Business and Firearms: Let's Take a Look

Considering Concealed Carry? Be Safe, Be Smart, Be Ready—Here’s How and WHY Tactical K Training and Firearms Kielma says, as a firearms instructor, CCW and your training must go hand in hand. Repetition with your carry firearm is critical. Holsters are critical. Holster placement is critical. Your weapon of choice is critical. Train with me and we can put a plan together that fits your lifestyle and comfort. You must be trained and prepared! NOW: LET’S TAKE A LOOK Carrying a concealed weapon is a serious responsibility that goes beyond simply owning a firearm. It means choosing suitable gear, training until actions are smooth, and keeping a clear head when situations turn tense. The right holster fits your body, hides the gun, and lets you access it safely. Good practice builds good habits. Carrying a concealed weapon is a serious responsibility that goes beyond simply owning a firearm. It means choosing suitable gear, training until actions are smooth, and keeping a clear head when situations turn tense. The right holster fits your body, hides the gun, and lets you access it safely. Good practice builds habits, so you don’t freeze or act on impulse. Equally vital is mindset: knowing when to avoid danger, when to seek help, and how to keep bystanders out of harm’s way. Learn your local laws, store your gun safely, and train regularly. This guide lays out foundational tools, simple drills, and common-sense rules that help responsible carriers act with care and calm. Read on to build skill, reduce risk, and gain confidence when you carry. Take Training Seriously One of the biggest mistakes people make when getting their concealed carry permit is assuming that the basic certification is enough. Unfortunately, many concealed carry classes barely scratch the surface of what it takes to responsibly handle a firearm in real-world situations. Just because you passed the class doesn’t mean you’re ready to carry. Start Slow, Build Confidence It’s easy to watch experienced shooters hit targets from 25 yards out and feel like you need to do the same. But starting at longer distances can be discouraging, especially for new shooters. Instead, begin your practice sessions up close, around five yards, and work your way back as your confidence builds. The goal is to establish good shooting habits and accuracy before adding in the stress of longer distances or rapid-fire drills. Real-World Drills In a self-defense scenario, you’re unlikely to be standing still with a perfect sight picture. That’s why it’s essential to incorporate movement into your training. Practice moving backward, side to side, or even retreating while firing. These real-world drills mimic situations where you might need to defend yourself while on the move. By practicing these techniques, you’ll build muscle memory, so you’re prepared to act quickly and efficiently when under stress. Training Is Non-Negotiable The most important takeaway from carrying a concealed weapon is that your rights come with responsibilities. Simply owning a gun and carrying it isn’t enough – you must commit to regular, meaningful training. Whether it’s live fire at the range, dry fire at home, or studying real-world scenarios, being a protector means being ready for anything. Take the time to train, because when the moment comes, there won’t be time for second chances.

GOA Wins Permanent Injunction Against Virginia “Universal” Background Checks Mark Chesnut On October 16, Gun Owners of America (GOA) announced that it, along with the Gun Owners Foundation (GOF) and Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL), had secured a permanent injunction against the commonwealth’s law mandating so-called “universal” background checks. “The statute as it stands, cannot remain intact,” the injunction filing stated. “If the legislature wishes to rewrite the law to create a system that does not impose disparate treatment based on age, it may do so. At that time, a court might rightly address the question of whether it is constitutional to require a background check to obtain a handgun through a private sale. Now is not that time.” The ruling made clear, however, that it wasn’t ruling on the constitutionality of lack thereof of background checks themselves. “Let it be clear, the Court today is not holding that background checks are unconstitutional,” the ruling concluded. “That is a question for another day, perhaps another court. Today, the Court holds that the manner in which Virginia Code Section 18.2-308.2:5 is applied cannot pass constitutional scrutiny. If the Court were to merely hold the Act unconstitutional as-applied and simply sever those 18 to 20 years of age, the Court would be ignoring the constitutional deficiencies in the enforcement of the Act. After applying the Ayotte framework, the Court finds that it is left with one option at this time—that is, to strike the statute in its entirety for the reasons set forth herein. The long-running lawsuit was filed way back in 2020, proving once again that finding justice can be a very slow process. But the win also proves that dogged tenacity in pursuing right is often rewarded handsomely.

SAF Lawsuit Challenges Unwarranted Search Of High School Senior’s Truck Mark Chesnut Just because a person is known to be a gun owner doesn’t mean that authorities can search his or her vehicle at a whim without regard to Fourth Amendment protections. Most of us would agree with that statement simply out of respect for the U.S. Constitution. And, in fact, that’s the very argument the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) is making in a court battle just launched in Washington State. As background, 18-year-old Hillsboro-Deering High School senior Jack Harrington lawfully owns a handgun and sometimes keeps it in his truck in full compliance with all federal and state laws. However, he always removes the gun when he drives his truck to school. According to an SAF news release, when school authorities became aware of Harrington’s gun ownership on April 24, he was subjected to aggressive interrogation by district employees, which culminated in his vehicle being searched without consent. The school had no reason to believe Harrington brought his firearm to school, and no firearm was found during the invasive and unconstitutional search. Bill Sack, SAF director of legal operations, said that being public about exercising your private rights cannot be grounds for being harassed and searched on campus. “The apparent position of the school district here is ‘choose to exercise one right, give away another,’” Sack said. “That’s just not how it works. If simply being a gun owner is legal justification to be harassed and searched by authorities, what would stop them from submitting gun owners like Jack to searches every day? And what’s their proposed solution to avoid that abuse, that he sells his privately owned firearm?”

Will Texas weed ruling restrict state gun ownership? Story by Ahmed Humble The familiar phrase "they're coming for your guns" may no longer be hyperbole if the U.S. Supreme Court has anything to say about it. On Monday, the Supreme Court said it would consider whether regular marijuana users can legally own firearms. This comes after the White House asked justices to re-examine a case against a Texas man, Ali Danial Hemani, who was charged with a felony because he allegedly had a gun in his home and acknowledged being a regular pot smoker. SCOTUS typically hears arguments in the fall season and aims to issue decisions by late June or early July, though exact timing is rarely predictable. "The issue here is whether the federal government can prosecute people for owning firearms while being a user or addicted to a controlled substance," Seth Chandler, attorney and professor at the University of Houston Law Center, explained. "So, it doesn't make any difference whether Texas permits you to own a firearm. The federal government is coming in and saying, 'We don't care that Texas thinks it's fine that you own a firearm. We, the federal government, do not think it's fine that you own a firearm and are therefore going to criminally prosecute you because you are a user of or are addicted to marijuana.'" Even though Texans' attitudes toward cannabis may have changed, per a recent UH Hobby School Survey, Chandler argues that whether it is fair to go after marijuana users is beside the point. "Congress has singled out use of controlled substances as a basis for restricting people's ability to own firearms, and there are a lot of people who think that that is not a very precise measure as to who should be prohibited from owning a firearm," he added. "You may think the law is stupid, but the fact that the law is stupid doesn't mean that it's unconstitutional." Other legal experts, like criminal defense attorney Maverick Ray admit that Texas' murky marijuana might make it hard to enforce. And the ongoing dispute between Gov. Greg Abbott and Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick over THC restrictions hasn't helped. "We can't even enforce the prosecution of suspected illegal marijuana possession–simple possession," he noted. "We haven't developed scientific testing to properly differentiate THCA, which has been legalized here in Texas and across the United States, versus actual illegal marijuana." Ray pointed out as well that targeting marijuana as a "controlled substance" seems like an easy target when there are arguably other substances that should be examined. "It's a little absurd," Ray said. "Common sense tells you there's a whole lot of other substances, even legal ones that cause one's mind to be more violent, to be more out of control that you wouldn't want possessing a firearm. Take, for instance, alcohol. Alcohol is going to go completely unscathed from this whole challenge, because the federal law specifically says alcohol is legal. So since alcohol is not classified as a controlled substance for this statute's purposes, it basically allows you to get as wasted as you want and have a firearm." Whichever way the pendulum swings, the Supreme Court's ruling could nonetheless have far-reaching consequences for gun owners nationwide, especially in states where marijuana is legal but still banned federally. A decision is expected sometime next year.

The body content of your post goes here. To edit this text, click on it and delete this default text and start typing your own or paste your own from a different source.

Why is the Glock pistol not available to regular citizens? Gregg Kielma Truth or Not? Your THOUGHTS. There are only a few Glock pistols that are not obtainable. Glock 18, a mythical selective fire factory pistol. I’ve been told by people that should know that it never existed for sale in the US. There are non-factory original modified selective fire Glocks. But that’s another story. The G18C is for LEO and military only. Glock 7 , “ ceramic guns that cost more than you make in a month” fictional, never existed. The Glock 25 and 28 are not allowed in the US because they are made solely in Europe and can't be imported. Their rating on the ATF points system is too low to pass import because of the Gun Control Act of 1968. Other than some standard capacity magazines that the left think are WMDs, all Glocks are available to background checked , law abiding citizens of the US.

Marijuana and Firearm Ownership (Source: TFP File Photo)© Tampa Free Press Says Gregg Kielma an FFL and Firearms instructor, “if you are carrying a gun and intoxicated with alcohol or marijuana in your system, you have no business owning a firearm. Plain and simple. Shame on you. Think people, THINK! Lets take a look! The Supreme Court announced Monday that it will consider whether individuals who regularly use marijuana can legally own firearms, taking on a new Second Amendment challenge following its landmark 2022 ruling that expanded gun rights. The case, United States v. Hemani, centers on a federal law that prohibits gun possession by anyone who is an "unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance." The Justice Department, under President Donald Trump's administration, is appealing a lower court's decision that tossed out a felony charge against Texas resident Ali Danial Hemani. Hemani was charged after authorities found a gun in his home, and he admitted to being a regular cannabis user. The Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled that the blanket ban on gun ownership for illegal drug users was unconstitutional as applied to Hemani, based on the Supreme Court's new standard that gun restrictions must align with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. However, the appellate court noted that the law could still be used against people who are armed and intoxicated at the same time. The Justice Department is advocating for the ban, arguing that regular drug users pose a serious public safety risk and that the restriction is a justifiable measure. Attorneys for Hemani counter that the broadly written federal law places millions of Americans at risk of technical violations, especially as nearly half of states have legalized marijuana for recreational use, even though it remains illegal under federal law. The Court's decision will serve as a crucial test for applying its 2022 ruling, which requires gun laws to have a strong grounding in historical tradition. Please make a small donation to the Tampa Free Press to help sustain independent journalism. Your contribution enables us to continue delivering high-quality, local, and national news coverage. Sign up: Subscribe to our free newsletter for a curated selection of top stories delivered straight to your inbox.

NRA, Other Second Amendment Groups Target NFA With Yet Another Lawsuit Mark Chesnut A coalition of gun-rights organizations has taken another step in the effort to dismantle the National Firearms Act (NFA). On October 9, the National Rifle Association (NRA), Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) and American Suppressor Association (ASA) filed another lawsuit challenging the 1934 law. At issue is whether the law is even applicable now that the $200 tax on suppressors, short-barreled rifles (SBRs), short-barreled shotguns (SBSs) and any other weapons (AOWs), as defined by the law, was removed in President Donald Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill.” In the latest lawsuit, Jensen v. ATF, filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, plaintiffs argue that since the tax has been eliminated, the NFA’s registration regime can no longer be justified under Congress’s taxing power—nor any other authority granted under Article I of the Constitution. “The One Big Beautiful Bill Act (“BBB”), signed into law by the President on July 4, 2025, eliminated the making and transfer taxes on suppressors, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns and NFA-defined “any other weapons,” while leaving the registration requirements intact,” the complaint states. “In other words, individuals no longer have to pay taxes for making and transferring most firearms under the NFA, but the firearms are still required to be registered and are subject to the ‘web of regulation’ that was designed to ‘aid enforcement’ of the NFA’s (now-extinct) tax. This regulatory regime no longer comports with Congress’s constitutionally enumerated powers.”

Jay "Hypocrite" Jones an Evil Leader Gun Control Hypocrisy: Silence When Their Own Push Violence The gun control lobby has spent decades preaching about “ending gun violence.” But when one of their own openly fantasizes about murdering a political opponent—and his children—the silence is deafening. Recent revelations from text messages sent by Jay Jones, the Democratic candidate for Virginia Attorney General, have shaken even the most cynical observers in Richmond. Jones, then a member of the Virginia House of Delegates, sent grotesque messages wishing death upon his political rival, Republican Speaker Todd Gilbert, and his children. “Three people, two bullets. Gilbert, Hitler, and Pol Pot. Gilbert gets two bullets to the head,” Jones texted to Republican Delegate Carrie Coyner in 2022. When confronted, Jones doubled down stating that he “wished” the Speaker’s children would be shot and “die in their mother’s arms.” These are not the words of a random internet troll. They came from a Democratic candidate for the Commonwealth’s top law enforcement position—and someone funded heavily by the nation’s leading gun control organizations. Everytown, Brady, and Giffords: Cash and Complicity It’s not surprising that Jones was backed by the same groups that constantly push for “commonsense gun safety.” The Hypocrisy Everytown for Gun Safety, the Michael Bloomberg-funded political juggernaut, dropped $200,000 into his campaign. They called him a “gun sense candidate” and an “advocate for safer communities.” Since Jones’ violent texts came to light, Everytown’s leadership—including John Feinblatt, a prolific social media user—has said nothing. Not a tweet. Not a statement. Not even a quiet retraction. Brady PAC, meanwhile, quietly deleted its press release endorsing Jones, scrubbed his name from its website, and offered the weakest possible condemnation: “Violent rhetoric has no place in our political process.” No mention of Jones. No withdrawal of support. Just damage control. Giffords PAC, founded by former Rep. Gabby Giffords, still has its endorsement of Jones live on its website—yes, the same organization born from a tragedy involving political gun violence. Moms Demand Silence: The hypocrisy doesn’t end there.