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

TAC-1 BLOG 

After Action Reports

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

P2(C) – CCW AAR (Internal Memo)

Dear 140906P2C participants,

First, let us extend our gratitude in having you to select TAC-1 for your CCW training. Without your support we would not have been able to grow as one of the exclusive firearm trainings in So. Cal. We say exclusive because although we have been offering training for almost 4 years, we are still one of the best kept secrets in the industry providing you with relevant training with personalized attention.  With over 65 combined years of carrying conceal and firearms instructional expertise, the students were sure to receive a great insight into the reality of carrying conceal in TAC-1’s P2C.

The class of 140906P2C was a 10 hr conceal carry training offered at Angeles Shooting range from 1200 to 2200 hrs. Although the duration of the training was the longest that we’d ever offered, with 4 solid hours in the air-conditioned classroom the actual range time went by rather quickly. The amount of information was abundant and every bit of information was vital for all CCW holders’ survivability and success – staying out of prison and mostly an unnecessary visit to the coroner’s office.

The classroom portion first began with the aspect of mindset when carrying concealed. It was Lou’s and our intent to bring this aspect of the training first to remind all students about the seriousness of carrying and what is required and asked of from the person who had volunteered to carry concealed.  Carrying conceal is an inherent right for most American people but it’s not a requirement – those who had decided to carry are volunteering (just as going into military) and thus it is asked of them to become proficient in surviving deadly encounters and be a responsible citizen – not be a liability to society.

CCW Chris

One of the hardest aspect of concealed carry is to distinguish what is a justified shooting and what isn’t.  The ability to make a split second decision is asked of CCW holders. Students were reminded to visualize and rehearse difficult scenarios to aid in preparation before carrying concealed. Students were given numerous scenarios where discussions followed. Although seeking legal representation and invoking the right to remain silent after being involved in a shooting is highly recommended, shooters must eventually articulate their own actions and the students were reminded to be prepared to answer why they did what they did under oath, in court.  Lou’s recommendation was: 

“to provide a brief of what happened, then “Shut Up.” Don’t tell anyone including family and friends what happen.  If accusatory questions are asked or you are handcuffed then ask attorney.  You will most probably be taken to the police station for an interview but don’t say anything without attorney advice (criminal).”

 

Dean shared his arsenal of holsters and gear that may save some headaches for the students. There are many options and choices in the market.  There are 2 ways for any shooters to find the right gear – one is to buy everything and try it yourself and the other is to ask a person with sufficient knowledge about gear and take his advice. Dean’s reasoning for selecting gear was essential for knowing what to look for when selecting the right ones.  Dean also shared the 3 C’s of Concealed Weapon Concept where Caliber, Capacity and Conceal-ability was weighed in.  Caliber debate was discussed where “penetration” was presented as the most important aspect when selecting ammunition. The notion of “Stopping Power” was refuted as  a legitimate way to measure ballistics. Although, non-LEO’s in California are required to only use magazines with 10 rounds or less. Having less than 11 rounds in the weapon certainly does a person disservice where it is calculated that 70 to 80% of LEO shootings are misses.  Most students brought the new M&P Shield with only 7 or 8 rounds of 9mm – many took a second look at its sufficiency. 

I will post what Dean had recommended in terms of gear on our website for all to see. I will also create an ammunition page where we promote CCW holsters to always get high quality ammo in their weapon when carrying. 

TAC-1 CCW (Advanced)

Range Drills:

Presentation from conceal carry is no easy task. Selecting the right garment for your carry is essential. The weapon must be completely concealed and have ease of access to your weapon. Students were reminded to look discrete and not to look “tactical” to avoid suspicion. (One day I went into a store where a male cashier asked me if I was a shooter. I was puzzled and had to ask why he was asking. He said that my t-shirt was a dead giveaway – I was wearing a 5.11 t-shirt [no logo design but a small tag at the bottom of the shirt]). People notice things like that.

CCW JonMost students were dressed correctly and sufficiently.  Without naming names, one person showed up with beach sandal to this tactical shooting class.  This was not only dangerous for his feet and ankle but he would’t have had no other options if and when that scandal’s straps broke.  His training would have ended. This reminded us to remind all students to have proper and safe wear on the range and ban sandals all together. 

Students were given sufficient instructions in presentation from concealed carry. Students were instructed about the importance of being aggressive with their draws as Dean reminded that shooting is always about catching up to the other guy. Many began to realize the limitation of drawing from their own holsters they brought with them.  Chris Anderson’s under shirt holster proved ineffective and potentially dangerous when drawing quickly – especially under stress. Chris’s shirt holster was accessible but had several other issues: He could easily cover his support arm during the Presentation, he could not obtain a shooting grip and had to adjust the weapon after removal, he needed two hands to re-holster and during Presentation he could easily cover students/others to his left. Ultimately, Chris realized its limitations and changed his gear to a belt holster (OWB) to meet the training need.

Jason came on to the class without prior TAC-1 experience and survived the class. He started with a Cross Breed type holster at the 4/5 o’clock position.  His Alien  Gear holster’s opening collapsed once he drew is weapon out which made it near impossible to re-holster without using his support hand’s assistance.  This was not only in-effective but also dangerous potentially covering his own hand in the process.  Jason switched to a kydex appendix carry – courtesy of Dean’s Rhino Holster.  We advised Jason to continue training and up his technique to become more effective with his weapon system. He agreed. 

We challenged our students to shoot at Santa Monica PD targets with color coded dots from 5 yard line. This proved extremely difficult for most students with their compact/subcompact weapons. With shorter barrel length, accuracy suffered.  This phenomenon reminded students to train more with their compact weapons and not to neglect its trigger time (including me).  There were more misses than the hits.

Shooting from speed kneeling, turning and shooting and moving forward and backward with conceal draw was administered to students.  Again the hit ratio suffered on the steel.

Dean treated the class with the introduced of Modified SIS concealed carry CCW Dave
qualification course.  This class was not for “sissies”.  The students had the opportunity to get down dirty with prone position at 20 yard line.  We stressed the importance of conducting firearms training like we fight – getting dirty and being OK with that notion was part of the training.  I have personally never seen this course of fire before and one will not find it posted anywhere on the internet. The 9 students who’d participated in this class may be the first fortunate civilians EVER to shoot this course of fire directly prescribed by the detective in charge of SIS training. It was modified to exclude the 30 yard phase and it was not times.

Scores were:

Jon* (-4)
David (-11)
Lance (-20)
Christopher (-26)
Jason (-31)
Mike S. (-44)
Chris A. (-47)
Mike D. (-49)
Jack (-83)

*Great job to Jon for shooting the top shot in this course of fire.  Sorry, not designed for a prize. 

JonAs the day turned to night we transition over to the low light shooting portion. We covered flashlight technique and Dean introduced weapon mounted light. We did not have the right condition to teach the technique in more illuminated setting.  People had difficult time seeing the technique presented in the dark. We breezed through the technique and did not have the opportunity to practice them live.  This proved difficult for half of the class who had no formal training in low light shooting.  TAC-1 needs to revisit this portion of the training block to ensure that students have sufficient time learning the flashlight technique prior to having them shoot the combat course.

We then split the class into two groups to be switched between two ranges.  Group A went with Lou to learn how to shoot from driver side of a mock vehicle door.  Much of conceal carry incidents involve shooting from inside of a vehicle.  This introduction was essential to understand how to draw, present and shoot from car seats. 

Seban’s Bagels (Lou’s Note)

(Typically, usually, generally people have a sense of security when they enter their vehicles and frequently go condition “White”)

Scenario: During hours of darkness. You just purchased a bag of bagels, entered your car and placed the bag on the passenger seat. When you hear “Give me your fucking money” react.

Students started seated next to a mock car window frame with an armed threat target to their immediate left and an additional threat target (the lookout) offset to their left front.

Tactical concerns/issues: Any sudden movement (Presentation) could cause the threat to react with deadly force. How do you get to your weapon without a deliberate sudden movement? Ease of accessibility of the concealed weapon from the seated position. Presenting the weapon outside the window frame could make it accessible to the threat. Anticipate the secondary threat to react to your initial response. Can you see the threats weapons at night. If one threat is armed do you “reasonably” assume the others are armed? Assess for additional threats.

What we learned: Use a ruse to distract the primary threat which would provide you lag time for the Presentation. Dean provided an excellent example during debrief, “Do you want my credit cards too?” Appendix carry facilitated an easy presentation from this position. Primary side IWB or OWB should be practiced in your personal car to identify Presentation issues. While the immediate threat to your left could be rapidly and effectively point shot including head shots, the secondary threat required use of sights at a deliberate pace to get solid hits. Several students got marginal hits or missed by going too fast and/or trying to point shoot the distant threat. Nights sights on CC weapons are ideal in low light to no light situations. Students with night sights got great hits. No secondary lights were used for illumination(time to deploy?).

CCW Night Combat Course:

We’d designed a combat course on the B range to reflect all aspects of the training throughout the day. There were decision making aspect to this course as well as we gave the shooters the responsibility of managing their own ammo. The dark range required students to utilize their flashlight to maneuver through the course as well as draw, holster, reload and operate their weapon with a flashlight in their support hand.  The proper usage of cover was stressed and not to illuminate themselves with their own flashlights when behind cover. This course was not timed and divided into Phases.

Phase I – long distance shot (approx. 30 yards). This was to test the limits of the student’s weapon. The distance shots proved difficult for many and there were more misses than the actual hits. Many students failed to look around and utilize what was available to them including the wall that was to the left and their upright knee to use as a brace. Many pointed out that they were not able to see their sights and acquire a good sight picture from this distance – which is an  indication that they fired their weapon even if they didn’t know where the weapon was pointed at the time of firing their weapon – which could have resulted in liability in the real word. Students placed their flashlight on the deck illuminating the target.  This gave the students ample light and two hands to shoot at this distance. 

Phase II – Failure drill from right side of cover at 10 yard.  Many students did not understand the concept of use of cover (P2B). Thus many “crowded” the cover and exposed themselves to the threat. Assessment was another problem we continuously observed. Students were too eager to go back in the holster without verifying that there were no additional threat(s).  Remember, criminals work in numbers. Dean mentioned some work in a group of 5 or more.  Average is 2.  Always assess.  If you were aggressive in drawing and beating the threat to it, why would you want to re-holster quickly without assessment unless you need to in an emergency – i.e. approaching police officer(s).

Students also kept the light on the entire time during assessment and reloading that they back-lit themselves behind cover receiving “splash backs” blinding themselves with their own light. Lights must be used judiciously and sparingly.  Also not keeping their eyes on the suspect when reloading or clearing mal-functions may be costly.  Many fumbled with their flash light which added to the confusion.  For Jack, Harries flashlight technique was disadvantageous when peeking out of the right side of the barricade.  Left handed shooter like Jack has his light on the left side of the weapon – he has to “pie” out more to the right of the barricade to get the light down range. Jack was not able to re-adjust his grip to place the light on the right of the weapon to accommodate this issue.

Phase III – Speed kneel at 5 yard line – Failure Drill. Jon’s weapon mounted light was very effective and proved to be advantageous over flashlights.  However, since the light is mounted at the bottom of the barrel, it posed an issue since he did not adjust the height of the weapon to clear the barricade.  The half of the light was hitting the barricade illuminating himself. He needed to raise the weapon higher to clear the barricade so that he won’t assist the bad guys in his target acquisition. Many failed to re-assess once they got up from the kneeling position. If you change elevation and if the view point changed, you must re-assess before holstering. Many who used the M&P Shield ran out of ammo here.  Some just stood there not realizing that their weapon was out of battery, slide locked to the rear. I asked them what was wrong with their weapon and took them a moment to realize that they were out. Some were asked repeatedly and not realizing the problem.CCW Chris W

Phase IV – Turing and shooting. Shooters were asked to walk up-rage toward a red cone. Along the way shooter was confronted with “GUN!” He had to turn, draw and fire 2 rounds at the steel target while back pedaling toward the red cone utilizing their flashlight. Some completely stopped, some moved forward instead. Many reloaded upon completion.  Handling their magazines with their flashlight in their support hand posed challenge for many. I noticed that most ignored handling their weapon at eye/chest level.  Most had their head down looking at their gun which was held at waist level.  This made the shooter completely oblivious to down range condition. Keeping their eyes forward toward the threat and keeping track of the downed suspect is one of the ways to stay safe on the street.

Phase V – Shooting Failure drill from both sides of the cover – 10 yrds. Again, students were asked to fire failure drills from cover, but this time from both sides – right and left. But the left target was intentionally set up as No Shoot. Again, students were briefed to identify the threat – that they needed to make sure that their shooting was a “good” shooting. This element is another dimension added to their decision making process.  One of the most critical decision a shooter can make – is to shoot or not to shoot. Everyone with the exception of Jon and Jason – everyone else shot this “innocent” bystander.  When we asked the students why they shot, some said “I thought I saw a gun,” “you told me to shoot,” “I didn’t see it,” “oh shit,” and many became silent. Even still, shooters must eventually articulate why they shot. Bottom line – must identify the threat and don’t assume.  Being able to use your flashlight effectively in conjunction with your weapon now becomes critical in this process. Weapon mounted lights are a great tool, but keep in mind that you can’t point your light in the direction where you end up covering innocent people and violating the firearms safety rule. It has it’s limitations. 

Phase VI – Moving cover to cover utilizing cover fire. You don’t necessarily have to hit the target. It’s a distraction shot so you can quickly and safely get to another cover.

Phase VII – Breaking cover and charge at your threat and fire 1 failure drill. When would you ever break cover especially as a civilian? Cover is your friend and we recommend that you stick with it. Nevertheless, there may be that one time when the opportunity arises and if that was your only option to break cover – this was the scenario.  We wanted to inoculate further stress and assess your ability to shoot while moving forward.  Some failed to reload behind cover and ensure that they had enough ammo in their weapon for this aggressive maneuver.  You certainly do not want run out of ammo while you are charging at a bad guy and resort to speed reloading at toe to toe distance. That is a disaster and the shooter’s worst nightmare.  Ensure that you know the condition of your weapon at all times when feasible. Due to the elevated stress level, hit ratio suffered.  Many were non fatal shots. Hopefully, voluntary de-escalation kicked in. CCW Lance

Phase VIII – Assessment and threat left. I wanted catch you off guard here.  Napoleon once said, “The moment of greatest vulnerability is the instant immediately after victory.” That’s when we let our guard down. Once it’s down its difficult to bring it back up. Many panicked and fumbled as they were caught off guard.  There were many misses at this phase as well. 

As we said, we wanted you to make mistakes and many did. Mission accomplished.

We hope you enjoyed the class as Lou, Dean and I had attempted to make it informative, engaging, instructional, eye-opening, revealing and most of all fun.   We now recognize that this class was way too advanced for new CCW shooters and to those who are just looking to get a certificate. We are intending to create a Pistol-I(a) and (b) for CCW certification course (Module CCW1, 2) which will be up soon to cater to Orange, Kern, Ventura and eventually LA County certification.  Having said that we wish to continue with this intermediate/advanced CCW course for shooters with higher skill level – which may also include LEO’s.

Please give us your feed back for this class below in the comment section.  We are using a blog format just as in Facebook but not all have Facebook. Here we are able to cross compare each other’s comments and reflect upon it.

Some things we hope to hear from you are:

– Did P2C meet your expectations? How?

– Did your perception and understanding about CCW and  shooting in Low Light change? How?

– How did you like the pace of the class? 10hrs vs 8hrs

– How did you feel about the amount of information and technique that were presented to you?  Classroom vs Range time

– How were the instructors helpful with your training? Were they easy to understand?  Were they informative?

– What did you like the most about the class?  Least liked?

– How was the ammo count?

– If you could change anything about the training, what would it be?

– Would you suggest this class to anyone else?  

– Have you received CCW instruction before?  With whom? What were the differences? 

– Do you find the pricing to be expensive, inexpensive or just right?

Thank you and see you at the range,

Shoji Hattori
General Manager
TAC-1: Tactical Advanced Combat, LLC
Main (661)753-3632
shoji@tac-1.org
www.tac-1.org
“Stay in the Fight”

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