Yet Another Attack On A "Gun Free Zone"

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

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

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"

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

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

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:

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

My Big Box of Holsters

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.