Gregg Kielma Your Firearms Instructor "Let's Get The Training Started"!
Gregory Kielma • December 21, 2023
Guns for Beginners or Advanced Firearm Owners: How to Find Quality Self-Defense Firearm Training
Guns for Beginners or Advanced Firearm Owners: How to Find Quality Self-Defense Firearm Training
By
John Boch
December 20, 2023
Carrying a gun lawfully for self-defense can make the difference between life and death in a critical situation. Yet at the same time it comes along with risks to the carrier thanks to laws and land sharks. Training can help reduce those risks dramatically.
In a perfect world (and most states), you wouldn’t need a license to carry or training in the effective use of a firearm for self-defense. Unfortunately, the world isn’t perfect and neither are we.
In the real world, mistakes happen. All it takes is a single moment of oversight, sloppy gun handling or lousy gear and you can find yourself jammed up and wearing handcuffs. Heaven help you if you have a negligent discharge or make a mistake in judgement about when to pull your gun. Make those kinds of mistakes and you risk everything, including prison.
With good training, the risks attendant with carrying and using a firearm for self-defense are greatly diminished. You’ll become an expert at gun safety and can share those skills with your family and others to make them experts at safety as well. You’ll also learn better situational awareness.
The right training will teach you body language and behaviors that will make you less likely to be “selected” for victimization by bad guys. Best of all, your odds of prevailing in a deadly force encounter will be significantly enhanced. But remember .
All Training Isn’t Equal
With the growing numbers of new gun owners across America, many people are looking for classes, especially those who also want to apply for a carry license. These concealed carry classes tend to be plentiful where required, and are often conducted by National Rifle Association-certified instructors. Classes run the gamut from borderline incompetent to barely adequate to well-presented, comprehensive learning programs.
As an example, in Illinois a year before right-to-carry was passed, there were approximately 42 NRA instructors who had taught ten or more people the previous year. Today, we have over 3000 Illinois State Police-approved instructors.
Beyond learning the basics from an introduction to concealed carry class, there are other programs out there for people looking for basic gun safety skills or to make themselves better shooters…everything from competition and marksmanship to hunting and self-defense.
When it comes to self-defense firearms training, easily the most common are those designed to teach self-defense fundamentals. The best of these “save your bacon” courses will incorporate all three of the following:
Mindset
Mindset is the knowledge and attitudes needed to avoid and, if necessary, survive a confrontation. This includes the mental preparation for dealing with all aspects of a violent encounter at home or in public…and to never give up in a fight for your life.
This particular aspect of training emphasizes conflict avoidance, layering your defenses, and knowing the legal standard by which you will be judged for using lethal force against another. A well-taught class will help you avoid trouble through situational awareness and conflict de-escalation, and also keep you out of jail for inappropriately introducing a weapon – firearm or otherwise – into a situation.
Functional ability/training
Functional ability training consists of knowing how to make your gun work, the ability to use it safely and effectively, and the associated aspects of your gun’s proper care and feeding.
Any reputable course will inculcate you with basic firearm safety. Exercising proper muzzle discipline and keeping your finger off the trigger until you have decided to shoot should be as natural as breathing. Sadly, for those without formal training, poor muzzle control and trigger finger discipline are the norm.
Gun selection plays an important role as well. Some folks may have compatibility issues with a gun they like, making it a bad choice for them. If you can’t manipulate your preferred gun, then you should find another one. Arthritis, hand strength, or other physical limitations are common causes for these issues, but so are a lack of familiarity with a firearm’s controls.
Good schools will steer you away from poor gun choices without making fun of what you may already have. Just because you thought the Beretta 92 looked really cool in Lethal Weapon doesn’t mean it’s a good carry choice for you.
Tactical training
Tactical is not “tacticool” where people dress up in tactical bro gear and pretend they’re something they aren’t. Instead, it’s the practical, hands-on study of the tactics needed to avoid conflict or, failing that, to fight with your personal defense tools.
This includes learning the effective use of cover and concealment, proper presentation of the gun, situational awareness, proper force “application” strategies, malfunction clearing procedures, reloading techniques and so much more.
Reading a book or watching a video helps and can serve to introduce these concepts, but there’s no substitute for doing it yourself under the tutelage of a skilled instructor who will ensure you’re using good technique and minimizing wasted movement. This allows you to act quickly and decisively, without “thinking” about the mechanics of what you’re going to do once you’ve decided to act.
The old saw that ‘you don’t rise to the occasion, you fall to your level of training’ is pretty much true. Indecisiveness, wasted motion and/or poor skills seldom win competitions or gun battles.
Finding a good course
Better, more enjoyable courses will share many common attributes. Here’s how to find for them and some attributes to seek out.
Research the instructor/school. Start with their website. Pictures will often tell the tale of how many people they’re training and how they do it. Is poor muzzle control or other questionable safety issues shown in the pictures? I’ve seen images of everything from people shooting inside a pole barn without proper ventilation to people walking in front of other shooters on an open range. If it’s the same three “students” in all of the photos, that’s a clue. If there are no photos, that should be a clue as well. No website? Why not?
Unless they are very small or very new, there will often be reviews of their training courses online at various gun forums or other locations. If there aren’t any reviews, that should tell you something.
Call and talk with them. Speak with the instructor ahead of giving them your money. Ask them any questions you might still have…anything from describing their previous experience, to inquiring about accommodations for those less-mobile or otherwise disabled. Ask them about how many instructors will be present and the expected ratio of staff to students. Ask them why they became a firearms instructor. Good teachers should have good answers for your questions.
Look for experienced instructors. While everyone has to start somewhere, previous instructional experience measured in years — not months — will usually lead to a better end result for you, the consumer/student. If prospective instructors try to dazzle you with their experience in the Boy Scouts, ROTC, or “personal interest,” look out.
Look for instructors who have continued their education especially if they’ve been to some of the nationally-known schools. They will most likely bring lessons and techniques they’ve learned from the nationally-respected masters to your local class.
Instructors who carry Do the instructors themselves carry every day, or are they just teaching theoretical concepts to their students?
“Team teaching” is a good thing, as instructors can teach to their strengths and students enjoy hearing a more diverse set of perspectives. The end result is usually a better educational experience for the students.
A team of instructors also offers greater opportunities for the student to get more one-on-one help as needed, particularly on the firing line during live fire or in other practical aspects of the class.
If there aren’t enough instructors, there’s little or no opportunity for one-on-one help to help learn, develop, and understand new skills, especially for those new to the gun world.
Previous law enforcement or military instructional experience is a bonus. Again, it’s about bringing applicable aspects of the latest tactics to the class. I’ve been teaching for two decades and seen first-hand that “military” and “police” listed in someone’s credentials, while a net positive, doesn’t necessarily mean a lot when it comes to teaching new skills to new shooters.
Your class isn’t (or shouldn’t be) a boot camp or police academy. What matters is instructors’ ability to communicate with everyday people, teaching and empowering them with the skill sets they need to avoid becoming a statistic in the real world.
High instructor-to-student ratios. I can’t stress this one enough, especially for range exercises. If you have one or two instructors trying to run a range with ten or twelve entry-level students on the firing line at once, you’re getting badly short-changed as a student and it’s not as safe as it could be.
Ability to communicate with everyday people outside of the gun culture. Do schools try not to use jargon and are they willing to spend that extra time (and do they have the staff to do so) to work with new shooters, including women and children? Are they there for those who are a little slow at absorbing the subject material?
This one’s harder to assess outside of personal referrals or recommendations, but it’s especially important if you’re a novice, the lone woman in the class or you’re bringing your kids.
Courses that offer more than the minimum. Good instructors won’t cut corners, but in fact will supplement the minimum required material with valuable and useful (not to mention life-saving) information they’ve learned from other schools or instructors.
Loaner gun availability. Do they have loaner guns for folks who come with inappropriate or malfunctioning firearms, especially for basic firearm/home defense/CCW-type courses?
Sometimes they might even have an armorer on staff, but usually just having a loaner gun and gear (holster, ammo pouches, etc.) will be very helpful. You might have to pay a nominal fee, but loaner availability is a big plus.
Referrals, testimonials, and word of mouth are all things to look for in reputable, experienced instructors. Ask your friends who have been to a class what they thought of it. Visit your local gun club or gun rights organization and ask those present for recommendations on instructors and/or classes.
Red flags
With booming gun sales and more demand for firearm training, there are a lot of instructors — especially newly-minted ones — who vary significantly in skill, ability, and ethics. There are some red flags you can look for in entry-level training to help you avoid a disappointing experience.
Unsafe gun handling: Do instructors demonstrate safe gun handling or do they routinely put their cotton pickin’ finger on the bang switch inappropriately? Are they careless about muzzle control or are there not enough of them to police muzzle discipline of untrained/careless students?
Even worse, do they stand downrange while students are shooting or handling their guns? If you see any of this, the first step is to bring those concerns to the staff. If these problems go unaddressed, it might be a good time to pack your bag and walk. Training-related accidents are very rare, but if those running classes are lackadaisical about safety, it’s time to make yourself scarce. Internet classes: Do instructors attempt to “teach” the classroom segments of the class via the internet? In general, that’s sub-optimal. Given social distancing and limits on the number of people in indoor spaces, that may be done more frequently these days.
Cost: Expect to pay a little more for experienced instructors with solid reputations or classes in big cities where range space is at a premium. But any course that’s advertised for dramatically less than the normal market rate for similar training from similarly-credentialed instructors is a big red flag.
Example: If a hypothetical CCW class goes for $200-250 at most locations and someone’s advertising theirs for $50, beware. Find out why it falls so far outside the norm.
Charging for free items like license application packets: One firearms training group in Illinois charged students $20 each for Florida and Arizona license application packets, even when those respective states send them out to anyone for free.
Cutting corners to do less than the minimum requirements: If it’s supposed to be an eight-hour class and the instructor finishes in six hours, that’s not good. In fact, it may constitute fraud in state-mandated CCW classes depending on local laws.
“Instructors” who haven’t had training: If the only formal training your prospective instructor has had was their “instructor certification” class, that’s cause for concern. Good firearm handling skills and knowledge of self-defense, personal protection, and the judicious use of deadly force don’t come from on high. They are learned.
Instructors teaching flawed, out-of-date or just plain unsafe information: That could get students killed or injured, either from tactical or a safety perspective. Example: “You should carry your gun with an empty chamber and rack the slide on your pants.”
Courses that are unrealistic: Do they teach you to hang upside down out of a pickup truck, firing one-handed under the door? Do they teach you barrel rolls while you hold your gun? Pack your gear and run. Worry about a refund later.
Things you can do to make your training experience better
1. Come bright-eyed and bushy-tailed. Get a good night’s rest. Leave the drinking and nightlife alone the night before.
2. Come with an open mind. Leave preconceived notions behind along with your man-card if you’re a guy. If they teach you something new, try it. You can always discard it later.
3. Dress appropriately. Wear closed-toe shoes, long pants with a belt, and bring along a baseball cap or similar. Ladies, leave the low-cut shirts at home. Also bring rain gear or extra clothing for unseasonably cool weather.
4. Bring your own eye and ear protection. Bring sunscreen and bug spray, just in case.
5. Hydration should be provided by the class sponsors. Hydration is a safety issue, but bring some of your own just in case. Avoid caffeine as it contributes to dehydration.
6. Bring lunch, as necessary along with any medications or other personal needs.
7. Bring your gun, gear and the required amount of ammunition, minimum. Check your gun and gear before the class. If a family of dust bunnies has taken residence in the barrel, clean it. If it’s filthy, clean it. If your ammo dates from the Spanish-American War era, looks corroded, or the lead has turned white, buy new ammo.
8. Bring a backup gun in case your front-line gear goes down, especially for intermediate and advanced classes where you expect to shoot a lot. Ditto for any gear you know you’ll need.
9. For rifle classes (or if you have a fancy optic on your pistol), come to class sighted in. Bring spare batteries for your holographic sights and a sling for your long gun
10. Bring a notepad and pens.
11. Read the recommended gear list and follow those instructions.
12. Turn your phone off or on completely silent mode before class starts.
13. Everyone’s a range safety officer. If you see someone doing something unsafe, ask them to stop. Report any safety concerns to the instructor(s) right away.
14. Address any concerns or questions you might have privately before class or during breaks where possible. Don’t tie up class time.
Do your own research
There’s no need to settle to waste your hard-earned money on a course that will disappoint you. Use the information contained here to help guide your course selection. It’s not that difficult to find training that meets or exceeds your needs instead of settling for a marginal offering that falls short.
Life is precious, training is cheap
Remember, training is inexpensive compared to your life and the lives of your loved ones, so it’s not a place to cut corners. Good training that allows you to avoid becoming a victim and come out on top is truly priceless in the long run.
Louisiana House Rejects Firearm Storage Mandate, Advances Two Pro-Gun Measures Story by Mike Jenkins The Louisiana House of Representatives took decisive action on several firearm-related bills Thursday, defeating a measure that would have mandated specific firearm storage practices while approving two bills aimed at expanding gun rights. The two pro-gun bills now head to the State Senate for further consideration. The Senate will now take up both HB 393 and HB 407 for additional policy committee hearings. These two bills join another pro-gun measure, HB 289, already in the Senate and eligible for a committee hearing. Authored by Representative Dewith Carrier, HB 289 is a pro-Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) bill. It aims to further protect the firearm and ammunition industry from being held liable for the criminal misuse of their legally manufactured and sold products by third parties. HB 289 has been referred to the Senate Judiciary C Committee and could receive a hearing as early as next week. In other legislative activity, SB 101, a pro-gun bill authored by Senator Blake Miguez, is poised for a House floor vote next week. This bill seeks to eliminate some gun-free zones, allowing individuals legally carrying under constitutional carry provisions or with out-of-state concealed carry permits recognized by Louisiana to carry in more locations across the state. 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. Connect with us: Follow the Tampa Free Press on Facebook and Twitter for breaking news and updates. Sign up: Subscribe to our free newsletter for a curated selection of top stories delivered straight to your inbox.
Kristi Noem From The....THE BLAZE! Kristi Noem’s bombshell letter hits Harvard where it hurts Owen Anderson May 24, 2025 Ivy League academics mocked traditional values for decades. Now they’re panicking as their utopian vision crumbles — without a savior in sight. Picture a Harvard University faculty lounge: a ring of professors clustered around Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem’s letter, one of them furrowing his brow and murmuring, “Wait, are we the baddies?” Such moments of self-awareness, alas, remain forever just beyond the reach of our academic elite. The very institutions that lecture us daily about our original sin — racism — have, with impressive irony, perfected the art of racial discrimination. We are now at the far end of a 75-year arc that began with William F. Buckley Jr.’s “God and Man at Yale” and ends, aptly, with Harvard losing federal funds over the consequences of its own institutional neglect. The problems Buckley identified — contempt for Christianity and American ideals chief among them — have not only remained; they have metastasized. The very professors who made a career of moral hectoring have, predictably, become the thing they claimed to hate. How did we get here? On Thursday, Noem sent a letter to Harvard informing the school that it had lost its certification for the Student and Exchange Visitor Program. This came after Harvard repeatedly ignored federal requests to disclose statistics related to anti-Semitic activity on campus. According to the letter, Harvard fosters a hostile environment for Jewish students, tolerates pro-Hamas sympathies, and sustains racially discriminatory diversity, equity, and inclusion policies. Sign up for the Blaze newsletter By signing up, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, and agree to receive content that may sometimes include advertisements. You may opt out at any time. Harvard is now learning the lesson that Christian colleges grasped nearly half a century ago: Government money comes with government strings. But why did it take Harvard so long to recognize this? The answer is disarmingly simple — until now, those strings were always in harmony with Harvard’s ideological tune. Federal dollars came bundled with leftist priorities, and thus the elite saw no need to question them. Christian colleges, in contrast, often declined the money to preserve their mission of faithfulness to Scripture. What’s astonishing is that Harvard — the oldest corporation in the Western Hemisphere, chartered in 1650 — still behaves as though it needs government money. Its endowment, by the latest count, stands at more than $53 billion. Yet judging from the panic issuing from the president’s office, one might think bankruptcy was imminent. The reason? DEI is embedded so deeply into Harvard’s research infrastructure — even in the sciences — that stripping funding from DEI-tainted grants strikes at the university’s financial core. In academic circles, panic now masquerades as prophecy. Professors speak as though the world is ending — though, given their long record of failed doomsday predictions about climate catastrophe, one might be forgiven for tuning them out. I remember, early in my career, being told by an administrator that Al Gore’s book was a “road map to the future.” It turned out to be more of a road map to irrelevance. Global warming’s great success was posting more failed predictions than Hal Lindsey. But now the panic is personal. It’s not the planet they fear losing. It’s their world — their imagined utopia of managed speech, redefined morality, and subsidized ideology. That world is slipping through their fingers, and they have nothing left but their performances of alarm, such as reading an indigenous land acknowledgement, confessing their privilege, employee training about infinite genders, and giving a voice to the voiceless. This explains the despair among leftist academics. Even as the broader world shows signs of improvement, economically, culturally, and even morally, they howl louder. Why? Because the improvement is happening without them — or worse, despite them. They believed they were changing the world by sermonizing about “whiteness” and “heteronormativity.” Instead, they became a punch line. They trained a generation of DEI advocates with the promise that there would always be government work, but those jobs disappeared faster than the edibles at a faculty party. This is why Noem’s letter cuts so deeply. It documents, officially and unambiguously, the discriminatory policies of Harvard University. The very professors who made a career of moral hectoring have, predictably, become the thing they claimed to hate. As we turn the page on this chapter of the failed American university, we should remember that Buckley, despite his critique, was ultimately optimistic. He knew that donors, parents, and students were no longer represented by Ivy League ideology, even as those schools embraced collectivism in his day. He believed they would reject the communitarian ideologies of these universities. And they have! Now, as the last gasps of those failed philosophies echo through Harvard Yard, we too have reason to be hopeful. Parents, donors, and students are awakening, and they’re asking for something better. American ideals and Christianity are back on the menu at the schools that matter. Perhaps, at long last, we are remembering what once made Harvard great in the first place: Veritas.
Nevada Man Sentenced to 46 Months in Prison for Threatening U.S. Senators A Las Vegas man who pleaded guilty to threatening a U.S. Senator from Nevada and threatening family members of two United States Senators was sentenced today to over three years in prison followed by three years of supervised release. “The threats against these U.S. Senators and their families were vile, dehumanizing, and shameful,” said Sue J. Bai, head of the National Security Division. “Today’s sentence reflects the Department’s firm resolve to holding accountable those who seek to intimidate and harm our public officials. Such threats of violence have no place in our country.” “With today’s sentencing, the defendant will pay the price for making threats of violence,” said Assistant Director Donald M. Holstead of the FBI’s Counterterrorism Division. “It is unacceptable to threaten public officials or anyone else, and the FBI will work with our law enforcement partners to identify and hold accountable anyone who engages in such illegal activity.” According to court documents, from Oct. 11 to 25, 2023, John Anthony Miller left numerous threatening voicemails at the offices of two U.S. Senators. Miller threatened to assault and murder a U.S. Senator with intent to impede, intimidate, and interfere with U.S. Senator while engaged in the performance of official duties, and with intent to retaliate against the U.S. Senator on account of the performance of official duties. The following week, on Oct. 24 and Oct. 25, Miller threatened to assault and murder a member of the immediate family of two U.S. Senators, with intent to impede, intimidate, and interfere with the U.S. Senators while engaged in the performance of official duties, and with intent to retaliate against the U.S. Senators on account of the performance of official duties. Miller pleaded guilty to one-count of threatening a federal official and two-counts of influencing, impeding, or retaliating against a federal official by threatening a family member. U.S. District Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey presided over the sentencing hearing. The FBI Las Vegas Field Office investigated the case with valuable assistance provided by the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, the U.S. Marshals Service, and the U.S. Capitol Police. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Jacob Operskalski and Daniel Schiess for the District of Nevada prosecuted the case. To report suspected threats or violent acts, contact the FBI at 1-800-CALL-FBI (225-5324) or file an online complaint at www.tips.fbi.gov. If someone is in imminent danger or risk of harm, contact 911 or your local police immediately.
Attorney General Pamela Bondi, DEA, & USAO New Mexico Announce Results of Historic Drug Bust On May 6, 2025, Attorney General Pamela Bondi, the Drug Enforcement Administration, and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of New Mexico, announced the outcome of a weeklong, multi-agency enforcement operation targeting one of the largest drug trafficking organizations responsible for flooding communities with fentanyl and other illicit narcotics.
Maryland drug trafficker sentenced to five years in prison for firearms offense U.S. Attorney's Office, Eastern District of Virginia ALEXANDRIA, Va. – A Maryland man was sentenced today to five years in prison for possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. According to court documents, on Dec. 7, 2024, an officer of the Pentagon Force Protection Agency (PFPA) initiated a traffic stop after she observed Kaleel Malcolm Nagbe, 21, of Baltimore, holding a cellphone as he was driving on the Pentagon Reservation. As she approached the vehicle, the officer detected the odor of marijuana and asked Nagbe to exit the vehicle. After being informed that PFPA officers would be conducting a probable-cause search of the vehicle, Nagbe reentered the vehicle and attempted to drive away. Another PFPA officer then leaned into the vehicle and grabbed Nagbe. Both officers prevented Nagbe from driving away and secured him after a brief struggle. During a search of the vehicle, officers located approximately 13 pounds of marijuana in the trunk and multiple clear baggies in the passenger compartment that bore images of characters from the cartoon “Codename: Kids Next Door.” The baggies bore a QR code that, when scanned with a cellphone, were linked to an Instagram account that advertised marijuana for sale using the same cartoon packaging. When officers searched Nagbe they located a loaded firearm in his underwear. The firearm had a round of ammunition in the chamber and 16 additional rounds in the magazine. The firearm was equipped with a machinegun conversion device, rendering it capable of firing automatically. On Jan. 4, 2023, Nagbe was convicted in the Montgomery County, Maryland, Circuit Court of possession of a regulated firearm by a person under 21 years of age, and was sentenced on April 23, 2023, to five years in prison, with all but the 367 days he had already spent in custody suspended. Nagbe was on probation for that conviction at the time of the current offense. Erik S. Siebert, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia; Anthony A. Spotswood, Special Agent in Charge of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Washington Field Division; and Chris Bargery, Director of the Pentagon Force Protection Agency, made the announcement after sentencing by U.S. District Judge Michael S. Nachmanoff. Assistant U.S. Attorney John C. Blanchard prosecuted the case. This case is part of Project Safe Neighborhoods (PSN), a program bringing together all levels of law enforcement and the communities they serve to reduce violent crime and gun violence, and to make our neighborhoods safer for everyone. On May 26, 2021, the Department launched a violent crime reduction strategy strengthening PSN based on these core principles: fostering trust and legitimacy in our communities, supporting community-based organizations that help prevent violence from occurring in the first place, setting focused and strategic enforcement priorities, and measuring the results. A copy of this press release is located on the website of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia. Related court documents and information are located on the website of the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia or on PACER by searching for Case No. 1:25-cr-6. Contact Press Officer USAVAE.Press@usdoj.gov Updated May 22, 2025
Seven-Time Convicted Felon Sentenced To More Than Two Years For Attempting To Illegally Purchase A Firearm U.S. Attorney's Office, Middle District of Florida Jacksonville, Florida – U.S. District Judge Timothy J. Corrigan has sentenced Stephen K. Gainous (38, Jacksonville) to 30 months in federal prison for making a false statement to a federally licensed firearms dealer during the attempted purchase of a firearm. Gainous pled guilty on February 14, 2025. According to court documents, Gainous completed an ATF Form 4473 during the attempted purchase of a firearm from a federally licensed firearms dealer. Gainous indicated on the required paperwork that he was not a felon. This was a false statement, in that Gainous was previously convicted of seven felonies, including battery on a child, making a false statement during the acquisition of a firearm, possession of cocaine, criminal use of personal identification, and fraudulent use of a credit card. This case was investigated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. It was prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Brenna Falzetta. This is another case uncovered through the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). All NICS denials are reported to federal law enforcement and are reviewed daily for potential criminal prosecution. Federal law makes it a felony offense to make a false statement to a firearms dealer when trying to buy a gun. This case is part of Project Safe Neighborhoods (PSN), a program bringing together all levels of law enforcement and the communities they serve to reduce violent crime and gun violence, and to make our neighborhoods safer for everyone. On May 26, 2021, the Department launched a violent crime reduction strategy strengthening PSN based on these core principles: fostering trust and legitimacy in our communities, supporting community-based organizations that help prevent violence from occurring in the first place, setting focused and strategic enforcement priorities, and measuring the results. Updated May 22, 2025
Pam Bondi ATF Updates National Policy on Federal Firearm Licensee Inspections To Promote Fairness, Consistency, and Public Safety The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives today issued an updated national policy for administrative actions related to compliance inspections of federal firearms licensees. The guidance promotes clear, consistent and fact-based decisions that uphold ATF’s commitment to public safety and respect for Second Amendment rights. The policy replaces the 2021 Enhanced Regulatory Enforcement policy, also known as the "zero-tolerance" policy. It directs industry operations investigators to consider all circumstances of an inspection rather than applying automatic outcomes, ensuring ATF uses its regulatory authority fairly and effectively. “This update is about getting it right and making sure we’re focused on public safety,” ATF Acting Director Daniel Driscoll said. “Under the previous policy, some licensees were being penalized for simple mistakes such as, forgetting to put their license number on forms. This new guidance gives our investigators the discretion to tell the difference between an honest mistake and a real threat to public safety. Law-abiding dealers deserve a system that treats them fairly, not like suspects. They are our partners and the first line of defense in our efforts to combat firearms trafficking.” The policy provides investigators and field leadership clearer guidelines for evaluating violations, weighing mitigating and aggravating factors, and determining the proper response—from education and warnings to administrative actions. Decisions must factor in whether licensees self-reported issues, implemented corrective actions, or present a continuing threat to public safety. These updates support the administration’s efforts to increase transparency and public confidence in government oversight, reaffirming ATF’s commitment to accountability and legitimate business practices. Key points of the updated policy • Context-driven enforcement: Serious, willful violations may lead to administrative action, while minor or clerical errors may be addressed with education or warnings. • No automatic revocation: Removes the prior policy’s presumption of license revocation, instead considering intent, compliance history and public-safety risks. • Stronger public-safety focus: Investigators must evaluate whether continued operations pose a public-safety threat or contribute to violent crime, and whether the licensee demonstrates the ability to comply moving forward. • Clear legal standards and timelines: Defines key terms such as “willful” and “knowing” and establishes uniform timelines for reviews, actions and coordination. • Support for lawful industry engagement: ATF continues early intervention and collaboration with responsible licensees, while firmly addressing repeat or serious violations. ATF conducts compliance inspections as part of its mission to ensure firearms are sold, transferred and documented in accordance with federal law. The revised policy ensures inspections are fair, consistent and focused on reducing violent crime while protecting the rights of responsible gun owners. Compliance inspections also support ATF’s broader efforts to combat firearms trafficking. By examining dealer records and business practices, industry operations investigators can identify suspicious patterns—such as straw purchases or missing inventory—that may indicate firearms are being diverted into illegal markets. These findings assist in criminal investigations and help reduce violent crime by preventing guns from falling into the wrong hands. ATF is the federal law enforcement agency responsible for regulating the firearm industry and enforcing laws related to firearms and violent crime. For more information, visit atf.gov or follow @ATFHQ on X. Contact: ATF Public Affairs Division, Liaison2@atf.gov
Have you ever had to use your concealed carry? Kielma say’s, this from an avid reader of my blog. Your thoughts? Unfortunately, yes. I was pumping gas into my 2011 mustang boss 5.0 when a Hispanic looking man came up from behind me and when he yelled HEY! I turned around and he had a gun pointed at my face. He told me in broken English to stop what I was doing so I stopped pumping gas and hung up the gas pump. While still pointing his gun at me he got in my car and locked the door. When he tried to start my car, he suddenly realized that the key was not in the ignition. He turned towards me, and I had already pulled my micro desert eagle .380 out of my pocket and now I was pointing it at his head. The idiot tried to reach for his gun which he had placed next to him on the passenger seat. I screamed “RIGHT THERE” at the top of my lungs. He looked scared and I used my key to unlock the door, and I ordered him out of my car. I pistol whipped him hard across his face and ordered him on the ground. I told him that he had really fucked up and that I was going to kill him. I guess he decided to take a chance, and he got up and started running down the street. I decided to just let him go because I didn't want to kill anyone after all. When he was a block away, I went into the tiger mart and asked the clerk if they had a security video. He said we have cameras, but the machines haven't worked for a long time. I decided screw it because there's no proof and I left. I still have that scumbag’s gun. FYI never leave your keys in the ignition when you're pumping gas and keep your head on a swivel. If you live in a carry state buy yourself a good compact handgun and get a CCP.
States Move to Ban Glocks Over Full-Auto Conversion Panic Scott Witner - You read that right— California and Illinois lawmakers are pushing bills to ban Glock pistols. Why? Because some criminals have illegally installed so-called “Glock switches” to convert them to full-auto fire. These devices, also known as auto sears, are already federally banned, heavily prosecuted, and undeniably illegal under the National Firearms Act. But that’s not enough for anti-gun legislators. Instead of punishing criminals, they’re coming after law-abiding gun owners—again. From Banning Devices to Banning Guns The logic behind these proposed bans is just as ridiculous as it sounds: Since some criminals have illegally modified Glock pistols, the solution must be to ban Glocks altogether. In California, Assembly Bill 1127 seeks to outlaw the sale of Glock pistols and any other handgun that could potentially be converted to full-auto. Meanwhile, Illinois’ HB4045 is aiming for the same target. And you can bet other blue states are watching closely. As Gun Owners of America National Director Mark Jones warned in a recent interview, this trend could spread. “Our citizens need to be vigilant and not think it cannot happen here,” said Jones. “Colorado has shown us that with their transformation over a decade.” Even in pro-gun states like Wyoming, gun owners are being warned not to get too comfortable. Elections have consequences, and the anti-gun crowd is playing the long game. Let’s Be Clear: Full-Auto Conversions Are Already Illegal Glock pistols, like the overwhelming majority of modern handguns, are semi-automatic—one round fired per trigger pull. The “Glock switch” alters the pistol’s internal mechanism to make it fire fully automatic, which is illegal unless you own a properly registered machine gun manufactured before 1986 (and good luck affording one). These devices are typically imported illegally from China and other black market sources. They’re unreliable, unsafe, and built with all the quality you’d expect from a sketchy ePacket shipment. Not only are they illegal to possess under federal law, but installing one can seriously damage your firearm—or injure the user. Yet instead of focusing on those criminals, lawmakers want to punish the millions of Americans who legally carry and depend on Glock handguns for self-defense. Banning Glocks Won’t Survive Constitutional Scrutiny The push to ban handguns like Glocks isn’t just unconstitutional—it’s already been ruled that way. George Mocsary, director of the Firearms Research Center and professor at the University of Wyoming College of Law, pointed out that the Supreme Court’s 2008 Heller decision explicitly affirmed the individual right to own handguns. “It’s just an effort by these states to harass the people who own these Glock handguns lawfully,” Mocsary said. That precedent is crystal clear: You can’t ban handguns just because a few bad actors break the law. And trying to justify a ban based on the hypothetical that someone might commit a felony with an aftermarket part? That’s like banning pickup trucks because someone might use one to flee a robbery. What This Means for Gun Owners If these bills pass, don’t expect them to stop at Glock. Any pistol with a polymer frame and a modular fire control group could be next. Heck, even metal-framed classics could be targeted if someone finds a way to hack them. And for those traveling through California or Illinois with a concealed carry permit? Be careful. Even if your permit is recognized, your legally-owned Glock could make you a criminal under these new laws. “It certainly could impact travel,” said Jones. “Even if traveling with a reciprocal permit, you need to comply with the laws of the state where you go.” A Desperate New Gun Control Tactic Jones summed it up best: This isn’t about safety—it’s about control. “Specifically, to these switches, it is already a federal felony to illegally convert a weapon to full auto,” he said. “This is already illegal, so more unconstitutional gun control isn’t the answer.” These proposals aren’t just misguided—they’re proof that anti-gun legislators will never stop at regulating illegal behavior. Their real goal is to chip away at lawful gun ownership, piece by piece. And now they’re coming for America’s most popular handgun.
ATF issuing suppressors for the ‘health and safety’ of its agents, but what about us? Lee Williams The ATF admitted it issues $1,300 rifle suppressors for the “health and safety” of its law enforcement agents, “due to the extensive training and quarterly firearms qualifications they must complete,” according to our story published Wednesday. But those three words chosen by the ATF – health and safety – set off a bomb among readers, and rightly so, because of how those of us who aren’t ATF agents are treated if we want to protect our own health and safety. Why do law-abiding Americans have to pay $200, submit a federal application, and jump through a series of legal hoops just to purchase a single silencer? Besides, most of us shoot a lot more than at quarterly firearms qualifications, so our hearing is at serious risk. One reader pointed out that suppressors are safety devices for the ATF but are considered a privilege for those of us who aren’t ATF agents. Unfortunately, he is 100% correct. The ATF is completely wrong in its reasoning. We can all agree that suppressors offer a tremendous boon to health and safety, but shouldn’t civilians receive the same benefits as our lowliest federal agents? We should be able to purchase them anywhere, anytime we want, without any federal forms, waiting periods or especially $200 fees. Doesn’t the American public deserve the same level of health and safety that ATF agents receive, especially since we’re already funding theirs through our tax dollars? If the ATF is correct and suppressors are true health and safety devices, why isn’t there one included in the box with every new gun purchase? The ATF already requires gunmakers to include padlocks and keys with every new sale. Why not suppressors, too? Why do American citizens have to take second place to federal agents? Don’t we have the same right to safeguard our own health and safety? H.R.404 – Hearing Protection Act Just four months ago, Congressman Ben Cline (R-VA) reintroduced the Hearing Protection Act (HPA), which was designed to reduce “the overly burdensome barriers required to purchase a firearm suppressor to ease access for law-abiding citizens simply trying to obtain the hearing protection they need.” “Americans who enjoy hunting and target shooting should be able to do so safely and legally without facing burdensome government regulations,” Rep. Cline said. “The Hearing Protection Act will reclassify suppressors, making it easier for law-abiding gun owners to protect their hearing while enjoying recreational activities. It’s time to ensure that our Second Amendment rights are upheld, allowing responsible citizens to enjoy their freedoms without unnecessary obstacles.” As it stands now, Cline’s bill has 76 cosponsors, and every single one is a Republican. The bill was assigned to the Committee on Ways and Means, and the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period of time that will be determined by the Speaker of the House, The bill drew strong support from the gun community, including the American Suppressor Association (ASA), the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the National Rifle Association (NRA), and the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation (CSF). While representatives from all of the organizations were quoted in the bill’s press release, no one said anything better or more relevant than Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF’s senior vice-president and general counsel. “Congressman Cline’s Hearing Protection Act will have the federal government recognize firearm suppressors for what they are. These are accessories to a firearm that make recreational shooting and hunting a safer experience,” Keane said. “These safety devices reduce the report of a firearm to a level that won’t cause instant and permanent hearing damage. Despite Hollywood’s depictions, they do not mask the sound of a firearm. The focus should be on removing barriers to safe and responsible use of firearms and dedicating resources to ensuring firearms are safeguarded from those who should never possess them. Strict regulatory control of firearm accessories, and the parts of those accessories that have no bearing on the function of a firearm, is unnecessary and not the wisest use of federal resources. NSSF thanks Congressman Cline for his leadership for ensuring safe and responsible use of firearms and dedicating necessary resources where they are most needed.” The Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project wouldn’t be possible without you. Click here to make a tax-deductible donation to support pro-gun stories like this.
