Most shootings happen in low or no light, but little training is done during these hours.

Topics include light selection, hand-held flashlight techniques, searching, dynamic movement, use of the light as a weapon. The student will learn how inefficient the human eye is in low light, and how to fight effectively despite this handicap.

Two days, 400 rounds pistol, 400 carbine; duty handgun and carbine, sling, and a minimum of two service-quality handheld lights (Surefire recommended).

Force Options w/ Jeff Hall

ATAC TV, TOM CLARKE, MARK FLINN, JEFF HALL, LENNY BOLTON, GLENN JUSTICE, JIM FULLER, VENOM TACTICAL, RIFLE DYNAMICS, FORCE OPTIONS

Opening Briefs Filed in Federal Age Limit Challenge

On Dec. 5, the NRA filed its opening appellate brief on behalf of several law-abiding young adults challenging the federal ban on dealer sales of handguns and handgun ammunition to persons between the ages of 18 and 20. The case is Jennings v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, and will be heard in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. (A similar case challenging Texas’ age limit of 21 for issuance of concealed handgun licenses remains pending in the trial court.)

The appeal challenges a ruling by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, which held that the law does not violate the Second Amendment. The lower court wrongly compared the ban to other restrictions the Supreme Court has said would be “presumptively lawful,” such as the ban on sales to convicted felons.

In response, the brief points out that nearly a decade before Supreme Court decided District of Columbia v. Heller, the Fifth Circuit itself had held (in the 2001 case of United States v. Emerson) that Second Amendment claims should be decided based on the amendment’s “history and text.” The history of the Founding era makes clear that 18-year-olds were considered adults for purposes of the right to keep and bear arms; for example, the Militia Act of 1792 required 18-year-olds to “be enrolled in the militia” and to arm themselves accordingly.

The brief also argues that the right to possess arms clearly implies a right to acquire arms—a principle that has been recognized in other areas, such as First Amendment law. For example, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a New York City anti-graffiti law banning retail sales of marking pens and spray paint to people under 21, even though older friends or relatives could buy these items for use by legitimate young artists.

Amazingly, the government makes a similar argument in Jennings, suggesting that the ban on dealer sales is constitutional because young adults could legally receive handguns or ammunition as gifts, or buy them in private, unlicensed sales. (The government’s argument surely must be causing heartburn at the Brady Center, since the alternatives suggested by the government would not be subject to background checks in most states.)

But as the NRA’s brief notes, “none of the Plaintiffs has found this mode of random scrounging for second-hand pistols from unlicensed individual gun owners to be a satisfactory avenue for acquiring reliable, safe, and popular handguns.” And a “friend of the court” brief by the National Shooting Sports Foundation points out that the ban deprives young buyers of benefits that are more readily available through licensed dealers, such as warranties, instruction manuals and safety training.

Supreme Court Declines to Hear Carry Cases

On Nov. 28, the U.S. Supreme Court has declined to review the second of two cases involving the right to bear arms outside the home. The Nov. 28 denial in United States v. Masciandaro follows an Oct. 3 denial in Williams v. Maryland.

Masciandaro involved a challenge to the now-repealed ban on possessing firearms in national parks. The defendant was arrested after police found him sleeping in his car on National Park Service property near Washington, D.C. and a search of the vehicle revealed his handgun. Two judges on a three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals upheld the regulation, arguing that the lower courts should wait for the Supreme Court to provide clearer guidance before striking down carry bans.

Williams was an appeal from Maryland’s highest court, which upheld the conviction of a defendant who was caught carrying his pistol in a backpack at a bus stop. The Maryland Court of Appeals court held—very wrongly—that the Second Amendment simply provides no protection for carrying firearms outside the home.

While the Supreme Court’s decision not to hear these cases greatly reduces the chance that the court will explore this aspect of the Second Amendment during the 2011-12 term, several excellent cases addressing carriage outside the home are currently pending in the lower courts. Those include the NRA-supported cases of Peruta v. County of San Diego, which challenges discriminatory permit issuance under California law; Jennings v. McCraw, the Texas carriage case noted above; and Shepard v. Madigan, challenging Illinois’ complete denial of any lawful way to carry firearms for self-defense outside one’s home or place of business. Peruta is pending in the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals; Jennings is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas; and Shepard is awaiting action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois.

Washington Court Rules That Seattle Gun Ban is Illegal

On Oct. 31, the Washington state Court of Appeals affirmed that a gun ban in Seattle’s parks is illegal. The decision comes more than a year after a King County judge sided with several area gun owners, the NRA and the Second Amendment Foundation by blocking enforcement of the law.

In 2008, the city of Seattle and then-Mayor Greg Nickels (D) enacted a rule that banned firearms and “dangerous weapons” from city parks, community centers and other city properties. In 2009, the city added another rule that banned guns from parks where children are “likely to be present.”

In October 2009, the NRA and other plaintiffs asked the King County Superior Court to strike down the ban as a violation of Washington’s preemption statute, which forbids localities from enacting this type of ban. Specifically, the preemption statute says the state preempts the field of firearm regulation, and prohibits cities from regulating firearms—a position supported by an Oct. 2008 legal opinion from state Attorney General Rob McKenna (R).

In response, the city claimed the ban wasn’t a “law” or a criminal regulation, and that it was acting in its “proprietary capacity” as a property owner.

In February 2010, the Superior Court of King County struck down the Seattle City Parks and Recreation rule banning firearms from city parks, including possession by Right-to-Carry permit holders. The city appealed.

In the Oct. 31 ruling, the Court of Appeals panel wrote: “We hold that under the plain language of RCW 9.41.290 and RCW 9.41.300, the City’s attempt to regulate the possession of firearms at designated park areas and park facilities open to the public by adopting the Firearms Rule is preempted by state law.”

The court’s opinion further stated, “The Firearms Rule regulates the possession of firearms at designated city parks and park facilities open to the general public. [The case law on which the City relies] does not support the City’s position that RCW 9.41.290 does not apply because it is acting as a property owner and setting conditions on use of its property. Except as authorized by the legislature, RCW 9.41.290 precludes a municipality from regulating the possession of firearms at city-owned park facilities open to the general public.”

Unfortunately, this long-running case isn’t yet over; the city has appealed to the Washington Supreme Court.

NRA Briefs Defend the Fourth Amendment

The NRA and the California Rifle and Pistol Association Foundation have filed two “friend of the court” briefs in U.S. Supreme Court cases involving the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. The cases highlight the importance of other provisions of the Bill of Rights in protecting the rights of gun owners and hunters.

The first case, Messerschmidt v. Millender, involves a civil rights lawsuit brought by Augusta Millender of Los Angeles. The events leading to the suit began when police searching for a domestic assault suspect obtained a search warrant for Ms. Millender’s house; Ms. Millender, then 73 years old, had been the suspect’s foster mother 15 years earlier. Although the police knew the suspect’s gun was a “black sawed off shotgun with a pistol grip,” and officers even had photographs of the suspect holding it, they obtained a warrant for, among other things:

All handguns, rifles or shotguns of any caliber, or any firearms capable of firing ammunition or firearms or devices modified or designed to allow it [sic] to fire ammunition. All caliber of ammunition, miscellaneous gun parts, gun cleaning kits, holsters which could hold or have held any caliber handgun being sought. Any receipts or paperwork, showing the purchase, ownership, or possession of the handguns being sought. Any firearm for which there is no proof of ownership. Any firearm capable of firing or chambered to fire any caliber ammunition.

At Ms. Millender’s house, officers seized her personal shotgun, which clearly didn’t match the description or photos. (It had a wooden stock and wasn’t sawed off.) Both the trial court and the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals agreed with Ms. Millender that the officers were not immune from suit, because the warrant failed to meet the Fourth Amendment’s requirement that warrants “particularly describe[e] the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

The government is now appealing the Ninth Circuit’s decision. The NRA/CRPAF brief argues that “Since firearms are lawful to possess and are constitutionally protected, no basis exists for a search warrant to seize them absent rigorous fulfillment of the Fourth Amendment’s probable cause and particularity requirements.” The brief goes on to explain that one of the original reasons for enactment of the Fourth Amendment was to prevent seizure of firearms, as had occurred in 17th century England and in Colonial America a century later. Likewise, a key purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to prevent seizure of arms from freedmen after the Civil War.

The second case, Maikhio v. California, should be of special interest to hunters—but also to any gun owner who might be mistaken for a hunter or fisherman, perhaps by having pro-hunting stickers on his vehicle. That’s because the case is an appeal of a California Supreme Court decision in an illegal fishing case; the court held that a game warden could stop a vehicle without a warrant or reasonable suspicion if the “game warden had reason to believe an occupant had recently been fishing or hunting.”

The NRA/CRPAF brief argues that the California Supreme Court’s decision wrongly created a lower standard for hunters and fishermen, in violation of Supreme Court precedent and in spite of the long and honorable tradition of hunting and fishing in the United States.

City of Los Angeles Forced to Turn Over Documents Regarding Concealed Carry License Decisions

On December 13, 2011, in a victory for self-defense civil rights activists, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge James Chalfant (Department 85 - Central District Courthouse) granted a motion to compel and ordered the City of Los Angeles, Los Angeles Police Department (”LAPD”), and the LAPD Chief of Police Charlie Beck to produce documents relating to the LAPD’s policies and procedures for processing applications for a license to carry a concealed firearm.

In 1992 and 1994, the City’s unlawful refusal to properly process CCW applications was challenged in two lawsuits. To settle the suits, LAPD agreed to a court-ordered application processing procedure. The LAPD agreed to a definition of “good cause” that was articulated in the settlement, and agreed that all citizens who request a CCW permit application would be provided a CCW application at any LAPD station house, along with a copy of the LAPD’s procedure for handling the application, and the procedures for appealing the denial of a CCW application. The settlements also resulted in the establishment of a Citizens Advisory Review Panel, made up of appointed citizens who would review CCW applications denied by the LAPD and make recommendations regarding whether the Chief should reverse the denial.

The LAPD has repeatedly failed to honor its legal obligations under the settlements. It has not made CCW applications and a written copy of the CCW policy and appeal process available at all station houses. And it has ignored the recommendations of the Citizens Advisory Review Panel and has instead enacted a de facto policy of again issuing no CCWs, despite whatever showing of good cause the applicants might make.

To rectify this situation two new legal actions, funded by NRA-ILA and CRPAF through our joint Legal Action Project, were filed.

The first is a motion to enforce the court’s old order in the 1994 case, Assenza v. City of Los Angeles. Some of the original plaintiffs from that Assenza case seek to force the LAPD to reinstate its agreed-to policy of providing applications and copies of its written policy at all LAPD station houses. In support of its motion, NRA grassroots activist citizens were recruited to investigate the LAPD’s practices and submitted declarations about their recent attempts to get CCW applications. They were frustrated by uncooperative officers at individual station houses, all of whom had a complete lack of understanding of the LAPD’s application process, and who in almost all instances could not provide a CCW application to the requesting citizen, much less a copy of the LAPD’s written policy. Perhaps most egregiously, LAPD officers bluntly told citizens that unless they were celebrities, they shouldn’t even bother filling out the CCW application because they would be denied a CCW as a matter of LAPD policy.

The second action is a new lawsuit, Davis v. City of Los Angeles. The nine plaintiffs in this suit, some of whom have had CCW applications pending and unresolved with the LAPD for years, have been subjected to a litany of abuses by LAPD in its handling of their CCW applications relating to LAPD’s continued failure to comply with the original Assenza judgment.  These abuses include not only the failures to provide applications and copies of the written policies at LAPD station houses, but also refusals to timely consider their applications, failures to respond to inquiries regarding the status of applications, failures to acknowledge the availability of the Citizens Advisory Review Panel as a method of appealing denial, and failure to give any weight to recommendations by the Citizens Advisory Review Panel.

As part of the Davis lawsuit, NRA-ILA and CRPA propounded discovery requests on the City seeking all documents produced, generated, created, consulted, referenced, and/or utilized which showed Chief Charlie Beck’s evaluation, assessment, and decision to follow, and not follow, the positive recommendations of the Citizens Advisory Review Panel. We also sought documents relating to the current City and County of LA residents with active CCW licenses issued by Chief Charlie Beck.

The City refused to turn over any documents relating to these requests based on frivolous objections such as relevance, attorney-client and work product privilege, and vagueness, ambiguity, and burdensomeness. We quickly responded and informed the City that their objections lacked merit, especially because all of these requests were public records pursuant to the California Public Records Act.

The City also raised the novel, but unsupportable argument, that the Assenza procedures they should have been operating under in considering the Davis plaintiffs’ CCW applications did not apply to the Davis plaintiffs, or any other citizen in Los Angeles other than the original Assenza plaintiffs.  Thus, the City claimed that it should not have to produce any discovery materials to the Davis plaintiffs about whether the City’s past handling of CCW applications complied with Assenza’s procedures because the City argues that such procedures are irrelevant to the City’s handling of the Davis plaintiffs’ CCW applications.

Needless to say, the Court was asked to intervene and we filed a motion to compel to produce the requested documents. In ordering the City to produce the documents, the Court noted that the City’s attempt to justify its refusal to turn them over consisted of mere “boilerplate objections,” some of which were not made “in good faith.”  Furthermore, the Court indicated that the requests were directly relevant to investigating whether the City is in compliance with the Assenza judgment and the requirements of Penal Code section 12050.

Cases Pending

For more detail concerning these cases, go to http://nraila.org/legalupdate/.

California – Challenge to “May Issue” Carry Law

Peruta v. County of San Diego, (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit) — challenges San Diego County Sheriff William Gore’s refusal to issue carry permits to qualified applicants.

California – Ban on Online Ammunition Sales

Parker v. California (Fresno Superior Court) – challenges a ban on direct mail order and online purchases of ammunition. The state of California has filed an appeal to the permanent injunction on the enforcement of the law which was issued in January.

Delaware – Second Amendment Rights in Public Housing

Doe v. Wilmington Public Housing Authority – challenges restrictions on firearm ownership for residents of public housing.

Illinois – Ban on Gun Stores in Chicago

Benson v. City of Chicago (U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois) – challenges the ban on gun stores in the city of Chicago.

New York — Handguns for Part-Time Residents

Osterweil v. Bartlett (Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals) — challenges New York state law that prevents part-time residents from getting permits to possess handguns in their homes.

Washington, D.C. – Second Amendment Rights in Public Housing

Scott v. District of Columbia Housing Authority – challenges restrictions on firearm ownership for residents of public housing. The court has issued a stay, postponing any action on this case while the D.C. government issues new regulations.

NRA-ILA Referrals and NRA-ILA Supported Litigation

Referrals

The NRA maintains a list of attorneys who have identified themselves as willing to consider cases involving NRA members. If a referral is given, the member must negotiate fees and arrangements with the attorney directly. By providing referrals, we are not endorsing or recommending any attorney on the list for any purpose — the attorneys on the list have simply asked to be placed on our list but have not been vetted by the NRA.

Supported Litigation: How NRA-ILA Accepts Cases

NRA-ILA cannot generally insert itself into litigation in which we are not a party. In order to get involved, we must be invited by a party or the court. Feel free to let us know about cases that may be of interest; however, please do not contact us to become involved in cases to which you are not a party.

NRA-ILA generally assists in cases that affect the Second Amendment civil liberties or civil rights of large numbers of our members and gun owners in general, rather than those involving a dispute between individual parties. The basic questions we ask when reviewing a potential case are:

1. Is this a significant Second Amendment civil liberties or civil rights issue or a vital but derivative civil liberties or civil rights issue?
2. What effect will this case have on people other than the applicant?
3. Do we have the necessary resources to take this case?

Unfortunately, despite the thousands of requests for assistance we receive each year, there are many legitimate and compelling cases in which NRA-ILA is simply unable to assist, as we do not have unlimited resources. We regret that we cannot provide assistance in many cases even if they fall within the guidelines discussed above. To that end, we encourage you to contact the NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund (www.nradefensefund.org), which provides legal and financial assistance to selected individuals and organizations defending their right to keep and bear arms.

Important Note Regarding Deadlines

All legal claims have time deadlines. These deadlines may be different depending on the nature of the issue and the parties involved. For some kinds of civil cases, you may need to file a claim with a government agency before you can sue, and agencies have their own time deadlines.

If you do not comply with the applicable deadlines, you may be legally barred from pursuing your claim in court. Contacting us to describe your problem does not mean that we represent you, nor does it stop the statute of limitations from running. NRA-ILA cannot give you advice about the specific deadlines that apply to your case. To protect your rights, please consult an attorney promptly to find out what deadlines may apply to your particular situation.

ATAC TV

TOM CLARKE, MARK FLINN, JIM FULLER, LENNY BOLTON, GLENN JUSTICE, JEFF HALL, VENOM TACTICAL, RIFLE DYNAMICS, FORCE OPTIONS.NET

THE TRUTH ABOUT GUNS.COM

Gun Free Zones: Not a Gun Issue?

The Fayetteville Observer complains today that the state legislature is going to take away the city’s power to ban guns in parks: “This isn’t a gun issue. Our parks are not high-crime areas. We will have guns in Festival Park and Mazarick Park and most others not because the Second Amendment or some jurist says we must, but because state lawmakers surrounded by serious problems once again ran off to indulge in political posturing.” I can’t count the number of times I have heard a variation on that theme: “Well why would you need a gun in …” a park, a mall, a church, a school, yadda, yadda, yadda, from people who assure me that it isn’t a Second Amendment issue (shades of the classic “I’m not prejudiced, I have lots of black friends”). Most of them can’t explain just why exactly relegating guns to the back of the bus is not a civil rights issue, but we’ll let that pass for the now…

The matter at hand is the idea that posting a sign or passing a law will do anything except to disarm all the people who aren’t going to commit a crime. Which is exactly what these laws do. The run of the mill permit holder will not carry in a prohibited zone, but no sign is going to stop a predator.

So just who does a “No Guns” sign protect? Will it protect anyone from an armed mugger or rapist? Don’t be silly, they don’t care about legal niceties. Will it protect you from some nut-job on a mission to shoot as many people as possible before he blows his own brains out? No, he wants a target rich environment full of disarmed prey, the better to ensure a high body-count.

Read the rest of this story on THE TRUTH ABOUT GUNS.COM

ATAC TV, TOM CLARKE, MARK FLINN, LENNY BOLTON, VENOM TACTICAL, RIFLE DYNAMICS, JIM FULLER, GLENN JUSTICE, JEFF HALL, FORCE OPTIONS.NET, GUN FREE ZONES

ATAC TV™ Firearms Channel Viewer Q & A: What is the Most Reliable Handgun?

Tom Clarke™ and Lenny Bolton with ATAC TV™ Firearms Channel discuss the reliability of most modern handgun platforms.

ATAC TV™ Firearm Reply and Answer:

Tom Clarke™ and Lenny Bolton with ATAC TV™ Firearms Channel discuss the reliability of most modern handgun platforms.  ATAC TV Staff considers reliability the most important aspect of any firearm under any type of conditions.  Most handguns are very accurate and most are reliable in range type environments.  Reliability comes from the continued functioning of the handgun under the most extreme conditions to be worth having and owning, especially in a tactical situation.

The list of modern handguns is huge, but to name a few such as GLOCK, H&K, Springfield, Sigarms, S&W, Wilson, Kimber, etc, that are mostly reliable, well-built and rugged firearm platforms that will perform if handled in the proper manner.  This includes complete maintenance and care as recommended by the manufacturer.  Field and detailed cleaning of the weapon are a “must” with inspection of the wear parts to maintain the reliability functions.  Many handguns require additional maintenance over other brands to continue to function reliably.  This is something you need to determine when purchasing and/or deciding which firearms are right for you and your intended purpose.

If you plan to replace parts of your handgun with the latest modification products, the reliability factor of your stock pistol will drop like a rock.  Not all aftermarket parts are bad, but some products seem to be the “Answer to a non-existent problem.  Products of this nature are garbage, a waste of money and have no place on a reliable firearm. This firearm, if used tactically, is a tool.  Anything that distracts from that basic function should be avoided.  Your handgun should go “bang” each and every time you press the trigger.  If not, either you have added parts to distract from the intended purpose or you own a handgun that would not be functional enough to bet your life on.  You must choose what the intended use of this handgun is for in which environment and working situation to be encountered.  This is how you should select the correct handgun for your needs based on what you are going to use it for.

Watch the video linked below of Tom Clarke and Lenny Bolton as they discuss reliability with handguns and add more detail to help you make the choice for what best suits your need.

Watch Video Here: What is the Most Reliable Handgun?

Ask Firearms Questions and Get the Answers on ATAC TV™ Firearms Channel

ATAC TV™, TOM CLARKE, MARK FLINN, LENNY BOLTON, GLENN JUSTICE, JIM FULLER, RIFLE DYNAMICS, VENOM TACTICAL, JEFF HALL, FORCE OPTIONS, ROGER FLORES

Start with unloading your handgun and to remove all ammo from the magazine and your pockets, we are going to do this dry. Even performing this without ammo, you must follow all the safety rules. Strating from the holster. (Where ever you carry it) These are the basic steps of the Presentation. If you need to SEE the steps, go to ATAC Firearms channel and view the 1911 or Glock Presentation, Grip and Stance, and / or Sequence of Shooting Programs. Doesn’t matter which handgun; the steps are basic to all.

(DRY PRACTICE DRILLS SHOULD BE AT ¼ TO ½ YOUR NORMAL PRESENTATION SPEED!)

• STEP 1 Eyes on TARGET, establish a firing grip on the handgun while in the holster, at the same time move support hand up to mid-line tight to your body as you focus on your target.
  

• STEP 2 Handgun is drawn straight up, trigger finger is straight along the frame, (not on the trigger) as elbow drops down, rotating the muzzle toward target, anchor the butt of the handgun in a rib near your pectoral muscle, support hand in mid line of chest tight to your body. Bring the gun as high as you can and is still comfortable for you. Eyes are still on target. (This could be a shooting position, if needed, more on this in the advanced programs)
  

• STEP 3 As Handgun is raised up toward your line of sight, support hand mates with firing hand, safety goes off if you have one, Handgun is raised higher into your line of sight, and pushing out toward target, trigger finger (firing hand index finger, if you haven’t figured this out yet?) starts to enter the trigger guard and the center of the first pad your index finger is placed in the center of the trigger and pulls the slack (free play of trigger) out. Now shift your focus from the target to the top of the front sight post AS the sights are brought on target.. This is one of the biggest faults many shooters do not practice and their ability can only go so high. Most often you cannot diagnose what is going wrong. You MUST practice shifting the focus from the target to the top of the front sight post. DO NOT SKIP THIS STEP! Shift your focus to the front sight and STAY on the front sight post! DO NOT SHIFT BACK AND FORTH BETWEEN THE TARGET AND FRONT SIGHT!
  

• STEP 4 HANDGUN COMES TO REST AT FULL EXTENSION, Focus has moved from the target to your sights, front sight level with the rear sight with equal light passing on the right and left sides of the front sight post, (aligning your sights and eye focus SHOULD be happening between Step 3 and 4) closing your non-dominate eye and establish 100% focus on that front sight post. You are ready to shoot!

At this stage, start your trigger press until the trigger “breaks”. (It should surprise you) With 100% focus on the FS post, it should NOT move when trigger breaks! Trap the trigger to the rear, simulating a “reset” while focusing on the front sight (follow-through) trigger finger goes straight along the frame, lower the handgun to about 45* as if following your target to the ground, and perform appropriate After-Action-Responses.

• Handgun is in the ready position (In both hands, pointed low, about 45* angle) RESET your trigger by racking the slide and releasing it.
  
• Return to holster in the reverse order, from the ready position, move through STEP 3 to STEP 2, and PAUSE. Look around to make sure you are ready to re-holster. The muzzle should be point straight out, down range towards your target.
  

• Move from STEP 2 to STEP 1 (re-holster carefully)

DO AS MANY REPETITIONS THAT YOU CAN WHILE REMAINING 100% FOCUSED ON WHAT YOU ARE DOING. IF NOT, STOP! Dry Practice only when you can focus 100% on the exercise and stop when interrupted or tired. Do not ingrain bad habits by getting SLOPPY. Do it perfectly on each reputation to ingrain it into muscle memory. It will PAY huge dividends in your skill level.

Next is adding movement, see you after a few thousand dry presentations. and a thousand live rounds for validation. Example, dry practice 30 presentations 5 days week, the shoot 50 rounds. Immediately after the 30-5o rounds end it with 30 more dry presentations. Rest 7th day. Start all over the next week. After 5 months of this, then move onto the advanced programs. If you want to learn faster do more sooner. Do two- a days, 30 in the am and 30 in the pm and 60-100 rounds on the 6th day. The in 2.5 months you will be ready to move on.

* REMEMBER, it is OK to cheat in a fight, we actually applaud you for it. But NEVER cheat yourself in training or practice. DRY PRACTICE IS THE SKILL BUILDER!

ATAC TV FIREARMS, FOUNDER TOM CLARKE, LENNY BOLTON, GLENN JUSTICE, JEFF HALL, JIM FULLER, MARK FLINN, ROGER FLORES, VENOM TACTICAL, RIFLE DYNAMICS, FORCE OPTIONS

Learn HOW to do these drill

ALL SAFETY RULES APPLY! These drills should be performed at the RANGE or an appropriate area, do it dry, with an UNLOADED FIREARM!

Always abide by the four rules of gun safety:

1.      All guns are loaded. (Treated as such)

2.      Do not point the muzzle at anything you are not willing to destroy.

3.      Finger off the trigger, out of the trigger guard until sights are on target.

4.      Be sure of your target and foreground/background

Let’s talk about Presentation from the holster and doing it as a Dry Practice exercise with 1 EYE OPEN.  What the heck is this? This is the BASIC presentation, to get your handgun from the holster to “sights” on target, AND YOU CLOSE THE NON-DOMINATE EYE to get the 100% focus on the front sight!  OK, this technique IS required to guarantee that “LONG” shot or a close precision hit like a hostage takers eye socket, or just shoot a nice tight group.

You must learn that situations dictate the amount of precision sighting required for a hit, is measured in distance and target size.  More about this subject in the 2 EYE OPEN blog and the advanced Dry Practice Programs that will teach you the difference between shooting 3 feet OR 15 yards, as an example,  3’  -   2 eyes,   15yds   -   1 eye open. You need to learn the 1-EYE OPEN method first, then move on to more advanced techniques.

Everyone at ATAC Training courses trains with semi-auto pistols, but the firearms are carried in variety of locations. It does not matter what type or brand of handgun you run, but you are ABSOLUTLLY NUTS if you don’t Dry Practice with it from the location you carry it!  THIS IS THE DRILL THAT MUST BE REPEATED OVER AND OVER UNTIL THE PRESENTATION BECOMES A REFLEX ACTION!  THIS MIGHT SEEM BORING, BUT IT IS VERY IMPORTANT IF YOU WANT HIGHER SKILL LEVELS.

Understanding know and unknown distances prior to starting:

Start with establishing a known distance.  As you begin, or if you think you have judging distances mastered, that doesn’t mean you DON’T NEED to practice the basics.   Judging unknown distances is a stand-alone exercise.  On the other hand, we will give you two methods.  There are all types of controversy out there on one or both eyes open when shooting.  Lets keep it simple; if you were going to push a thread through a needle you would shut one eye.  Yes, we shoot with both eyes open and the conditions and distances will dictate using a dominant eye only or both eyes open.  Lets move forward and give you a simple solution.  From 7 yards and in you can get away with hitting “close enough” to your intended point of impact.  But, it will only be close to rather than the exact intended point of impact.  (As you read further down, between steps 3 - 4 you need to learn to shift your focus.) For those of you that think you only need to shoot with both eyes open, here is a question for you.  If you were held by the neck as a hostage and the hostage taker only exposed one eye every few seconds. Would you tell the cop, SWAT, or XXXX to, “use both eyes, it is faster, just shoot it is not a precision shot”. I doubt it, your exposed to all types of errors which could be fatal.  The point is, at any distance you need to guarantee the hit, not hope for the hit.  Yes, you may think this is advanced; no it is the basic fundamentals. This is not an range drill trying to hit a big steel plate; you are trying to ht a quarter over and over.  Then be able to pick up the pace.  As you excel in your skills, you need to ALWAYS give yourself a refresher course on distancing while shifting your focus from the target to the top of the front sight post.  After time you will develop a natural point of aim, which will ONLY last as long as your continuing education does.  So lets dry practice at 7 yards with one eye for now.  You can go to the next stage of both eyes open after you have performed at least 1,000- 2,000 dry presentations.  In our advanced programs we explain in great detail with video of what happens as you back up and forget to close that eye.  It a tactical environment, you may have to keep both eyes open to have a wider field of view.  But before you go off and start point shooting, get the basics down.  It is a safe number to say if you have 10,000 rounds through your pistol and 2 - 3 times as much dry practice, then you can move on to more advanced tactics with both eyes open.  In the end, regardless of how much you have trained just remember, if it is a precision shot, use your dominant eye only!  You may only get that one shot.

Check our the programs on www.AtacTv.com

ATAC TV, MARK FLINN, LENNY BOLTON, SEAN RIGO, JIM FULLER, GLENN JUSTICE, TOM CLARKE, JEFF HALL, VENOM TACTICAL, FORCE OPTIONS, RIFLE DYNAMICS,

Reciprocity—
All Anti-Gun Amendments Defeated!

Click here to vote in this week’s poll.

On Wednesday, Nov. 16, the ongoing effort to fully vindicate the fundamental, individual right to carry a concealed handgun for self-defense took a major step forward with House passage of H.R. 822, the “National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011.” The bill, sponsored by Reps. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) and Heath Shuler (D-N.C.), which has 245 cosponsors, was approved by an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 272-154.

Senate Judiciary Committee Holds Hearing on Schumer Registration and Rights Denial Bill : On Tuesday November 16, the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism held a hearing on Sen. Charles Schumer’s (D-N.Y.) S. 436. Dubbed by anti-gunners the “Fix Gun Checks Act,” rather than “fix” the current National Instant Criminal Background Check System, the legislation would eliminate private sales and gun shows as we know them and expand the range of persons prohibited from owning firearms.

Twelve Big Wins for Gun Owners: The final conference report on the combined Fiscal Year 2012 Agriculture, Commerce/Justice/Science (CJS) and Transportation/Housing/Urban Development (THUD) Appropriations bills—also known as the “Mini-Bus,” was passed by both the U.S. House and the U.S. Senate, and has been signed into law.

NRA to Fight Proposed Obama Administration Ban on Recreational Shooting on Public Lands : NRA will fight the proposal by the Obama administration and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to drastically restrict recreational shooting opportunities on public lands. NRA is particularly concerned about the stated motive of this action. A spokesman for the BLM told U.S. News and World Report that the proposed ban was being enacted in response to “urbanites” who “freak out” when they hear shooting on public lands. The spokesman also acknowledged that the impetus for this restriction was not rooted in safety, rather it was introduced to reduce “social conflict.”

Internet Rumors About Cerberus, Freedom Group Are Patently False: Recently, an old rumor regarding Cerberus–the private equity firm that owns Freedom group, a holding company that in turn owns a number of firearms manufacturers, including Remington, Marlin, Bushmaster, and DPMS–was in some way tied to George Soros.

This rumor is completely false and baseless.

Another Way To Get Involved–Join NRA’s Facebook And Twitter Groups: Internet social networking has exploded in recent years, and websites such as Facebook and Twitter attract millions of users.  This on-line community fosters a connection between its users, and allows distribution of user-generated content (like pictures, profiles, music, video, and text).

GRASSROOTS NEWS MINUTE VIDEO: To view this week’s “Grassroots News Minute” video, please click here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIYkRmi2Tj E

STATE ROUNDUP (Please note the only items listed below are those that have had recent action. For other updates on state legislation, please go to the state legislation section at www.NRAILA.org, and check each week’s issue of the Grassroots Alert.)

For additional information, please click on the links provided.

ARIZONA: BLM Proposes Closing One-Half Million Acres to Target Shooting
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has released a plan for the future management of nearly 1.4 million acres located southwest of Phoenix in parts of Maricopa, Pinal, Pima, Gila and Yuma counties.  Of that total, over 486,000 acres are within the Sonoran Desert National Monument, which the BLM proposes to close to target shooters. The public comment period for this plan is open through November 25. Please attend one of the scheduled meetings to show support for keeping public lands open for all of the public, including target shooters, and to learn more about how this plan will affect your future enjoyment of these lands.

COLORADO: Management Plan for Public Lands Will Affect Target Shooting
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has released a resource management plan (RMP) for 500,000 acres managed by the agency’s Colorado River Valley Field Office located in Silt and responsible for the counties of Eagle, Garfield, Pitkin, Roult, Mesa, and Rio Blanco.  The public comment period is open until December 16, and BLM will soon announce public meetings regarding this RMP.  If you enjoy target shooting on these lands, it is extremely important that you review the plan to determine how it will affect your future access for target shooting.  Please attend at least one of the public meetings and e-mail your comments to the BLM.

Additional BLM Management Plan for Public Lands Will Affect Target Shooting
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has released another resource management plan (RMP), and this one on approximately 378,000 acres managed by the agency’s Field Office in Kremmling.  The public lands are within Grand, Jackson, Summit and parts of Larimer and Eagle Counties.  The public comment period is open until December 16, and BLM will announce in advance public hearings on this RMP.  Please attend at least one of the public meetings and e-mail your comments to the BLM.

MICHIGAN: Gun Hunting Up for Public Comment in Huron-Manistee
The U.S. Forest Service has released a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS) that will ultimately determine whether firearm hunting can continue on more than 66,500 acres in Michigan’s Huron-Manistee National Forests. As a result of a September 2010 ruling by the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the Forest Service prepared the DSEIS to evaluate the impacts of a proposed ban on firearm hunting and snowmobile use in 14 semi-primitive, non-motorized or wilderness areas of the forest. Public comments must be received by December 21.

TEXAS: Texas Railroad Commission Revises Agency Firearm Policy
Recently, the Texas Railroad Commission (RRC) adopted what can only be described as a model state agency policy for employees and visitors who wish to carry firearms. The new policy which was drafted and proposed by Commissioner Barry Smitherman, was approved by the RRC on November 8 and took effect immediately.

WISCONSIN: Two Pro-Hunting Bills Signed into Law
On November 4, Governor Scott Walker signed two pro-hunting bills into law, which will take effect in advance of opening day of hunting season this year.  Senate Bill 75 provides common sense legislation to eliminate the Department of Natural Resources’ unnecessary restrictions on hunters, anglers and trappers seeking to improve Wisconsin’s rich hunting heritage.  Also, Senate Bill 228 will protect hunters from breaking the law by simply allowing uncased and unloaded firearms, bows and crossbows to be in their motor vehicles.

NRA will be closing at noon next Wednesday, November 23, for the Thanksgiving Holiday.

Because of the abbreviated workweek, we will not transmit the Grassroots Alert next week.

Please have a safe and happy Thanksgiving Holiday!

ATAC TV LEO/MIL, MARK FLINN, TOM CLARKE, LENNY BOLTON, JEFF HALL, GLENN JUSTICE, JIM FULLER, SEAN RIGO, VENOM TACTICAL, RIFLE DYNAMICS

The U.S. House of Representatives has passed an important self-defense measure that would enable millions of Right-to-Carry permit holders across the country to carry concealed firearms while traveling outside their home states. H.R. 822, the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act, passed by a majority bipartisan vote of 272 to 154. All amendments aimed to weaken or damage the integrity of this bill were defeated.

“NRA has made the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act a priority because it enhances the fundamental right to self-defense guaranteed to all law-abiding people,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director of NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action. “People are not immune from crime when they cross state lines. That is why it is vital for them to be able to defend themselves and their loved ones should the need arise.”

H.R. 822, introduced in the U.S. House by Representatives Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) and Heath Shuler (D-N.C.), allows any person with a valid state-issued concealed firearm permit to carry a concealed firearm in any state that issues concealed firearm permits, or that does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms for lawful purposes.

This bill does not affect existing state laws. State laws governing where concealed firearms may be carried would apply within each state’s borders. H.R. 822 does not create a federal licensing system or impose federal standards on state permits; rather, it requires the states to recognize each others’ carry permits, just as they recognize drivers’ licenses and carry permits held by armored car guards.

As of today, 49 states have laws in place that permit their citizens to carry a concealed firearm in some form. Only Illinois and the District of Columbia deny its residents the right to carry concealed firearms outside their homes or businesses for self-defense.

“We are grateful for the support of Speaker Boehner, Majority Leader Cantor, Majority Whip McCarthy, Judiciary Chairman Smith and primary sponsors Congressmen Stearns and Shuler for their steadfast support of H.R. 822. Thanks to the persistence of millions of American gun owners and NRA members, Congress has moved one step closer to improving crucial self-defense laws in this country,” concluded Cox.

-nra-

Established in 1871, the National Rifle Association is America’s oldest civil rights and sportsmen’s group. Four million members strong, NRA continues its mission to uphold Second Amendment rights and to advocate enforcement of existing laws against violent offenders to reduce crime. The Association remains the nation’s leader in firearm education and training for law-abiding gun owners, law enforcement and the military.