the time it seemed to be a fairly obvious declaration. But as the years have passed I have begun to think that perhaps it was more profound than I first realized.

I had seen this phenomena before, but in late November and early December of 2009 when the headlines were filled with stories of the heinous, calculated murder of 4 Lakewood, WA Police Officers by Maurice Clemmons, a violent career felon, I noticed something. None of the mainstream media, including my beloved Fox News, were characterizing Clemmons as an evil man. They were all interviewing psychologists who professed to be able to describe and diagnose his mental ailments. They all spoke of how this could have possibly been avoided if Clemmons had received proper treatment and maybe the pharmaceutical of the week. Not one mention of the philosophy of my former Criminal Justice Professor that postulated that "Some people are just #$%&*!@ evil!"

During my tenure as a Reserve Police Officer and especially as an Armed Security Officer at the Seattle Field Division of the FBI, I had many occasions to come into contact with those who were violent because they were evil and those who were violent because they were mentally ill. There is a world of difference and I believe that due to the cold, precalulated manner in which Clemmons assassinated Mark Renninger, Ronald Owens, Tina Griswold and Greg Richards, that Clemmons is indeed an evil man and knew exactly what he was doing.

The truely evil act in a cold and calculated manner. They plan their attack and carefully choose their victim. The mentally ill on the other hand are irrational, impulsive and unpredictable. You may have dealt with this person 100 times before and never had a problem with them other that hoping that they would stop talking about the satellites that were tracking them so that you could go get a cup of coffee, then the next moment they grab your partner and try to drag him into the street. After one notable melee in the lobby of the FBI office, I actually ended up having to draw my firearm, reholster and then deploy pepperfoam. After the altercation when the suspect had been subdued, he told us that if we would have only taken the microchips out of his skull, none of this would have been necessary.

It is my belief that society is beginning to characterize all violent criminals as mentally ill for political reasons. If the person is mentally ill, the act wasn't really his fault. The logic would follow that just as you can't blame a person for having cancer, you can't blame a person for having paranoid schizophrenia with aural and visual hallucinations. It's all part of the new mentality that people are not responsible for their own actions.

That lecture still sticks with me, some people are just evil.

This is why I choose to carry a firearm for the protection of myself and my family. This is why I train and practice with my firearm of choice. This is why I follow the Cooper Color Codes of Situational Awareness when I am in public.

You may have heard the phrase "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away." This may sound like rhetoric, but it is true as is demonstrated in this audio clip of an incident in which a woman was forced to shoot a stalker who had broken into her home. At one point, you hear the woman desperately pleading for assistance from the police. The dispatcher tells the woman "Ma'am, it's only been two minutes, they're on their way." I shudder to think of what would have happened to that woman if she had not taken the initiative to be responsible for her own self defense.

In 2005 the US Supreme Court Ruled that the police have no Constitutional duty to protect individual citizens. The decision, with an opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia and dissents from Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, overturned a ruling by a federal appeals court in Colorado. The appeals court had permitted a lawsuit to proceed against a Colorado town, Castle Rock, for the failure of the police to respond to a woman's pleas for help after her estranged husband violated a protective order by kidnapping their three young daughters, whom he eventually killed.

For hours on the night of June 22, 1999, Jessica Gonzales tried to get the Castle Rock police to find and arrest her estranged husband, Simon Gonzales, who was under a court order to stay 100 yards away from the house. He had taken the children, ages 7, 9 and 10, as they played outside, and he later called his wife to tell her that he had the girls at an amusement park in Denver.

Ms. Gonzales conveyed the information to the police, but they failed to act before Mr. Gonzales arrived at the police station hours later, firing a gun, with the bodies of the girls in the back of his truck. The police killed him at the scene.

The theory of the lawsuit Ms. Gonzales filed in federal district court in Denver was that Colorado law had given her an enforceable right to protection by instructing the police, on the court order, that "you shall arrest" or issue a warrant for the arrest of a violator. She argued that the order gave her a "property interest" within the meaning of the 14th Amendment's due process guarantee, which prohibits the deprivation of property without due process.

The district court and a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit dismissed the suit, but the full appeals court reinstated it and the town appealed. The Supreme Court's precedents made the appellate ruling a challenging one for Ms. Gonzales and her lawyers to sustain.

This case proves the rhetorical statement that "when seconds count, the police are minutes away."

Great Article on Holsters by Patrick Sweeney

2010-01-08T11:46:00.000-08:00

I thought this was a great article on the need for a good holster by Patrick Sweeney, Staff Writer for Guns & Ammo.

Rigged for Wear
CCW sense: Think holsters are unnecessary, inconvenient or uncool? Think again.
By Patrick Sweeney 11-17-09

A firearm for self-defense is not a magic talisman, nor some esoteric piece of anti-virus software. It's a tool, and like any tool, you have to have it on your person in order for it to be at all useful in an emergency. And then, of course, you have to be able to get to it to actually use it. Here are a few instances, a few mental images, to get you in the mood:

Detroit, mid-1980s: A man walks up to the counter at a fast-food restaurant, and on the last step, as he's lifting his hand to point and speak his order, a handgun slings out of his pants cuff, hits the floor, skids to the counter and stops with a clunk. He quickly picks it up, and as he's stuffing it back in his belt, he mumbles a "sorry" and hurries out.

Near Chicago, early 2000s: An off-duty police officer is in the freshly refurbished departmental ready room when his pistol slips. He grabs at it, hits the trigger and fires a shot into the newly carpeted floor.

A couple of years later, New York: A celebrity club-goer feels his pistol slipping, grabs at it, and it discharges; he's wounded in the leg.

Within the last year: An experienced gun owner bends over; his handgun falls, hits the floor and discharges, striking him.

I watched the first incident, was a few hours away from the second and was time zones away from the latter two. Injuries? In the first incident, the gun owner left before he could be arrested.

The second? The officer received a letter of reprimand in his file and had to pay for the reweave repair on the carpeting. The third incident cost the owner his freedom for a number of years and cut short a multi-million dollar career. In the last one the owner died.

What did all these situations have in common? Simple. None of them--not one--involved a holster.

Why is the 2nd Amendment Any Less Important Than The 1st?

2010-01-05T20:45:00.000-08:00

This is an amazing editorial that I found in yesterday's Wall Street Journal. I've made this very arguement on a number of occassions. Although, I will admit that Mr. Root is much more eloquent about the issue than I have been.

Laboratories of Repression
We don't let the states "experiment" on the First Amendment. Should the Second Amendment receive any less respect?
By DAMON W. ROOT
In 1932, progressive Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis penned one of the most famous passages in American jurisprudence. "It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system," Brandeis wrote in his dissent in New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann, "that a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory, and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country."
Since then, Brandeis' famous words have been quoted or referenced countless times, appearing everywhere from legal documents to campaign speeches. Most recently, they surfaced in the arguments leading up to the landmark Second Amendment case McDonald v. Chicago, which the Supreme Court is set to hear in early March 2010.
At issue in the case is Chicago's draconian handgun ban, a restriction that largely mirrors the gun control law struck down last year by the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller. The key difference is that Heller only decided whether the Second Amendment secures an individual right against infringement by the federal government (which oversees Washington, D.C.). McDonald will settle whether the amendment's right to keep and bear arms applies against state and local governments as well.
That's where Brandeis comes in. In Chicago's view, the Second Amendment should have no impact on its vast gun control regime. As the city has argued to the Court, "Firearms regulation is a quintessential issue on which state and local governments can 'serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.'" Thus, Chicago claims it should enjoy "the greatest flexibility to create and enforce firearms policy."
That certainly sounds like a classic case for federalism and the states as laboratories of democratic experimentation. But look a little closer and Brandeis' celebrated words start to lose some of their shine. The issue that confronted the Supreme Court in New State Ice Co. was a 1925 Oklahoma law granting a handful of companies the exclusive authority to manufacture, sell, and distribute ice. Under the law, anyone that wanted to enter the ice business had to first justify their plans by providing "competent testimony and proof showing the necessity for the manufacture, sale or distribution of ice" at all proposed locations. In other words, upstart ice vendors faced the nearly impossible task of securing the state's permission to compete against a state-sanctioned ice monopoly.
That's the "courageous" experiment Brandeis got so misty about. What precisely was so "novel" about a business currying favor with the government in order to suppress competition? That's one of the oldest tricks in the book. Besides, as the great classical liberal Justice George Sutherland declared in his majority opinion striking down the Oklahoma ice monopoly, "in our constitutional system...there are certain essentials of liberty with which the state is not entitled to dispense in the interests of experiments."
Quite so. In fact, Brandeis himself occasionally shared this skeptical view of state power—at least when it came to state "experiments" on the First Amendment. Just one year earlier, in the case of Near v. Minnesota, Brandeis joined the Court in striking down that state's defamation law as a violation of the freedom of the press. So much for allowing a "courageous" state the free rein to experiment.
It was Sutherland's majority opinion in New State Ice Co.—not Brandeis' famous dissent—that got it right. "In [Near v. Minnesota] the theory of experimentation in censorship was not permitted to interfere with the fundamental doctrine of the freedom of the press," Sutherland wrote. "The opportunity to apply one's labor and skill in an ordinary occupation with proper regard for all reasonable regulations is no less entitled to protection."
Which brings us back to the Chicago gun case. The Windy City would like to "serve as a laboratory" with the "flexibility" to ignore the Second Amendment. But there's nothing "novel" about that. It's just another case of the government violating our rights. And since the Supreme Court would never let Chicago ban free speech, establish an official religion, or conduct other "experiments" on the First Amendment, why should the Second Amendment receive any less respect?
It's time for the Supreme Court to give the entire Bill of Rights its due.
Damon W. Root is an associate editor at Reason magazine.

Yet Another Attack On A "Gun Free Zone"

2010-01-05T00:06:00.000-08:00

The Anti-Gun Lobby tells us that removing guns from society will prevent violent crime. If that is the case, then why do these sort of attacks always occur at "Gun Free Zones"?

Las Vegas Gunman Upset Over Social Security Benefits
A gunman upset over losing his Social Security benefits case, opened fire in the lobby of a federal building in downtown Las Vegas on Monday, killing a court officer and wounding a deputy U.S. marshal before he was shot to death.

Two officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, because they were not authorized to discuss the case, identified the shooter as Johnny Lee Wicks to the Associated Press.
While an investigation is under way, the officials say the early evidence points to the man's anger over his benefits as motive for the shooting.
Court records shoe Wicks sued the Social security Administration in 2008, but the case was thrown out and formally closed in September 2009.

Online AR-15 & 1911 Builder

2010-01-04T21:58:00.000-08:00

Do you have a dream AR-15 or 1911 build rattling around in your head that you would like to be able to visualize? There are two online tools that can help you do just that!

Brownell's AR-15 Builder

Sniper World 1911 Builder

Open Carry vs. Concealed Carry

2010-01-04T19:47:00.000-08:00

Sometimes I take my level of knowledge of the subject and practice of the shooting sports for granted. This was made evident during one of my recent Utah Concealed Firearm Permit courses when, after espousing my opinion that open carry should not be practiced, one of my students asked "what's open carry". I had taken for granted that everyone knows about the debate between those who advocate openly carrying a handgun versus those of us who advocate assuring that a handgun carried for personal defense be concealed.

I personally advocate the "concealed means concealed" school of thought for a variety of reasons. Living in the State of Washington, there are a great number of people who are either afraid or ignorant of firearms. Open carry could cause these people alarm resulting in them making a public disturbance. Also, if you are in close proximity to an armed bad guy, you have abdicated your tactical advantage.

I take exception with the assertion of the author that many advocate concealed carry over open carry out of a sense of fear or a desire to avoid confrontation with those who have anti-gun views. I don't care to immeadiately surrender my tactical advantage. Perhaps, you have heard the metaphore comparing armed citizens to the noble sheepdog. If you look at this metaphore, the reason that the sheepdog is able to protect the flock from the wolves is that he bears enough resemblance to the sheep to not cause them alarm, while at the same time obscuring himself from the constant surveillance of the wolves. The wolves being unable to distinguish the sheepdog from the sheep at a distance. With open carry, you make yourself look like a wolf to the flock of sheep and to the farmer (police) as well. To the wolves, you just look like the first target that must be dispatched before commencing the attack on the flock.

OPEN CARRY VS. CONCEALED CARRY
Revision 1.20

Written By: Garry E. Harvey
Contributing Editors: OpenCarry.org Members

The purpose of this paper is to examine the two competing points of view within the handgun carry community and consider each one for its merits, both good and bad, from a common sense and logical point of view.
INTRODUCTION

"AN ARMED SOCIETY IS A POLITE SOCIETY"
Weapons and firearms in particular have been personified by many in recent decades as being evil and able to impart that evil into anyone who chooses to wield the weapon. In the anti-gun community the only ones who appear to be immune from the gun's evil are those acting under the authority of government. It has been ingrained into the minds of millions that ordinary citizens cannot and should not be trusted with the ability to use firearms for protection much less carry them into the public. Anyone who advocates such action is labeled evil, dangerous, or a vigilante. This line of thinking appears to be slowly eroding away as evidenced by the fall of the once prominent and powerful anti-gun lobby. The number of people choosing to carry a weapon for self protection has been growing steadily since the first laws were enacted. The cry of anarchy and blood running in the streets by the anti-gun lobby has proven false. As this has become more and more apparent, no thanks to the main stream media, the average citizen is beginning to change their minds over the issue. Criminals in an armed society know that their actions may garner them instant peril of death should they choose the wrong victim. That old saying still proves to be as true as it ever was, "An armed society is a polite society."
Carrying a pistol has been a part of my daily routine for going on four years. During that time I've taken almost every opportunity to speak with people from each end of the spectrum regarding the issue. Before I ever received my permit I remember part of a conversation I had with a party advocate for the Al Gore campaign in early 2000. Among the issues I posed to her during our conversation was that of Mr. Gore's support of gun control measures. She scoffed at me and snobbishly remarked that we didn't live in the Wild West. At the time I was not as well versed in the issue as I am now and really had no response although with her status I would have had more luck convincing a fence post otherwise. Over the next seven years I made it a point to broach the topic every chance I had with whoever I thought might have an interesting opinion on the matter. I researched the writing of the founding fathers and their predecessors with fervor. I studied the history of gun-control in America from the civil war forward, the rise of anti-gun organizations and those pro-gun organizations who rose in opposition to defend the constitution. Having made my decision as to which side I was on I was surprised at the sometimes hateful opposition to carrying a firearm openly by members of the pro-gun rights community. It is for this reason I have undertaken to write this for everyone within that community. Before I delve into specifics let me state firstly that how one chooses to carry their weapon is their own choice and should not be subjected to harassment from others who disagree with that choice. My purpose is not to hold one method above the other but rather detail the benefits of both and leave it to the reader to decide for his or herself which they prefer.
CONCEALED CARRY

THE ELEMENT OF SURPRISE
The most prominent reason given by proponents of carrying concealed is the element of surprise. There are many hypothetical situations which have been posed to prove this point but they all boil down to the CRIMINAL not being aware of the ARMED CITIZEN as anymore of a threat than the UNARMED CITIZEN. The result is that the ARMED CITIZEN may reserve the option to use deadly force until the situation is favorable or not, should the threat cease.
What are the negatives associated with this logic and why is it not perfect in all situations? Well, one must first assume they will not be the sole primary target but rather a third party or in a group setting. The element of surprise is quickly rendered null once you are at knife or gunpoint with nothing to distract your attacker. Assuming the attacker becomes distracted sufficiently enough to attempt a weapon draw the victim must consider the risk and added time needed to draw from a concealed location. If all factors are not in the victims favor then the attacker is likely to win as his weapon was already in the ready position.
Another reason given for favoring concealed carry is the fear or perceived risk of the weapon being taken by the CRIMINAL. In one of two versions the CRIMINAL takes the weapon after it has been drawn from the holster and pointed at him. This is commonly shown in movies where the CRIMINAL takes the gun as the ARMED CITIZEN is too afraid to shoot. Unless the attacker is suicidal or the firearm is incapable of firing for some reason, expect to see this situation stay in the movies. The second of the two concerns the CRIMINAL successfully taking the weapon from the holster before the ARMED CITIZEN can react. This has happened to police officers and so it could happen to the ARMED CITIZEN as well but consider this following difference. In all but a minority of cases, the CRIMINAL took the officer's weapon once being confronted by the officer or while being placed under arrest. The act was one of desperation as the reward of escape outweighed the risk of taking the weapon from the officer. Assuming the weapon is properly holstered in a professional manner, the ARMED CITIZEN would only pose a threat to the CRIMINAL within a self-defense situation; the risk to the CRIMINAL would be overwhelming in attempting to steal the weapon as this act would trigger the self defense reaction from the ARMED CITIZEN.
Another less logical reason for not carrying openly is that one does not want to appear to be "looking for trouble." This line of thought seems to have evolved from the anti-gun accusation that everyone who carries a weapon is looking for a fight. The illogical hypothetical given for example tends to go as follows. The CRIMINAL sees the ARMED CITIZEN carrying a weapon and for no logical reason chooses to confront the ARMED CITIZEN and instigate a fight which inevitably ends with the CRIMINAL winning. Upon close scrutiny the reason and the hypothetical posed do not match up. First, why would the CRIMINAL want to fight an armed opponent for no reason? The CRIMINAL would have to lack any kind of judgment, have no fear of death and believe he is the fastest shooter on earth, not to mention invincible to bullets. Finally, how exactly is the ARMED CITIZEN the one "looking for trouble" when the CRIMINAL prompted the confrontation? Was it not the CRIMINAL "looking for trouble" by targeting the ARMED CITIZEN and pushing him into a self defense situation? This line of thinking is similar to accusing a rape victim of wanting to be raped because she was supposedly dressed provocatively.
Although there are other reasons I've been given for carrying concealed the ones discussed have been some of the most prevalent, of the three only two hold some historical basis for concern but the last one falls apart upon a logical evaluation. The real reason for concealment has less to do with a tactical advantage I think and more to do with a social advantage. If the ARMED CITIZEN thinks he would be better served in a temporary social environment to have his weapon concealed then by all means do. An example might be that you're shopping at a local mall owned and operated by big city politically correct hacks that are obviously anti-gun. If you know they'll ask you to leave their property should they become aware of you exercising your rights, it would be understandable to conceal it from their view; that is if you have to shop there. Maybe you're going to church and you don't want to draw attention from the preacher and his sermon. Bottom line, you should conceal when you think it is reasonable and serves a nobler purpose, not because someone pressured you.

THE CASE FOR OPEN CARRY

BEWARE OF DOG/GUN
A sign, be it text, picture, or symbol, is something visual which communicates a clear message to the observer. The observer can choose to disregard the sign but nonetheless they are forced to consider the message before proceeding. Examples of signs conveying an important message would be "BEWARE OF DOG", "NO SMOKING", "EMERGENCY EXIT", or the more ominous "DEADLY FORCE AUTHORIZED". Each sign aids the observer in any potential decision making. Of course, the observer may choose to ignore the warning but this choice will be made based on whether the potential reward outweighs the risk.
The case for open carry is simple. I would submit that in much the same way that a sign works, when the ARMED CITIZEN carries his weapon in the open it communicates a clear message to any observer. To an observer who has no intention of causing harm or using illegal force the sign should be meaningless. However, when the CRIMINAL observes this same sign he must reconsider whether the potential reward outweighs the risk. Where the risk was simply being caught or having to physically overpower the UNARMED CITIZEN it now suddenly rises to potentially enduring great pain and death when confronting the ARMED CITIZEN. Do insane or even desperate CRIMINALS exist who would disregard such an obvious sign and follow through with an attack? As with any possibility the answer is YES but even though they exist their actions do not support the opposing view that open carry should be avoided. They can still be potentially stopped by the ARMED CITIZEN once he becomes aware of the CRIMINALS intent to present a lethal threat.
With regard to the element of surprise discussed earlier, open carry actually supersedes the need for surprise. If carrying openly causes the CRIMINAL to avoid you and those around you as his victims then the need for surprise is negated. Your display of an ability to employ deadly force has avoided the confrontation before it even began, avoided the threat to your life and having to actually use your weapon. As the CRIMINAL moves on to easier prey you will likely never be aware it even happened.

CONCLUSION

THE REAL PROBLEM WITH OPEN CARRY
What is the real reason some shy from open carry? I believe it to be fear; the anxiety of having to confront someone hostile to their choice to carry a weapon for personal defense. As a pro-carry activist I welcome it but I can understand where a large section of armed citizens do not. Are their times when it is expedient to conceal your sidearm, defiantly? Should you feel ashamed to carry it openly, NO! Hundreds of thousands of people have fought state after state to pass legislation to restore that right which was once only granted at the behest of local law enforcement.
Anti-gun hacks claim to have a right to "feel safe." This non-existent right has been twisted from the right to "be secure in one's person and effects" a right I exercise whenever I carry my weapon. The anti-gun crowd has the twisted perception that the weapon and not the criminal is the threat. They will and have called the police to harass the ARMED CITIZEN; I advise you show your permit and carry on. They may card you as many times as they wish as I long as you know you are legal nothing they do should stop you from carrying openly.
We, the pro-carry citizens, have to stop criticizing each other. We have to stop playing footsy with the politically correct crowd and stick together. Public opinion can be swayed in our favor if we as law abiding citizens can show through open carry that we are safe, caring individuals whose only want is to be able to defend our family and ourselves from needless victimization. Ben Franklin said it best when he explained that "the very fame of our strength and readiness would be a means of discouraging our enemies; for tis a wise and true saying that one sword often keeps the other in the scabbard. The way to secure peace is to be prepared for war. Those who are on the guard and appear ready to receive their adversaries are in much less danger of attack than the secure, the supine, and the negligent."

2007, Garry Harvey. This document may be reproduced with the condition that it be kept in it's entirity and cited accordingly.

One of the reasons that "Concealed Means Concelaed"

2010-01-01T15:05:00.000-08:00

In my classes, I always try to stress the mantra of "Concealed Means Concealed". There are various points to be made on both sides of "Concealed Carry vs. Open Carry" debate. While this should not be interpreted as an endorsement of the overly aggressive behavior of the officer or the decision of the Appeals Court, I think that this one is a big point to the CCW side. For my readers who are newer to the realm of concealed carry I will outline the debate of concealed carry vs. open carry in an upcoming post.

Court upholds police pointing gun at lawful carrier
December 31, 6:49 AM Atlanta Gun Rights Examiner Ed
Stone

It's open season on gun carriers.
A case out of the First Circuit has some painful lessons for gun carriers in Georgia. A United States Circuit Court of Appeals last week upheld the constitutionality of pointing a gun at any citizen daring to carry, lawfully, a concealed weapon in public.
The First Circuit Court of Appeals is the Court just below the United States Supreme Court in the New England states. The case stems from a lawyer who sued a police officer after he was detained for lawfully carrying a concealed weapon while in possession of a license to carry concealed.

According to the case opinion, the lawyer, Greg Schubert, had a pistol concealed under his suit coat, and Mr. Schubert was walking in what the court described as a "high crime area." At some point a police officer, J.B. Stern, who lived up to his last name, caught a glimpse of the attorney's pistol, and he leapt out of his patrol car "in a dynamic and explosive manner" with his gun drawn, pointing it at the attorney's face.

Officer Stern "executed a pat-frisk," and Mr. Schubert produced his license to carry a concealed weapon. He was disarmed and ordered to stand in front of the patrol car in the hot sun. At some point, the officer locked him in the back seat of the police car and delivered a lecture. Officer Stern "partially Mirandized Schubert, mentioned the possibility of a criminal charge, and told Schubert that he (Stern) was the only person allowed to carry a weapon on his beat."

For most people, this would be enough to conclude that they were being harassed for the exercise of a constitutional right, but the officer went further, seizing the attorney's pistol and leaving with it. Officer Sternreasoned that because he could not confirm the "facially valid" license to carry, he would not permit the attorney to carry. Officer Stern drove away with the license and the firearm, leaving the attorney unarmed, dressed in a suit, and alone in what the officer himself argued was a high crime area.

The attorney sued in federal court, but the District Court threw out his suit, ruling that Officer Stern's behavior is the proper way to treat people who lawfully carry concealed pistols. Mr. Schubert appealed, and the First Circuit upheld the District Court's ruling. The court held that the stop was lawful and that Officer Stern "was permitted to take actions to ensure his own safety."

The court further held that the officer was entitled to confirm the validity of a "facially valid" license to carry a concealed weapon. Theproblem for Officer Stern was that there is no way to do so in Massachusetts, where this incident occurred. As a result, the court held that Officer Stern "sensibly opted to terminate the stop and release Schubert, but retain the weapon."

Welcome to the new "right" to bear arms.

For more info: Read the full text of the First Circuit opinion by clicking here.

Beware the Tacticool Mall Ninja

2009-12-31T11:46:00.001-08:00

When I first got into shooting the AR-15 family of firearms I was really excited to have finally purchased an evil black rifle. I was in awe of all the really cool accessories that I saw on the different message boards that I visited. In my exhuberence and inexperience I wanted all of them because they all looked so cool.

If I would have been smart, I would have listened to the folks that told me to slow down and spend that money on ammo for range time. Ammo and range time, they told me, would actually
make me into a proficient marksman as oppossed to all the tacticool accessories which were just things stuck to my rifle that made it heavier. There are some accessories that I feel are pretty useful such as the Aimpoint Comp M2/M68 CCO or the EoTech 512 or 517. Another accessory that I feel is a necessity for every AR-15 owner, especially with the price of centerfire ammo being what it is, is a .22 LR caliber rimfire adapter or a dedicated .22LR upper receiver. These conversion kits or dedicated uppers allow for the firing of the much less expensive .22 Long Rifle Caliber ammunition which translates into more range time. More range time means better marksmanship skills.

Rimfire adapters are available from Olympic Arms, CMMG, as well as several other manufacturers. Dedicated .22LR upper receivers are manufactured by Olympic Arms, Spike's Tactical, as well as a number of others. For these conversion kits I recommend using magazines from Black Dog Machine.

Finally, to prove that I am not "more tactical than thou" and that I speak from experience when I warn my readers about purchasing unnecessary accessories. I present the first incarnation of my first AR-15. An Olympic Arms K3B-M4-TC (M-4 copy) that I had to go overboard on and make tacticool with a big scope and bipod.

If You Have a CCW Permit, You Need Use Of Force Training

2009-12-30T22:58:00.000-08:00

The story below from Neshoba, Mississippi is a good example of why every concealed carry permit holder MUST obtain some sort of firearms and use of force training whether their State requires it or not. In all likelihood this gentleman is going to be sentenced to jail time and lose his right to carry concealed as well as possibly lose his right to possess firearms.

Laws vary from State to State and sometimes region to region, but generally a person must be able to articulate that they felt that they or a third person we under imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury before they may use force against an aggressor. Under no circumstances should a "warning shot" ever be fired. A firearm should only be discharged in a defensive situation in an aimed manner with the intent of stopping an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to the person legally possessing the firearm or another person. That warning shot might end up hitting an innocent bystander.

Man Shoots At Shoplifter In Parking Lot
12/30/2009 6:00:00 PM
By STEVEN THOMAS
Staff Reporter

A disabled man wearing a neck brace is charged with discharging a firearm in the city limits after trying to "take the law into his own hands" and stop an alleged shoplifter on Christmas Eve, the authorities said.

James D. Russell, 52, of 14420 Road 450, Union, was arrested at 2:20 p.m. Thursday and charged with discharging a firearm in the city limits and with disturbance of the peace.

Police initially received a report of a shoplifter at Wal-Mart and almost immediately afterwards a second caller reported shots being fired in the parking lot.

When police arrived at Wal-Mart they found Russell in the parking lot.

He told police that he saw a man put several boxes of bullets in a bag and then proceeded to leave Wal-Mart, said Chief of Police Dickie Sistrunk.

Russell told authorities that he followed the man to the parking lot where there was a confrontation.

When the man ran across the parking lot, Russell followed and later admitted to firing one shot into the ground as a warning sign for him to stop, Sistrunk said.

The alleged shoplifter then dropped the bag and ran off, he said.

When police arrived they found Russell in possession of a Glock .40 caliber handgun, which he had a permit to carry.

"Just because he has a permit does not give him the right to fire at shoplifters," said Sistrunk said. "My officers do not even have this right over shoplifters."

While no one was harmed in the incident, Sistrunk said it could have resulted in a more serious situation. If Russell had fired into another direction someone may have been hit by the bullet, he said.

Russell claimed that he only wanted to help the police, the chief said.

If convicted, Russell could face jail time and/or a fine.

Police took his handgun and are seeking to have his permit pulled and the weapon destroyed, Sistrunk said.

"You don't take the law into your own hands," he said.

The alleged shoplifter remains at-large.

This use of force wheel above is a good tool for visualizing the proper use of force. Start with a particular situation. What is the situation, what are the actions of the aggressor? Is he trying to escape and you are preventing him from leaving or is he actively offering physical violence? Maybe it's somewhere in between.

Draw a straight line from the aggressors actions through the outside ring of the force wheel and that will give you an idea of the level of force that is authorized for a given situation. This should not be construed as giving you carte blanch to use force as every situation is different. But you get an idea of why as a concealed carry permit holder, it is your duty to obtain training in the proper use of force.

You must also be aware that just as situations can quickly escalate, they can also quickly de-escalate and you must change you force posture with those changes in the threat environment. Once, when I was working as an armed security officer at the Seattle Field Division of the FBI, a mentally ill individual entered the lobby and began to damage the property in the lobby. As I made contact with him he attacked me with a flagpole that he had ripped off the wall. I backed up, trying to put distance between myself and the suspect while drawing my service firearm. I was yelling at him to drop the weapon the whole time, but he didn't comply until my back was literally against the wall and I was just clearing the holster. At that point he dropped his weapon and ran to the other side of the lobby.

The confrontation wasn't over, but because he had dropped his weapon the situation had de-escalated and a lethal force response was no longer authorized. I reholstered and took my pepper foam out of my duty belt. My partner and I were ordering the suspect to the ground so that we could handcuff him when he charged my partner. This escalated the situation again, but not to the previous level of deadly force. I applied a shot of pepper foam to his face all the while verbally commanding him to stop attacking us and to get on the ground. After two more application of pepper foam he was subdued and arrested when the police finally arrived.

This is a good example of how the proper use of force can rise and fall within one incident. You can be authorized to shoot at one moment and not at the next and then be using force again the next minute.

The two most important things that you can remember in a use of force situation are to:

Use only that force which is NECESSARY to overcome the aggressive act of the suspect.
VERBALIZE, VERBALIZE, VERBALIZE!

My Big Box of Holsters

2009-12-30T11:40:00.000-08:00

One of the things that I stress in my Utah Concealed Firearm Permit classes is that if you are going to seriously carry a concealed firearm on a regular basis you should be prepared to invest in a number of holsters to suit a variety of situations. Taking this into account, there are two features that any concealed carry holster should possess. they should have some sort of retention device and they should cover the trigger.

These holsters don't have to be expensive, I have a couple of Uncle Mikes Super Belt Slide holsters that I have used on a regular basis for the last 15 or so years. While these holsters are nylon, they have held up every bit as well as the more expensive Galco leather holsters that I have.

Holster selection is always a compromise between security and concealment. I have a Safariland Level III police duty holster that I carried as a Reserve Police Officer that only allows the wearer to remove the firearm due to it's redundant retention mechanisms. But, that isn't practical because even with heavy winter garb there is no way that I could realistically conceal it.
Patrick Sweeney, noted author for Guns & Ammo magazine just wrote an excellent article on this very subject in the December 2009 titled RIGGED FOR WEAR.

Here are a few of my favorite holsters and the situation to which I find them appropriate.

Uncle Mike's Super Belt Slide & Side Bet Holsters
$12 - $20
This is my all around utility holster. I wear them if I am going to be in a situation where I might scuff a leather holster, but that I need a bit more concealment than the Blasckhawk SERPA.

Some of the nice things about these holsters are that they are inexpensive, hold up well, are very light and will work with a variety of firearms. One of the downsides is that when the firearms is drawn they collapse making reholstering a bit more difficult than if they maintained their shape as a plastic or leather holster does. Sometimes the ability to quickly and safely reholster is just as important as the ability to quickly present the firearm from the holster.

Bianchi Accumold Belt Slide Holster
$30 - $35

This holster fills essentially the same niche as the Uncle Mike's nylon holsters, but, is of higher quality and has a couple of neat features that the Uncle Mike's does not.

Most notable is that the belt loops are held together with snaps. This means that if you are carrying and find yourself in a situation where you must quickly remove you holster, such as needing to go into a Federal Building or Courthouse, you can just unsnap the holster and secure it in your vehicle. No need for the uncomfortable danceof trying to remove a holster from your belt all the while hoping that no one sees you.

It also stays open when the pistol is drawn, making reholstering with one hand much easier.

Uncle Mike's Inside the Pants Holster
$12 - $15

This holster breaks on of my rules for a concealed carry holster in that it doesn't feature some sort of retention device, but as I stated before, any holster is a compromise between concealability and security.

I use this holster primarily in the summer during shorts and t-shirt weather. It's hard to conceal a firearm using one of the other holsters when wearing a t-shirt because the end of the stock tends to print on the shirt. I wear this holster in a bit of an unconventional fashion. Instead of clipping it to my strong side hip in typical fashion, I position it in the small of my back. This means that I have to be even more situationally aware due to the lack of a retention device, but holds the Glock 27 close to my back which prevents printing and allows the t-shirt to conceal the pistol.

Galco F.L.E.T.C.H. High Ride Belt Holster
$85
What is there to say? The F.L.E.T.C.H. is a classic leather high ride holster. It serves about the same function as the Uncle Mike's Super Belt Slide and Side Bet holsters, just a little fancier. The rigid leather construction means that it maintains it's shape once the firearms is drawn, allowing for easy reholstering.

Blackhawk SERPA Concealment Holster
$50 - $60

I like the SERPA because of it's integral locking mechanism and the fact that the lock release is in an ergonomic position. Everyone should be practiced in indexing their trigger finger along the slide in order to keep your finger off the trigger until on target and ready to fire. This holster uses that instinctive position to unlock to mechanism.

Another thing that I like about the SERPA is that it comes with both a belt loop attachment and a paddle attachment. These screw onto the backside of the holster and the paddle allows for easy removal of the holster without removing the belt.

It isn't the easiest holster to conceal, but once again we get into that concealment vs security issue. It easily conceals under a light wind breaker, but you might have a hard time hiding it under a t-shirt.

These are just a few of the holsters that I like, your experience may vary. Go out and try a few different types because just like clothes, different holsters fit different people differently. A good gun shop will let you try a few out before you buy it.

Students resist Colorado State gun ban

2009-12-29T18:25:00.000-08:00

It's good to see that people are finally starting to stand up and demand that their rights be preserved. When I was going to college at a small university in Eastern Washington I worked as a part-time Police Officer. I was living in university housing at the time and while campus policies prohibited firearms possession in the dorms, I had worked out an agreement with the Campus Police Chief that let me have my service sidearm in my room just prior to going on duty and just after ending my shift so that I wouldn't have to be unarmed while in uniform as I went to the Campus Police office to pick up my firearm. One day a member of the dorm staff saw me in uniform and armed in the dorm. They actually wrote me up and I was called into the office of the Dean of Housing. Luckily the Campus Police Chief set everything straight, but it goes to show how messed up the ideals of the anti-gun folks are.

I never understood the idea of a "Gun Free Zone", it seems to me that they should just call them what they are, "Victimization Zones". Active Shooters want to kill as many people in the shortest amount of time possible. They do not want to face the opposition that may be presented by a legally armed citizen. Which is why we will continue to see mass casuality shootings at facilities that insist on posting the silly "Weapons Free Zone" signs. Have we not learned the lessons of Pioneer High School in Moses Lake, WA, Columbine High School Littleton, CO, Virginia Tech, Tacoma Mall in Tacoma, WA, Trolley Square Mall in Salt Lake City, UT, Ft. Hood Texas, etc., etc., etc.

Students resist Colorado State gun ban
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-guns-campus28-2009dec28,0,44959.story
Activists at the Fort Collins campus say a ban will make them more vulnerable to a Virginia Tech-style attack.

Reporting from Denver - After a gun-wielding student killed 32 at Virginia Tech, faculty at Colorado State University in Fort Collins found, to their alarm, that theirs was one of the few public schools in the
country with no policy banning firearms. Anyone with a concealed weapons permit could legally carry on campus.

Students, however, were alarmed when the faculty moved to change that.

Among other arguments, students contended that permitting people to carry concealed weapons was the campus' best defense against another tragedy.

"Let's say you have another Columbine or Virginia Tech," said Dan Gearhart, the student government president. "People want the ability to protect themselves."

Still, Colorado State's Board of Governors unanimously directed the presidents of the 22,000-student Fort Collins campus and the system's smaller campus in Pueblo to draw up weapon restriction policies. (The system also maintains what it calls its Global Campus online.) It cited a study by an association of campus police chiefs that concluded private firearms didn't help protect schools.

2009-12-29T17:48:00.001-08:00

Fortis Courses:

NRA FIRST Steps Pistol $75

http://www.nrainstructors.org/CourseCatalog.aspx

Description

FIRST stands for “Firearm Instruction, Responsibility, and Safety Training”, a program the NRA developed to meet the need for a firearms orientation program for new gun purchasers. This FIRST Steps program is a basic courses abbreviated to the most fundamental shooting skills, and the specifics of a particular model of pistol.

This course, because of its narrow focus, can be completed as quickly as three hours. Students will get the NRA's THE BASICS OF PISTOL SHOOTING handbook and quick practical lessons on the safe use, cleaning, and storage of their pistol. The practical exercise covers a single pistol shooting position. As the number of participants or pistol types present increases, the course will take proportionally longer.

Course Goal

“To provide beginning shooters with an introduction to the knowledge, skills, and attitude necessary to own and use a specific pistol model safely.”

Contact us for course schedules & availability.

509-393-3652

smahood@fortissecuritytech.com

2009-12-29T17:46:00.000-08:00

NRA Basic Pistol $140
http://www.nrainstructors.org/CourseCatalog.aspx

Description

A pistol, or handgun, is a firearm designed to be fired while being held in one hand. While such firearms are small and compact, they can be the hardest to learn.

The Basic Pistol course can be as short as eight hours. In it students will get the NRA's THE BASICS OF PISTOL SHOOTING handbook and intensive lessons in safety, gun handling, the various types of pistols, the fundamentals of pistol marksmanship, various pistol firing positions, several practical exercises on the firing range, cleaning, storage, and a summary of pistol sports and activities.

Course Goal

“To teach the basic knowledge, skills, and attitude for owning and using a pistol safely.”

Next Course - January 16, 2010 NCW Gun Club East Wenatchee, WA

Contact us for course schedules & availability.

509-393-3652

smahood@fortissecuritytech.com

2009-12-29T17:43:00.000-08:00

Utah Concealed Firearm Permit Training $150
http://publicsafety.utah.gov/bci/concealedfirearms.html

Legally Carry a Concealed Firearm in 29 States!

Non-residents of Utah, 21 years of age and older, who complete this 4 hour course, taught by Shawn Mahood, a Utah Bureau of Criminal Identification Certified Concealed Firearms Instructor, are eligible to apply for a Utah Concealed Firearm Permit which is recognized in the following states:

Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virgina, Wyoming, Washington State

Current cost of the permit (paid directly to Utah after the course) is $65.25 and is valid for 5 years. Renewal is $10.00 every 5 years thereafter.

You do not have to possess a Washington License to Carry a Handgun in order to attend this course.

Course curriculum includes:

Handgun Safety Rules
Areas Where Utah Permit Holders Cannot Carry a Firearm
How to Handle Encounters with the Police
Civil Liability
Escalation of Force
Handgun Nomenclature
Ammunition Fundamentals of Shooting
Holsters, Federal, State (Utah), and Local (Utah) Laws, Codes, Rules & Regulations.

You will need to have a set of fingerprints (approx. $5 at your local law enforcement agency) & a passport photograph taken (approx. $4.99 at Costco). Bring the photograph & finger prints to class with you for inclusion in your Utah application packet.

Issuance of the Utah non-resident Concealed Firearm Permit is contingent upon successful completion of the 4 hour firearms familiarization course and a criminal history check by the Utah Department of Public Safety.

Courses Available Throughout Washington State Through High Mountain Hunting Supply & Wholesale Sports.

Available courses:

January 9, 2010 - High Mountain Hunting Supply Wenatchee, WA 888-730-3006

January 17, 2010 - Wholesale Sports Burlington, WA 360-755-0500

January 23, 2010 - Wholesale Sports Federal Way, WA 253-835-4100

January 24, 2010 - Wholesale Sports Lacey, WA 360-459-5800

January 31, 2010 - Wholesale Sports Kennewick, WA 509-736-2200

Contact us for course schedules & availability.

509-393-3652

smahood@fortissecuritytech.com

2009-12-29T17:38:00.000-08:00

NRA Basic Personal Protection in the Home $295
http://www.nrainstructors.org/CourseCatalog.aspx

Description

Unlike the other basic courses, the Personal Protection course covers defensive shooting. Self-defense is a topic somewhat distinct from the regular diet of shooting fundamentals, it can cover mindset, legal issues, decision-making under pressure, and planning for the worst. The Basic Personal Protection in the Home course is designed around the use of the defensive pistol.

Although the course can be completed as quickly as eight hours, the amount of information presented, and the probability of intensive question and answer sessions on the included topics, makes it likely that the course will take longer.

Students will receive the NRA GUIDE TO THE BASICS OF PERSONAL PROTECTION IN THE HOME handbook and intensive lessons on basics of defensive shooting, issues of self-defense, and other strategies for protecting the home and family.

Course Goal

“To develop in the students the basic knowledge, skills, and attitude essential to the safe and efficient use of a handgun for protection of self and family, and to provide information on the law-abiding citizen's right to self-defense.”

Contact us for course schedules & availability.

509-393-3652

smahood@fortissecuritytech.com

2009-12-29T17:28:00.000-08:00

Coming Soon:

Washington Concealed Carry Basics

Defensive Pistol I

Defensive Pistol II

Care & Feeding of the AR-15

Contact us for course schedules & availability.

509-393-3652

smahood@fortissecuritytech.com

Great Editorial in Today's Everett, WA Herald

2009-12-28T21:01:00.000-08:00

I found this one kind of surprising. Great editorial in the Everett Herald, I wish more in the media had the nerve to stand up and speak the truth.

http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20091228/OPINION04/712289995

He makes a great point about enforcing the laws which are already on the books. New legislation banning certain types of firearms will certainly fail as he illustrated with the National Institute of Justice study of the 1994 - 2004 Assault Weapon Ban. Weapons bans do not effect crime because criminals by definition do not abide the laws by which the rest of us live.

We are at a pivotal point in our nation's history. If we don't assure our Second Amendment rights for our children we are certain to slowly lose all the others as well.

Contact Fortis Security Tech for your Firearms Training needs. We offer Utah Concealed Firearm Permit Classes, which allow legal concealed carry in 29 States, throughout Washington State.

509-393-3652

smahood@fortissecuritytech.com

2009-12-28T18:16:00.001-08:00

Fortis Security Technology's Cadre of Professional Firearms Instructors each possess many years of military, law enforcement and federal government contract armed security experience. Fortis Instructors are all NRA Certified, adhering to the highest standards of professional conduct. Fortis Security Technology is a Service Disabled Veteran owned business based in East Wenatchee, WA with training teams ready to provide the firearms safety training that you need as a shooting sports enthusiast.

Our training teams are available to provide firearms training tailored to your needs. Ask us about our mobile training teams which are available to provide firearms safety training throughout the Continental United States to Military and Law Enforcement organizations, civic groups, shooting clubs and even Corporate Executive Retreats.