TAC-1: Tactical Advanced Combat
Premiere Firearms & Weapons Training

TAC-1 BLOG 

After Action Reports

Pistol-II(D): Examination & Certification (#171021P2D)

This Pistol-II(D) is the 4th Examination and Classification TAC-1 had offered in the last 7 years.  With each test the difficulty of the shooting course is increased and this class was no different.  Students will now have to shoot 200 rounds for the shooting portion of the test and of which 17 rounds are fired into a 12 inch steel target at the distance of 10 to 15 yards in a low light condition. 171021P2d is by far the most difficult test TAC-1 students had to yet face. Most of the course of fire were set to PAR time and anything shot outside of the allotted time will mean a penalty of best point off of the target.

The P2D test is a solid 5 hour examination with almost no break once the shooting begins. It is physically and mentally exhausting and that is by design. We test our student at it’s most difficulty elements including fatigue, hunger, stress, frustration, confusion and at times with defeat. It is easy for anyone to do well when they are fresh and at his/her best condition, but we need to see how students perform under adverse situations. If the student has not developed the endurance through rigorous training in long hours on the range, it is likely that the student will not do well. If a student is not able to hear and comprehend the range command and unable to repeat the direction, such student will not do well. If the student showed up tired, hunged over, malnourished, dehydrated, etc, such student will not do well.

Fortunately for the students the weather cooperated with mild heat of upper 80’s under sunny sky. The wind often interfered with our targets but students quickly adjusted.  When the night fell, the temperature only dropped to mid 70’s for a perfect condition. The test began at 1400 hrs and concluded at 1930 hrs.

Written & Manipulation Test

The first test administered was the written test followed by the Manipulation test. The written test is given to ensure that all of the TAC-1 students understand the 4 Firearms Safety Rule per TAC-1 handout. Students are expected to write the safety rule VERBATIM to ensure that they know the safety rule with every small detail and not memorized in a contradictory way.  Therefore knowing and understanding the rules verbatim is the only way to ensure that the students had learnt the safety rule correctly. To many students’ demise, they were not able to repeat back verbatim and some even had answered that were taken from some other organization which we do not observe. All of the elements may have been in the answer however, when not repeated in our own wording it is safe to say that it is wrong.

The manipulation test was administered one person at a time in alphabetical order. Each student took approximately 5 min to complete the test. With 11 students, that amounted to about about 55 mins of waiting for some. This time could have been wisely used if the students were to practice in preparation for the test.  As non of these students ever had to take a manipulation test in the past it was clear that they were caught off guard. Many thought that simply showing up and performed something close to what they were expected to perform was good enough – wrong.  Many could not correctly load the weapon without missing the verification of the weapon each time they load and unload – chamber check. What we are attempting to instill in our student is that they check their weapon each time they load and unload to prevent misfire and unintentional discharge.  If a shooter holsters a weapon after loading without checking the chamber to ensure that he/she completed the chambering they are risking to draw and fire without anything in the chamber. We saw a few of this actually occurring during the test wasting valuable time. If that had occurred to a police officer, that could likely lead to certain death or serious injury as result of getting shot or unable to stop the threat in timely manner. If a shooter holster’s their weapon after unloading and did not check the chamber that could lead to a dangerous condition where he/she thinks their is a unloaded weapon in their holster. That could lead to a dangerous condition where the shooter’s expectation may differ from the actual condition.

Manipulation clearing by many students were simply non existent. When asked to perform the task they simply stared at their weapon not knowing what to do. This is also a dangerous condition if it was during a deadly encounter. Malfunction clearing must be practiced numerous times to occur automatically and almost subconsciously.  Most students were thinking their way which caused them to be confused and unable to perform the functions in timely manner. Some even endued additional malfunction as result of using wrong technique to clear a malfunction. This can also be a deadly mistake. Some had serious safety violation during manipulation where they had their finger on the trigger on each of the reloading technique and malfunction clearing.  Any violation of the safety rule will result in receiving a zero (0) in that particular section of the test. Such mistakes need to be immediately addressed and fixed to ensure that the student is safe to shoot on the range among other students.

Many did not understand the concept of “Work Space”. Some had taken the Pistol-I course more than a year ago which led them to not to  understanding the simple drawing and exhibiting steps. Some never took P1 module and did what ever they learnt elsewhere and received very low score.

These steps are shown in our modules as we find them most Effective, Efficient and Safe.  Students entrust us and take our courses.  We expect our students to perform what we teach as we are testing them on what they learnt and understood in our classes. Think of it as being tested in the FORM in a martial arts school. Those martial art schools expect students to perform their style and not forms taught in other schools or no school at all – kind of making things up as they go.

The best possible score a student could have received was 270 pt in the written and manipulation portion of the test.  A student needed a 80% or 216 points or better to pass this portion of the test. The passing score in Written & Manipulation test is needed to receive the TAC-1 Ranking Belt.  Purple belt and higher require obtaining an outstanding score (90% or higher) in this portion of the test.  Out of 11 participating students only 6 had passed this section of the test.

Always seek our instructors or high ranking students to obtain assistance in learning these manipulation technique.

Marksmanship & Combat Test

There were a minute changes from the 200 round course course from 2016. Some times were changed and barricade was added in the Positional Shooting test. Also testing the Speed and Accuracy was performed on our 12 inch steel at the distances of 10, 12, 15 yards. The maximum score possible was 2000 point and 70% was Marksman, 80% Sharpshooter, 90% Expert, 95% Master was designated.

The Shooting test was done in high speed pace.  Understanding of the course of fire as they were given out was critical.  Some section required students to load their magazines in precise number or sometimes the direction to manage their ammo was given. If the student failed to manage their own ammo, they risked falling behind in the shooting and lost valuable time to complete the course.

Jason Stulbaum (Glock 17)  came in first with the score of 1833 achieving the level of EXPERT.  Jason had put in number of valuable training time at TAC-1 classes climbing steadily among shooters.  His dedication to the art and discipline to train the right way had payed off. Jason had also taken numerous carbine classes with high scores. His written & manipulation test was also the highest 266/270.  His manipulation was crisp and flawless. There was no thinking involved in his problem solving which earned him the highest possible score in almost all of this manipulation section.  Considering his great achievements in all aspect of the testing and his past performances, TAC-1 is very proud to welcome our new PURPLE Belt holder. Congratulations.

Jonathan Perez (Glock 17) is a very meticulous student and a very fast learner. He only began to train with TAC-1 in 2017 and quickly became one of the Top Shots in many of the classes he attended. Jonathan’s manipulations were excellent and crisp. He had certainly practiced and it showed. Jonathan was the only shooter who had shot the Dot Torture with a perfect score of 50 (500) at 4 yards which is no easy task and gives senior shooters run for their money.  Jonathan achieved a level of high Sharpshooter.  He is also a regular carbine class attendee.  We are very proud to welcome our new BLUE Belt holder. Congratulations.

Scott Cosenza (Glock 34 RMR) had scored near 90% on his manipulation test despite his long absence from TAC-1.  He was a regular figure at pistol classes often shooting in the 90 percentile in each of the classes he attended but some how he faded away – getting married and having a child on the way may have something to do with it.  Scott scored a strong 1718 pt reaching Sharpshooter level. This strong performance achieve him a BLUE Belt at TAC-1. Congratulations.

Gio Cuarez (CZ Tactical Sport) barely passed the manipulation test with 231/270 and shot a Sharpshooter in the shooting portion of the test. This was enough for him to receive the TAC-1 Blue Belt rank.  Congratulations.

Here are the new inductees into the TAC-1 Ranking system. Rick was grandfathered into the Blue Belt prior to this date. He has been a proud member of TAC-1 since 2011.

Our final note: The ranking is not the End to its Means – don’t forget that. This is just an indication of your level of dedication to the art. If you have not been shooting, if you have not been training, if you have done very little to prepare – then honestly one can not have expected to score and rank high. Those of whom are at the top of the list have put in their time with us or elsewhere – it doesn’t matter. This test standard is difficult. Do know that we are trying to provide you with some indication and a sense to see your progress and set higher goal for you to move towards. Let this be an inspiration to do better, train better, perform better, shoot better so that when you really need to use this deadly weapon you’ll come in first place. Remember there is no second place in a gun fight.

Stay in the Fight!

By

Read More
CCW Holster Selection by the “Silent Professional”

CCW Holster Selection by the “Silent Professional”

Selecting the proper holster for concealed carry.

Selecting the proper holster can be an overwhelming task. There are so many variations, materials and opinions that you can become dizzy with options! I’ll add to your confusion by trying to make this simple. 

The first thing you have to do is take a realistic approach to things like; your body type, how you usually dress, when and where you might carry.

Secondly, think about how you may carry. Will it be Outside the Waistband (OWB) or Inside the Waistband (IWB)? Or could it be in a pocket or on the ankle?

Now, to add more to your dilemma, are you going to carry appendix style, on the hip or behind the hip? Let’s take a look at each.

On the Hip: for a right handed shooter, this is called the 3 o’clock position.

  • Pros- this position puts the pistol directly under the natural hang of your arm. There is very little effort or flexibility needed to draw the firearm.
  • Cons- the pistol and holster will add 1-2 inches to the profile of your hip, maybe compromising your carry.

Behind the Hip: this puts the handgun in that hollow right behind your hip bone on the carry side.

  • Pros- this is a fairly comfortable location to conceal a medium to large pistol especially for open garment just as a sport coat (FBI rake). Less profile than the hip carry.
  • Cons- it requires some shoulder flex ability to draw the weapon. It can be uncomfortable when seated, especially in a vehicle.

Appendix Carry: (The weapon is carried just in front of the hip.)

  • Pros- for a lot of people, this is an excellent way to conceal a handgun. Being slightly non-traditional, most observers fail to look for a telltale sign in this area (concealability) and they don’t recognize the draw as a weapon presentation. Plus, it’s easy to draw the gun when seated.
  • Cons- barrel length can be a factor in seated comfort. Some users are skeptical of the muzzle coverage when your pistol is drawn or re-holstered.

Carry angle. Termed the weapon cant, it describes the orientation of the handgun in the holster on your waist.

It can be Muzzle Neutral (muzzle pointed straight down). Muzzle Forward, muzzle pointed down and slightly forward, and Muzzle Rearward, where the muzzle is pointed down and slightly back.

The handguns orientation can affect concealment, comfort and presentation. But a big part of it is your preference. This is where you just have to try some holsters on to see what works for you. Some simple (and flexible) rules are; appendix carry is usually Muzzle Neutral, behind the hip is generally Muzzle Rearward to assist in the draw and on the hip is wide open. As a note, you don’t see many Muzzle Forward concealment holsters (but there are some experiments with the appendix carry).

Now that you have selected the location where you want to wear your concealed firearm, the next question is OWB or IWB.

OWB is usually attached to the outer side of the belt by one or two belt loops located on the holster. You will thread your belt through your pants belt loops and the holsters belt loops to secure it to your body. A little trial and error will result in the perfect location. I will say that the holster with two loops seems to be more adjustable than a holster with one large one. Trust me, one pants belt loop in the wrong place can change everything!

OWB RECOMMENDATIONS:

An IWB can attach in many ways. Clips, loops and snaps or a combination of these can be your attaching choices.  Here is a basic rule, a holster that goes on easy will come off easy! And with Mr. Murphy always lurking about, you know when that will be!  I try to stick with a full loop on the holster if possible. I’ve seen that guy Murphy in action.  On your IWB you must also consider how deep you want the handgun to sit. Unless I want the gun as deeply concealed as possible, I like it to ride high enough above the belt line to be able to get a full firing grip on the firearm while it’s holstered.

IWB RECOMMENDATIONS:

  • PJ Holsters – For protection duty, deep holster, appendix carry

Pocket Holster RECOMMENDATIONS:

Well, we are almost done. One last question:  Will it be leather? Kydex? Or the combo platter?

This can also be personal preference. Make no mistake, a nice leather holster looks fabulous. But there’s more than just good looks. Does your holster help conceal your pistol, or add to it’s bulk? Will your holster retain your weapon during physical activity such as running, jumping, climbing and fighting?

Getting the gun out is only half of it, does your holster allow you to re-holster under stress?

Kydex has become very popular the last few years, and it does a good job at the above demands. On a downside, kydex can scratch and wear your gun’s finish, especially if dirt or sand gets in it – rapidly gives your pistol that “been there” look!

So, now that you are armed with all this information, can I guarantee that you will fall in love with the first holster you buy? I’m afraid not. Holster selection is far from an exact science. It’s probably going to be a case of “buy and try” for a few examples. Eventually you will find your perfect holster. Just hope it doesn’t take too many “maybes” to do so!

Good luck!”

Gizzi
Your TAC-1 staff

 

By

Read More

Pistol-III 1911 – Advanced Pistol Shooting (5/31/14)

Pistol-III Advanced Pistol (1911 Only) #140531P3 class Result.
Advanced Pistol Shooting

Pistol-III (#140531P3)

TAC-1's Pistol-III module is for students with advanced pistol shooting skills.

Advanced Pistol Shooting

The 4 hr class ran several drills which scores were kept of final determination of the class TOP SHOT.  There were total of 5 major drills that were scored. The class began with the usual Dot Torture test at 5 yard line. All Pistol-III students are expected to be able to have good groups at this distance when shooting this drill.  With maximum possible score of 50, -5 rounds (45 pt)  or less is considered acceptable for this test. For the matter of class scoring the final score was multiplied by 5 for what it is worth.  Dave Shaw clearly showed his marksmanship in scoring 47 - giving him the factored total of 235 (47 x 5).
  NAME Dot Tor x5 Factor
1 Dave Shaw 47 235
2 Mat Addis 44 220
3 Paul Luna 45 225
4 Oscar 43 215
5 Chris Weir 37 185
6 Mike Dozier 40 200
7 Matthew Kanin 40 200
8 Daniel Luna 30 150
9 Mike Steinwender 35 175
The next drill consisted of timed modified Pistol-I qualification course. 5 yard - 5 rounds - 5 sec par 10 yard - 5 rounds - 6 sec par 15 yard - 5 rounds - 8 sec par 20 yard - 5 rounds - 10 sec par 25 yard - 5 rounds - 15 sec par Oscar came out strong for this round of drills with the final score of 241/250.  The second place was tied by Matt Addis and Chris Weir with 237 each. This test was incorporated into student's final score as is. The class began to push the students with speed shooting out of the holster. On the buzzer, students were instructed to draw and fire 2 rounds  from 7 yard line. This was performed with 2 students going head-to-head battling to see who was faster.  Each student performed 5 times with total of 10 rounds fired.  With maximum score of 100 (2 rd x 5 x 10 pts), student's target was scored by the ring. Only the accuracy portion was scored for this advanced pistol shooting drill. Mike Dozier took the highest score of 94/100 total ring score. The speed was further increased with "Bill Drill" from 7 yard line.  Students were instructed to fire 6 rounds under 2 seconds and only the 10 ring accuracy counted. Anything out added 1 second per round to the final time. The calculate the factor to the final score the final time was multiplied by 10 - which was then subtracted from 100.  
  NAME Bill Drill miss Total Factor
1 Paul Luna 2.46 1 3.46 65.4
2 Daniel Luna 3.7 0 3.7 63.0
3 Matthew Kanin 4.14 0 4.14 58.6
4 Mike Dozier 3.28 1 4.28 57.2
5 Mike Steinwender 3.49 1 4.49 55.1
6 Oscar 2.53 2 4.53 54.7
7 Dave Shaw 2.54 2 4.54 54.6
8 Mat Addis 3.96 1 4.96 50.4
9 Chris Weir 3.34 3 6.34 36.6
Paul Luna was the fastest even with 1 miss with total of 100 - (3.46 x 10) = 65.40 points.  This number was then rounded up to the next highest number to be incorporated into the student's final score. The final drill consisted of actual LAPD SWAT pistol qualification course. With total possible score of 500 pts - Dave Shaw demonstrated his skills with 479 pt who was followed by Matt Addis with 478 and Paul Luna with 476.  All were impressive numbers to pull out of their hats.
  NAME Dot Tor P1 Qual 10 Rd SWAT B/D Factor Total Power Factor
1 Dave Shaw 235 228 83 479 55 1080 1134
2 Mat Addis 220 237 83 478 50 1068 1121
3 Oscar 215 241 83 461 55 1055 1108
4 Paul Luna 225 219 88 476 65 1073 1073
5 Chris Weir 185 237 87 457 37 1003 1053
6 Daniel Luna 150 208 85 441 63 947 994
7 Matthew Kanin 200 221 12 402 59 894 939
8 Mike Dozier 200 215 94 354 57 920 920
9 Mike Steinwender 175 67 91 360 55 748 785
All of the points were added to derive the "Total" then for the .45 caliber shooters the total was multiplied by 10% to give added Power Factor.  Those who shot 9 mm were not given this added benefit. Congratulation to Dave Shaw in taking the TOP SHOT!  Paul owes you a gun case. Malfunction was one of the elements we were looking to identify in the class. 1911's are known to have multiple malfunctions and thus often thought of as unreliable.  Although 60% of the class experienced some sort of malfunction, Oscar, Chris Weir & Matthew Kanin & Dave Shaw's 1911 demonstrated ZERO malfunction with almost 250 rounds fired in 4 hours. They now belong to the ZERO MALF CLUB.
  NAME MALF
1 Dave Shaw 0
2 Mat Addis 1 FC
3 Oscar 0
4 Paul Luna 1 FE
5 Chris Weir 0
6 Daniel Luna 1 FE
7 Matthew Kanin 0
8 Mike Dozier 8 FC
9 Mike Steinwender 1 STV
 
FC= Failire to chamber
FE = Failure to Exract
STV = Stove pipe
Everyone demonstrated an sufficient advanced pistol shooting skills without any safety violation.

By

Read More
Are Major California Cities Ready for CCW

Are Major California Cities Ready for CCW

The Future of Constitutional Carry in California

By Jonathan W. Birdt[1]

CCWThe Second Amendment provides, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”  In 2008, the Supreme Court in Heller declared that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to carry a firearm in case of confrontation.  Since then, there has been no doubt that there is a Fundamental Right to bear arms in the home, because the case decided in 2008 related to a regulation applying to the home.  Those opposed to lawful gun ownership and possession have argued that the Fundamental Right is limited to the home, and does not confer a right to carry a weapon outside the home.   As discussed below, Federal District and Circuit Courts have come to different conclusions, necessitating Supreme Court clarification in the very near future.

Constitutional Carry refers to the right to possess a loaded weapon for self-defense outside the home.  Currently, in California and a few other States, this Fundamental Right is infringed by a confluence of discretionary concealed weapon laws and bans on openly carrying firearms, precluding any avenue for the exercise of the Right. Most people not familiar with the issue of guns in America are surprised to learn that 43 States allow any law abiding citizen to carry a concealed weapon for self-defense as a matter of right, and a few other permit it is as a matter of practice on a State-wide or county level.  Of those States that have adopted a Constitutional Carry plan, each saw reductions in violent crime and accidental gun injuries[2].

Generally, there are three methods for exercising the Fundamental Constitutional Right to Carry a weapon for self-defense; the State Constitution, “shall issue” licensing and “may issue” licensing.  At least three States have now adopted Constitutional Carry which permits all residents of the State to carry a concealed weapon without training or a background check.  “Shall issue” licensing is the most prevalent form of State regulation of the Right to Bear Arms and requires a background check and some form of State approved training.  “May issue” licensing grants discretion to the issuing authority to determine if a valid need exists.  It is the “may issue” States that are being challenged in legal proceedings that appear destined for the Supreme Court in the next year.

In general, the concern with “may issue” licensing is not training or background checks, but the unfettered governmental discretion wielded by government officials to decide if someone “needs” to exercise their right.  The restrictive “may issue” states are California, Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York.  There are significant legal challenges pending against California (see below) and Maryland (Woollard , 4th Circuit).  Two significant Appellate cases were also resolved this year, one in favor of Constitutional Carry (Moore 7th Circuit), and the other supporting New York’s discretionary policies (Kachalsky 2nd Circuit). There is no direct right to appeal a Circuit Court decision, and it is generally deemed a final judgment; however, the Supreme Court reviews requests to review Circuit Court Appellate decisions by way of what is known as a writ of certiorari.  Generally, the Supreme Court avoids stepping into a national issue until there is a firmly established split among the various Appellate Circuits.  As such, the Court denied the request to review Kachalsky, and it is likely they will deny the request to review Woollard pending decisions by the 9th Circuit below.

In Maryland (Woollard), a Federal court Judge found the State’s practices to be unconstitutional, but the Appellate Court reversed, issuing an opinion similar to the loss in New York.  A petition for Supreme Court review has been filed.  New York’s system was challenged in Kachalsky, and the discretionary policy was upheld by the trial and Appellate Court, with the Supreme Court denying a request to review the ruling, making it a final judgment.  The 10th Circuit issued an opinion earlier this year, but it was non-conclusive because of substantial procedural errors, but arguably the Court did signal that if it had been properly presented, they would have come out in favor of Constitutional Carry.  Because of the similarity between Woollard and Kachalsky, along with the other pending Circuit matters below, it is presumed that the Woollard request for review will be denied.

It is important to note that, unlike most of the other Fundamental Rights in the Bill of Rights, and even those created by the Supreme Court (abortion founded in privacy founded in the penumbra of rights) which have had, in some cases, 150 years of evolving case law, the Second Amendment was not declared a Fundamental Right until 2008 in Heller.  The ruling in Heller and was found applicable to the states in 2010 Supreme Court decision in McDonald. As such, the history of Second Amendment jurisprudence is really just beginning, and in the 9th Circuit (as well as nationally given the expected denial of Supreme Court review until the 9th Circuit issues its’ opinions) was set back many years by a procedurally flawed case known as Nordyke.  As such, while the Fundamental Right has been around since the beginning of our great nation, and many would argue long before, it does not really exist in legal texts applicable to the States until 2010, thus marking the beginning of Constitutional Carry Civil Rights litigation at the District Court level in a meaningful way.

In Moore 7th Circuit Court of Appeal declared that Illinois, the last no issue state, caused Illinois to adopt a “shall issue” licensing system.  The Courts’ ruling sums up the bulk of the legal authority offered by the Supreme Court to date:

Nor can we ignore the implication of the analysis that the constitutional right of armed self-defense is broader than the right to have a gun in one’s home.  The first sentence of the McDonald opinion states that “two years ago, in District of Columbia v. Heller, we held that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense,” and later in the opinion we read that “Heller explored the right’s origins, noting that the 1689 English Bill of Rights explicitly protected a right to keep arms for self-defense, and that by 1765, Blackstone was able to assert that the right to keep and bear arms was `one of the fundamental rights of Englishmen,’. And immediately the Court adds that “Blackstone’s assessment was shared by the American colonists.”

Both Heller and McDonald do say that “the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute” in the home, but that doesn’t mean it is not acute outside the home. Heller repeatedly invokes a broader Second Amendment right than the right to have a gun in one’s home, as when it says that the amendment “guarantee[s] the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.”  Confrontations are not limited to the home.

This means we have a Circuit split in authority, and will have several opinions issued in the 9th Circuit (California) over the next few months, hopefully either granting us full relief similar to Moore, or leading to a Supreme Court review likely to grant us relief similar to Moore.  With the expected denial of cert in Woollard, all eyes turn to California, long delayed because of Nordyke, but now free of that debacle and likely the last Federal Appellate battleground before this issue returns to the Supreme Court if review is denied as expected in Woollard.

California presents an interesting backdrop for this last skirmish because the State recently banned the open carrying of firearms, an outlet that exists in other States that are “may issue” and restrict access to licenses.  With the open carry ban in California, the only lawful way to carry a weapon is with a permit, but the permitting process is flawed in that it gives each county Sheriff unfettered discretion to decide who “needs” a permit.  Sacramento, the State Capital, will issue a concealed weapons permit to any law abiding citizen for purposes of self-defense as will a vast majority of the 58 Counties, but the Sheriffs and Police Chiefs in major urban cities like Los Angeles and San Francisco refuse to issue permits almost completely.  In Los Angeles, the LASD and LAPD require a showing of a clear and present danger of immediate bodily harm[3], and in the past 20 years, the LAPD has only issued four new civilian permits and has less than 20 current permits while serving a population of nearly 4,000,000 residents.

In California, there are six cases heading for decision.  These case are broken in to three clusters, First Richards/Peruta, then Birdt/Thomson/Raulinaitis and finally, McKayRichards/Peruta are cases from Yolo and San Diego Counties respectively and were both decided on similar grounds- that because the applicants could openly carry firearms, they had an alternative way of exercising their rights, thus allowing the courts to dodge the issue.  These cases have been fully briefed with oral arguments last year, and a decision could issue at any moment.  It is possible the Court could again side-step the discretion issue because the law regarding open carry has changed, causing the Court to send the cases back for reconsideration given that the law upon which each opinion was based no longer exists.

The Birdt/Thomson/Raulinaitis cases directly challenge the practices of various agencies in Los Angeles, which all maintain a policy requiring a showing of clear and present danger before they will issue a permit.   These cases were all decided by summary judgment with the trial court finding that the exercise of discretion was permitted and did not discuss the open carry option, as it was no longer applicable.  McKay is a recently filed case that sought a preliminary injunction before the case had been litigated.  The motion was denied and an appeal taken, and while it adds nothing to this area of law, it will provide immediate relief to Orange County residents should one of the cases above prevail.

So for the future, we have a number of options that all lead to Supreme Court review in the very near future, with possible immediate relief in California in the interim.  More likely, we will all have to wait for a final Supreme Court decision, allowing the residents of Maryland and New York to re-file and catch up with the Supreme Court ruling.  As it stands, a grant of review in Woollard could have the effect of a nationwide stay on litigation, but also expedites our path to a Supreme Court decision and would be an excellent case for review.  Absent that, it is expected that the 9th Circuit will be proactive, similar to the 7th Circuit in Moore.  However, with that success, we will also see a petition for Supreme Court review that will likely be granted as the Circuit vote be 2-2, or even with a loss, there will be a 3-1 circuit split that will be ripe for resolution.  At the present, we wait for the 9th Circuit to issue an opinion in any of the 6 cases before it.  Generally, the 9th Circuit issues opinions up to a year after oral arguments, and Richards/Peruta were both argued in December, 2012.

Disclaimer: The article has been prepared by the individual author and are intended for informational purposes ONLY. The information provided on this blog is provided only as general information, which may or may not reflect the most current legal developments and should not be considered an indication of future results. The opinions expressed at or through this article is the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of TAC-1: Tactical Advanced Combat LLC or any individual instructors.


[1] The author is an AV Premient Civil Litigation and trial attorney who lives with his family in Southern California.  He is a life Member of the NRA, NRA RSO and avid recreational shooter.

[2] “Confirming More Guns, Less Crime”, Stanford Law Review, Florenz Plassmann and John Whitley, 2003, p. 1361.

[3] “Convincing evidence of a clear and present danger to life or of great bodily harm to the applicant, his spouse or dependent child, which cannot be adequately dealt with by existing law enforcement resources and which danger cannot be reasonably avoided by alternative measures, and which danger would be significantly mitigated by the applicant’s carrying of a concealed firearm.”

By

Read More

TAC-1 Combat Team Tryout

Team TAC-1

TAC-1 is now building a Combat Shooting Team where we put together a select few individuals to go out and compete in local shooting competitions representing TAC-1 and yourself.  The team unity will provide a unique support system where shooters are no longer by themselves attending these events.  Members of the team will provide support for scoring, timing, tips, coaching, troubleshooting, photo/video opportunity, supplying  food & drink and much more at the shooting events.  Team member will also have special discounts to TAC-1’s unique partnership with product endorsements and sponsorships. Each team member will compete with a specially designed shooting shirts designed by The Winning Team of Santa Clarita.  Benefits are countless.

On 8/11/12, we are holding our first Team tryout. The attendee will need to score 150 or better in the IDPA classifier – that’s equivalent of a Sharp Shooter.  Everyone will have several practice runs along with instructions to best hit the targets in timed strings. Do you have what it takes to be on the TAC-1 Combat Team?

This Team tryout will be conducted concurrently with the TAC-1 Skill Building Workshop, so feel free to give it a try!  <More>

TAC-1 Mindset Training w/ Dave Grossman

Dave GrossmanTAC-1 is inviting Dave Grossman to Santa Clarita for a day long training as a part of TAC-1 Mindset Curriculum.  Lt. Colonel Dave Grossman is a former West Point psychology professor, a Pulitzer Prize nominated author, and a former US Army Ranger who has spent a lifetime studying and teaching about the reality of combat. He is our nation’s most successful and respected trainer of military, Special Forces and law enforcement; on the road, almost 300 days a year training our nation’s “sheepdogs” a term that he coined in his famous treatise on “e Sheep, the Wolf, and the Sheepdog.” Now his dynamic, powerful and inspirational training is available to all citizens as he teaches about the threats to our nation, internal, external and terrorist related, and the role (as intended, under the Constitution) of armed American citizens in answering these threats.  <More>