archives

guns

This category contains 385 posts

Florida Got It Backward

TWICE!

(from Wirecutter)

Florida arms tax collectors

USA – -(Ammoland.com)- “A Central Florida tax collector says a new policy will allow his employees to openly carry firearms while they work,” The Associated Press reports. “Seminole County Tax Collector Joel Greenberg told the Orlando Sentinel that according to Florida law, he and his employees are considered ‘revenue officers’ and are exempt from the state’s ban on the open carrying of firearms while performing their duties.”

The rationale behind the move is to save taxpayers money by eliminating the need to hire private security.

“Tax collector Joel Greenberg says he is a ‘big believer in the Second Amendment,’” letter to the editor writer Gordon Crawford points out in the Orlando Sentinel. “If that is truly the case, he would know that this constitutional amendment was put in place to protect the public from government tyranny, not to arm the government.”
MORE
-JD

Not to mention, just this past week, a Floridian judge backed-off of the State’s Stand Your Ground Law.

We must remain vigilant, People!  ‘They’ aren’t done yet.

They should understand, neither are we.

Supreme Court Declines To Take Carry Case

(from NRA-ILA GRASSROOTS VOLUME 24, NUMBER 26, in part)

Supreme Court Declines to Take Carry Case, but Gorsuch Casts a Solidly Pro-Gun Vote

Gun owners received disappointing news on Monday when the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that effectively let stand California’s “may-issue” permitting regime. The upshot of this decision is that law-abiding Californians in many areas of the state will be effectively denied the right to “bear” arms in public for self-defense.
But there was a silver lining to this development as Justice Neil M. Gorsuch – President Trump’s pick to replace the late, great Antonin Scalia – came out strongly in favor of the Second Amendment by joining a dissent from the court’s decision penned by Second Amendment stalwart Justice Clarence Thomas. Gorsuch’s participation in the dissent confirmed that he, unlike so many of his colleagues in the federal judiciary, is indeed prepared to take the Second Amendment seriously.
The underlying case was Peruta v. San Diego. The plaintiffs had complained of being arbitrarily denied concealed carry permits, the only way for law-abiding persons in California to exercise the right to carry loaded, operable firearms in public for self-defense. Each plaintiff met all the qualifications for a permit but one: they could not show an extraordinary need for self-protection that distinguished them from the general population, as required by licensing officials in their counties of residence.
The case therefore presented the court with an opportunity to clearly state whether or not the Second Amendment extends its protections beyond the home. Indeed, the three-judge panel that originally heard the case in the Ninth Circuit recognized that its defining issue was “whether a responsible, law-abiding citizen has a right under the Second Amendment to carry a firearm in public for self-defense.”
The panel answered that question affirmatively, stating: “the Second Amendment does require that the states permit some form of carry for self-defense outside the home.” The panel also noted that it was California’s own decision to make concealed carry permits the only lawful path to do so. It therefore held the plaintiffs could prevail with “a narrow challenge to the San Diego County regulations on concealed carry, rather than a broad challenge to the state-wide ban on open carry ….”
After the panel’s opinion was published, the full Ninth Circuit voted for a larger en banc panel to rehear the case. The en banc decision, however, avoided the real issue presented by the case and held that “the Second Amendment does not preserve or protect a right of a member of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public.” It therefore summarily disposed of the plaintiffs’ claims without confronting the question of whether the Second Amendment applies beyond the home at all.
The Supreme Court majority, as is typical, did not issue an opinion explaining why it refused to review the en banc decision. Its refusal to do so does not, however, represent an endorsement of the Ninth Circuit’s reasoning or holding. As commentators have mentioned, federal appellate and state courts of last resort have come out different ways on the scope of the Second Amendment’s protection for carrying outside the home, and these disparate outcomes are not affected by the Supreme Court’s decision this week. The court may simply have decided, for example, that it did not want the differences between the panel and en banc approaches to the case to cloud the issue presented for its own resolution.
Whatever the majority’s thinking, the opinions of Justices Thomas and Gorsuch came through with vivid clarity in a sharply worded dissent from the decision to pass over the case. “At issue in this case,” Thomas wrote, “is whether [the Second Amendment] protects the right to carry firearms in public for self-defense.” They called the en banc court’s resolution of this issue “indefensible” and “untenable” and asserted it was “not justified by the terms of the complaint, which called into question the State’s regulatory scheme as a whole.” They also opined that that “[h]ad the en banc Ninth Circuit answered the question actually at issue in this case, it likely would have been compelled to reach the opposite result.”
Thomas and Gorsuch additionally chided their judicial colleagues for treating the Second Amendment as a “disfavored right.” Thomas explained:
The Court has not heard argument in a Second Amendment case in over seven years—since March 2, 2010, in McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742. Since that time, we have heard argument in, for example, roughly 35 cases where the question presented turned on the meaning of the First Amendment and 25 cases that turned on the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. This discrepancy is inexcusable, especially given how much less developed our jurisprudence is with respect to the Second Amendment as compared to the First and Fourth Amendments.
The dissent also contrasted the plight of the average citizen who must largely provide for his or her own security with that of government elites “who work in marbled halls, guarded constantly by a vigilant and dedicated police force.” The Framers, Thomas wrote, “reserved to all Americans the right to bear arms for self-defense. I do not think we should stand by idly while a State denies its citizens that right, particularly when their very lives may depend on it.”

Okay, So Mr. Suarez And I Disagree On Some Things

I’ll begin by saying I’ve admired Gabe Suarez and his works for many years.  Long-time blog readers of GiA will also know I am a disciple of Jeff Cooper.

Having said that, I am not inflexible.  Of course, I do not have the financial means to make changes to my armament and ammunition at a moments notice.

Here is what Mr. Suarez had to say recently regarding how he differs from Col. Cooper’s teachings, and their history together  (from Facebook):

THE SUAREZ SYSTEM – HISTORICAL CONTEXT
Thursday, June 08, 2017

I was asked how the Suarez material differs from the Modern Technique invented/codified by Jeff Cooper. Here it is…a long read, but it sets down the historical context.

I attended Gunsite in 1990. Cooper was there as were a few of the current “stalwarts” for the modern technique, a couple of SEALs and an entire group of LAPD SWAT with 1911s. I was running my issued weapon, as crappy as it was, a Smith & Wesson 5906 that had been tuned up by Steve Deladio in Long Beach, CA. While I was open minded, I did have some ideas about what was what since I had been working around criminals, gang members and killers for five years.

I had not been in a gunfight yet, but I was around alot of guys who had. In the end, I got top score and won the shootoff, against all of those guys. Cooper and I became friends, and I attended Gunsite every year until 1995. So one could say I became well versed in the Modern Technique. In Cooper’s words in the Intro to Tactical Pistol he described me as, although I would never use them to describe myself, “a master pistolero”. I say that only to illustrate my understanding of the modern technique.

The Modern Technique was born in the competitive field, not the battlefield. I didn’t read this…Cooper told me. The exercise was a man versus man shootoff, involving a draw from the holster, at some ten yards. In that sense, the competition was in fact open. And for that problem, some trends began to emerge. Below eye level shooting, or any moving while drawing – while quite popular with men like Askins, and Bryce, and other accomplished killers for close up shooting – didn’t work so well in that interval.

And since the goal was to hit before the other man hit, there was no need to move or use cover. What won was standing at ease, bringing the pistol up to eye level with both hands, and using the sights. When one man won, others emulated his method and also won.That is the over riding problem with sporting events derived from martial pursuits.

And Cooper, ever the academic, studied and identified the trends, duplicating it in his works.

Now, I respect Cooper’s memory and was proud to call him my friend. And I will say that he was not as close minded as his followers are. I shared the gunfight where I discovered “getting off the X” with him and he said that under those circumstances, it was a brilliant move. I still have that letter somewhere, and I know he mentioned it in his newsletter.

Between my intro to the Modern Technique and the height of my teaching career, I had the good fortune to be in a few gunfights…as the primary shooter. I also investigated a great number of shootings between bad guys and a few with good guy versus bad guys. I began to see trends that the modern technique did not address. As well the gunfight I told Cooper about where the concept of moving off the target line while drawing and shooting was crystallized for me, revealed many shortcomings in the MT methods.

In those days there was no internet or Google. Knowledge was passed on either via scholarly articles in police journals (forget getting anything of value in the gun rags of the day) – or via word of mouth.

In that gunfight, my third I think it was, although alert, I was in a reactive state. I moved to avoid being shot and shot back without a perfect sight picture and killed my adversary. I noted all of this and sought answers. Eventually I came across the works of John Boyd and the OODA cycle which explained in detail why my tactic of movement had allowed me to prevail in a situation where we otherwise would have shot each other. The study continued and by the close of my police career I had used that same method several times with success.

There was no force on force back then. There was Simunitions which was extremely expensive and being a UK company, they despised the idea of lowly civilians using their equipment. Some guys basically stole the gear (I actually mean borrowed for a lengthy period) from their agencies to train, but that was rare…and still is.

As well the anal-retentive range practices precluded anything other than a stationary stand and deliver training system. Eventually however, we brought in Airsoft and worked the training, simulating gunfights over and over and over. We determined that the initiative (who had started things) would determine the successful tactics of each party. We determined that moving kept you safe, while standing, or ceasing movement lead to you getting shot. We also determined those weaver stances, isosceles stances, or any hold on the weapon that was “stance dependent” was untenable in a close range reactive gunfight.

In 2004 or 2005 we had a Force On Force class…the first one, in Las Vegas. I set guys up facing each other at five yards. Armed with airsoft pistol analogs to their real weapons, and suitably protected with face masks, I told them to “GO”. This simulated a true gunfight to a far greater degree than any range exercise these men had ever seen before.

We had extremely accomplished Modern Technique guys totally change their perspectives on gunfighting after that class. We had “Combat Masters” from Taylor’s and Front Sight get their asses handed to them by first time attendees, school teachers, doctors, and students who understood what we were teaching.

And we have been developing it more and more and more ever since. I will tell you and anyone on earth that the gunfighting system taught at the Suarez School is by far the best system to keep you alive in a gunfight, and to help you kill your enemy at the same time. That was the beginning of “our system”.

Now to differences –

Specifically the Modern Technique relies heavily of being alert. In the modern world that is not always possible, and we know that while we try to be thus, the distractions of modern life will impede our incessant “Yellow”. We differ in that we understand the natural inclination, as well as the fact that if one is alert, he will often avoid/evade most problems.

Gunfighting is for when you were taken by surprise and so, a strong reactive understanding is essential. So MT is proactive, which happened maybe half the time. We do not ignore it, but we do not fixate on it either. Our system begins at reactive since that is where most lone operators will be when they realize they need to kill the other man.

Secondly we have the Weaver stance. Perhaps men are stronger today than they were in those days, but we have found in proactive shooting there is no need for the dynamics of the weaver stance with a moderately developed upper body and hand strength. All one has to do is look at what the world’s champion shooters use and you will not find weaver stances there. Often times what is needed is simply getting the weapon out quickly and punching it forward, working the trigger as you do so. Watch a force on force event and you will not see any weaver or isosceles stances. You will see a great deal of one handed shooting.

Next is the matter of Flash Sight Picture. This is but one step in a long continuum of visual references with regard to the handgun. On one extreme you have the pistol just clearing the holster, and the operator relying on pure body index and proximity to the threat. Midway we have meat and metal…the meat of the bad guy surrounding the metal image of the slide. And eventually, arms at full extension, eyes fully on the front sight or red dot, and pure marksmanship at hand. So we do not ignore the “flash sight picture” but it is not a complete use of the sights, or the body indexes either.

The next MT component is Compressed Surprise Break. Again, like the issue of the sights, working the trigger is far more involved with respect to the dynamics of the fight than merely a compressed surprise break. There are times when mashing the trigger just as fast and as hard as you can is called for. Other times we work it like a sniper rifle. All of this, and the way we work the sights is based on distance interval, and the degree of initiative you have in the fight.

Finally, the Semi-automatic pistol in a large caliber. Cooper and his men were very fond of the 1911 in 45 ACP. I don’t carry one of those. I carry a Glock 9mm. I have seen men shot with modern 9mm anti-personnel ammo and have never seen the failures we hear about in the old articles. We have several ER doctors who report that there is virtually no difference between 9mm and the other calibers. So I feel well armed, as do those who know, with a modern 9mm pistol. As well we do not subscribe to the “controlled pairs” or “hammers”. We shoot them to the ground. We rely on bursts. A burst is three to five rounds. Our school solution is a burst to the chest and a burst to the face. And of course, in proactive events, we shot for the face and head exclusively.

That is it in a nutshell. As well, our working of the pistol is vastly different. We are goal driven and focus on the state of the operator in the gunfight. Having been in some, my staff and I realize that analytical academic based weapon manipulations will fail. We also know the physical state one will likely be in. Not one of terror-filled defecation, but certainly one of excitement and adrenaline driven actions.

For example, the malfunctions we have seen discussed here. Rather than the analytical method taught at traditional schools, we understand that if your pistol malfunctions you have just been interrupted in killing the man who was trying to kill you. At such times, and often in low light, you neither have the luxury of examining the weapon, nor often the light to do so.

So we follow a flow-chart process bereft of any decision on the operator’s part other than “did it fix it and can I keep shooting”. So given a stoppage of any sort, the first reaction is an immediate and thoughtless tap rack. If that fixed it, keep killing. That maneuver will fix a failure to fire, as well as a failure to eject (known to traditional students as a stovepipe). It will not fix a feed way stoppage (not really a double feed), or an empty gun. If the initial maneuver fails to remedy the problem, the operator manually rips the on board magazine out and discards it. That will in fact instantly remedy the feed way stoppage in most modern handguns. (We have alternatives for those who must use Beretta M9 or 1911). The operator then loads a fresh magazine on board and manually cycles the slide, fixing either of the last outcomes…feed way stoppage or empty gun. We have students solving malfunctions dynamically and on the move in less than an hour.

Well, there you have it. There may be other things I haven’t thought of. We also favor appendix carry and training from concealment exclusively. We prize hand to hand combat ability and train with knives as well. We like red dot sights on our handguns, and put a premium on physical strength and conditioning.

But we firmly acknowledge our roots.

Image may contain: 2 people, people standing and outdoor
I’ll be the first to say that I am not the experienced professional Mr. Suarez is.  I have received funds for my teaching, but I teach mostly The Modern Technique of the Pistol, as distilled by Col. Cooper.  Of course, I do teach one-hand shooting and Isosceles, as these items might be needed.
Taken point-by-point:
Alertness. 
I try to keep in condition YELLOW.  Yes, I am NOT an operator or an assault-team
member.  Alertness may not keep me from being attacked, but it couldn’t hurt?  My personal motto is ‘Pay Attention’.  I contend much of my Life might have ended differently, had I paid attention or perhaps MORE attention.
Weaver Stance, Flash Sight Picture  and Compressed Surprise Break.
I am old, infirmed and generally set-in-my ways.  Weaver has worked for me for 43 years.  And now I am weaker and have less muscle mass.  (Perhaps, if I were 20 years younger, and in better condition?)  I will continue to operate in these manners, unless the situation warrants otherwise.  I’m old fashioned and old-school.  Remember my use of Bruce Lee’s teachings.  Repetition (as with kata) can bring vertical death.  Or, in the case of gunfighting, horizontal death.  Drill, but vary your drills.  Don’t just punch holes in paper, endlessly.
The semiautomatic pistol in a large caliber.
Despite the Pentagon’s recent findings regarding 9mm hollowpoints, I prefer to rely on Physics rather than magic bullets.
And, of course, I always intone the great Jim Cirillo:  “Stopping power BEGINS st 12 gauge!”  Why do I carry a .45?  Because they don’t make a .46!
Red dot sights
Col. Cooper said optics are for rifles.  Mr. Suarez is selling pistol slides with red dot sights.  Perhaps, for the well-trained spec ops guy(?)  But, as an almost-elderly citizen, they are not for me.
Don’t get me wrong, I would love to train under Mr. Suarez, and again own 9mm pistols.
But. given my current circumstances, I don’t see that happening…

NRA Disallows 1911s As “Primary Handguns” From Its “Carry Guard” Classes

(from TFB – James Jarrett)

Released to quite a bit of controversy at the NRA show, the NRA’s Carry Guard program is again the focus of controversy. As listed on the NRA’s Carry Guard website, instructions for prospective students of their “Level 1” program are specifically asked not to bring revolvers or 1911s as “primary firearms” to the classes.  This instruction is added as a note to bringing a full-size or compact handgun:

*NOTE: NRA Carry Guard Level One is designed for training with a semi-automatic handgun (Glock 19/17, Sig P226/P228 or equivalent). We will not allow revolvers or 1911s as your primary firearm in this class.

I can understand the reasoning to NOT want revolvers in a semi-auto class, but the decision to specifically bar the 1911 is most peculiar and likely to draw some ire of the NRA membership and potential student base.

I mean, the instruction simply does not add up. The NRA specifically asks for a “semi-automatic handgun” but then disallows America’s favorite semi-auto? I can understand if the program wants a minimum capacity, but even that does not make sense as they mention bringing backup guns, etc which then has the 1911 allowed:

You should bring a secondary firearm that you carry concealed, as well as a holster for such. We will run the course with a primary carry weapon and then run a course of fire with a secondary or back-up gun to evaluate the differences. Please bring at least 40 rounds of ammo appropriate for your carry firearm for this portion of the class. Revolvers, 1911s and/or subcompacts can be used for this portion of the class. (emphasis added)

If anything, the NRA should have set a type of handgun and impartial requirements. Instead, they are managing to shoot themselves in the foot with Carry Guard yet again…

I wonder what compelled the NRA to make such as decision?  Many CCW/Constitutional Carry folks with whom I am personally acquainted often carry 1911s.

Including me.

Could it be this politically correct age is creeping over into firearms choices from politics and ‘popular’ culture?

The NRA did ban ‘other’ CCW schools/insurance from their last convention, undoubtedly to limit competition between them.

I’ll bet is Col. Cooper were still with us (as an NRA Board member) this wouldn’t be a thing.

 

It Happened Again…

A leftist, Democrat, criminal shot up the place!

Four people, including United States Congressman Steve Scalise were shot, the congressman critically.  The shooter reported had asked if the folks on the field were Democrats or Republicans, upon finding out they were the latter, returned to his car, obtained a rifle and handgun and began shooting.

The shooter’s (name redacted) Facebook page was rife with hate toward the Republicans.  He was also a Bernie Sanders supporter.  Bernie has expressed shock at this grievous act.

Of course, if these weren’t politicians, it’d only be a blip on the radar.

In Chicago last weekend, 43 people were shot, 6 of those fatally.

Do we know any of their names?

And, while we’re on the subject, when was the last time a right-winger, Republican, someone NOT a leftist shot up the place?

How many serial shooters are right-of-center?  Or libertarian?

I’ll bet the numbers are small, if any (?)

The Left constantly accuses The Right (tea partisans?) of being violent, bitter, gun owners.  But, when violence occurs, be it shootings, riots, stabbings, WHO are the responsible parties?

And then The Left screams for more gun control, when the police officers doing security on the scene stopped the shooter.  With firearms.

Prayers for all who are injured.  None (from me) for the suspect, who reportedly has been dispatched.

Glock’s Fault, Or Yours?

(from TFB, in part)

Glock

I recently had the opportunity to re-certify my Glock Armorer Certification as it had expired. I highly recommend that anyone who can attend a Glock Armorer course to do so. Those people include:

  • Employee of Glock Dealer/Distributor
  • Glock Shooting Sports Foundation (GSSF) Member
  • Active/Retired Military/Law Enforcement

All the instructors I have encountered or been taught by are thorough, challenge you, and you genuinely leave feeling more confident in your proficiency at manipulating the weapon and all of its 34 individual pieces.

Classroom book learning aside, what I found to be the most interesting conversation of the day was shooting the breeze with our instructor over lunch. Somehow, the topic of customer service issues came up. We talked about macho guys who limp-wrist a G27, and shade-tree gunsmiths who use their Dremel tool too much and ruin guns. The instructor eventually spit out some numbers that might surprise you.

Glock Customer Service Issues

  • 90% – Shooter/User Error
  • 9.9% – Ammunition
  • 0.05% – Maintenance (Or Lack Thereof)
  • 0.05% – Mechanical

***To be fair to Glock corporate, my instructor, and to cover my own behind, these numbers are not written in stone.

Our instructor was simply stating what he observed over many years of serving and working for the company and continually interacting with the customer service department.

It really begs the question though… If your Glock is failing you, can you look in the mirror and objectively ask, what am I doing wrong? Should I maybe not shoot the world’s cheapest, cruddiest ammo?…

Would love to hear your anecdotal evidence in the comments below. Not saying those numbers listed above are perfect, but 99.9% user error and ammo… oofta! That is incredibly reliable and I will feel like an idiot in front of my friends if have an issue with a Glock because it is probably my fault!

I found this of great interest!  In part because I’ve owned and shot (and carried) a number of Glocks (26, 30, 17) and found them to be universally functional and without ‘problems’.  Of course, unlike one of my Blogmothers™ (Tamara), this was done in strings of 50, or 100 rounds in range conditions, with cleaned firearms.

No stress tests for Guffaw’s Glocks!

And, I still prefer walnut and blued (or stainless) steel to polymer.

So much in the firearms world is the result of human error (think negligent discharge!)  Certain, what you feed them, technique and other human factors could be of more importance than mechanical defects?

I expect to hear from those who love Glocks, as well as those who hate them.

Get the party started…

Press Check, Much?

(from TFB, in part)

Rebuttal: “The Folly of the‘Press Check’”

Browsing through the interwebs as we writers do, I came across an interesting proposition from one Mr. Jeff Gonzales that the “press check” is not appropriate for …”when you strap a firearm onto your body (unless the instructor specifically asks you to use an unloaded pistol or rifle).”

I disagree. I’m no Navy SEAL like Mr. Gonzales, but this assertion fails my logical tests.

Unlike rifles where it is easy in an administrative situation to see the double-stack magazine change sides, most handguns are single-feed weapons and as such, it is near impossible to tell that the weapon is loaded without one of two things – a loaded chamber indicator (this is why I like them) or a press check. Press checks are ideal for administrative times – exactly when you are strapping a firearm to one’s body. In fact, administrative handling is the one time you should be handling a firearm unless drawing to fire or de-gun.

Should one press check in the middle of combat? I would assert the situation dictates it – but it’s likely a hard no in almost all circumstances. But, in an admin function why would one not want to verify their readiness? More on this below.

Mr. Gonzales continues:

 “Why do students want to perform a weapons check? Because we as instructors have failed. We’ve failed to encourage and empower students to understand the importance of readiness.”

Now, I will say that Mr. Gonzales is quite right on his points on willingness, attitude, and readiness, but readiness includes having the weapon ready to perform and if one does not have a loaded chamber indicator – the only way to do that is to press check the gun.

We want to perform a weapons check because we are learned and empowered to actually understand that malfunctions happen. I am checking to make sure that the most critical shot – my first one – has the highest chances of success.

I instruct my students on the importance of handling themselves responsibly with loaded firearms as soon as they can handle their gun safely.

There is nothing worse than drawing your firearm, aiming it at your attacker and hearing a click. To reduce the odds of that happening, start as you mean to finish.

There is absolutely no logical argument here. How is a press check not handling oneself responsibly so long as the firearms safety rules are followed? Then, to imply that BECAUSE one did the press check that they are going to draw a dead trigger is nuts. Do it right – ensure your weapon is in battery and in fact one of the key points of the earlier argument of readiness.

If you feel the need to press check your firearm, you need to ask yourself why. And do whatever it takes to be confident in yourself and your gun’s condition. So that you’re as ready as you can be to fight. And win.

This is a flat-out oxymoron. How can one assert that one should do “whatever it takes to be confident” yet throw out one of the processes that makes one confident?

I press check my guns to ensure that I am ready to win – either combat or competition. Press checking is simple and follows an old maxim: “trust, but verify.”

I choose to verify.

Personally, I have only press-checked at the range, prior to dry practice, or prior to starting a string in competition.  Those few times where the possibility of actual combat have occurred (as with entering a previously locked building as a security guard, or my own home on a couple of occasions after finding the door ajar (yes, I know, I teach retreat to a safe location and call the PD, too!) I was too focused on clearing the area rather than checking to see if the pistol that was a moment prior in my holster was properly chambered!

Taking such action seems to me to be unnecessary, and possibly dangerous.

I guess I agree with the Seal.

YRMV

 

The “Lawful Purpose and Self Defense Act” Has Been Proposed!

Rep. Rob Bishop Introduces the

(from NRA-ILA)

On Wednesday, May 24, 2017, Chairman of the House Committee on Natural Resources Rob Bishop (R-UT) introduced H.R. 2620, the “Lawful Purpose and Self Defense Act.”This bill would remove ATF’s authority to use the “sporting purposes” clauses in federal law in ways that could undermine the core purpose of the Second Amendment. Under Chairman Bishop’s legislation, all lawful purposes – including self-defense – would have to be given due consideration and respect in the administration of federal firearms law.

While the NRA’s announcement above is poorly written, the message is clear.  WE (gun civil rights advocates) are becoming the vanguard.

Sporting purpose never had a place in the Second Amendment.  Period.  Nice we are on the right side, for once.

 

M17 Modular Handgun System ACCEPTED For Service By Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force

(from TFB, in part)

BREAKING: M17 Modular Handgun System ACCEPTED for Service by Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force

Image source: SIG Sauer

The US Army’s M17 Modular Handgun System, derived from the SIG P320 handgun, has crossed one of the final hurdles on the track to full replacement of previous service handguns (including chiefly the Beretta M9). The United States Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force have all announced their acceptance of the M17 MHS as the new sidearm for each respective service, according to a story written by Matthew Cox for KitUp!

The Modular Handgun System competition was decided with an announcement in late January that SIG Sauer had beaten out FN, Glock, and Beretta for the massive $500 million dollar contract for future 21st Century US Army sidearms. A protest on the decision from Glock is still pending a Government Accounting Office (GAO) ruling, which is expected by early June.

The M17 MHS is a derivative of the SIG Sauer P320 handgun which sports interchangeable grip modules, suppressor support via a threaded barrel, interchangeable slide lengths on a single frame, and an integral optics mounting plate. Departing from the complex double action/single action hammer fired mechanism of the previous M9 pistol, the M17 Modular Handgun System utilizes a much simpler and cheaper striker fired design pioneered by the famous Glock family of handguns and utilized by SIG starting with the P320.

Seriously?  No surprise here.

Has a sidearm ever been accepted by the DOD, only to be rejected by the individual services?  (SpecOps aside).

Brink’s Adopts The FN 509

(from TFB, in part)

Brink’s Adopts The FN 509 | The First FN 509 Contract Awarded

As much as people want to shun the FN 509 for being yet another polymer framed striker gun that is easy to overlook the hidden greatness, Brink’s saw the benefit in the new plastic wonder gun. The adoption of the FN 509 by Brink’s marks the first major purchase of the 509 since it was announced on April 17, 2017.

There is no word on how many pistols Brink’s has purchased and what the details of the sale were other than a Dallas, Texas based FN Law Enforcement Dealer called TK Tactical brokered the deal between Brink’s and FN’s law enforcement sales team.

We have previously covered the FN 509 on TFB TV and found the pistol to be a hidden gem that many will no doubt overlook when they are in the gunstore. If large contracts like the Brink’s one continue to be awarded to the FN pistol I expect we will see a ton more of the pistols in civilian hands.

The press release can be found HERE, but I have pasted it below.

(McLean, VA – April 25, 2017) FN America, LLC, the manufacturer of the world’s most battle-proven firearms, announces the award of a long-term firearms contract by Brink’s, Incorporated, a premier provider of secure logistics and security solutions throughout the United States. After extensive testing of all major pistol manufacturers over the course of nine months, Brink’s has selected the all-new FN 509™ striker-fired 9mm pistol and will issue the new sidearm to its armed security guards.

FN’s law enforcement sales team worked with TK Tactical, an FN Law Enforcement Distributor based in Dallas, Texas, to develop the lead, and then directly with Brink’s to provide a firearms solution that met and exceeded the needs of its armed personnel. The first order of pistols will begin shipping in early June. Brink’s Incorporated, is the first major private security company to adopt the FN 509 since its official release in April 2017.

“We are proud to announce the contract with Brink’s, Incorporated,” said Mark Cherpes, President and CEO for FN America, LLC. “Like FN, Brink’s has a long and honored history. Brink’s is one of the most iconic private security firms in the world. The decision to purchase the FN 509 is an important achievement for our organization. It is validation of the hard work that our team put into designing, producing and supporting this pistol.”

The FN 509 was born out of the company’s effort to produce a contender for the U.S. Army’s Modular Handgun System (MHS) competition and has been further enhanced to meet the needs of U.S. law enforcement and commercial customers. Built on the proven architecture of the FNS™ Compact, FN made changes internally and externally to meet the rigorous performance standards of the MHS requirements and further developed the platform into the FN 509 with help from industry experts. Over the course of development, the platform has been tested extensively for reliability, ammunition compatibility and durability – totaling more than 1 million rounds.

Check out FN America online for more information about the FN 509.

Times have changed.  Traditionally, private security has followed the coattails of the military and police, many times with mixed results.  It took years for the civilian police to follow the military from revolvers to semiautomatics and even more for private security to get on board.

Perhaps because most private security has less stringent training than the police, and pays less to support it.

I recall working for another national security company, in the late 70’s.  The post-issued weapon was a Colt Official Police revolver, of early manufacture, complete with five green rounds of .38 Special in the six-round cylinder.  Issued in a right-handed Hunter holster (I’m left handed.)  No reloads were supplied, and no training/qualification offered.

AND, the barrel was LOOSE!  I never pulled on it, for fear it would separate from the frame!

(Fortunately, my Captain permitted me to carry my Ruger Security Six, on long-term loan from Dave-the-mechanic (thanks. again, Dave!), a gun I had shot competitively with (and now own – thanks yet again, Dave!)

It nice to see Brink’s stepping up to obtain quality firearms for it’s troops.  Hopefully, they will be issued to all, not just the elite of the service.

And, properly trained-for and maintained…

"Round up the usual suspects."

In Loving Memory…