Spent the last Friday through Sunday at the Rangemaster Tactical Conference hosted by Tom and Lynn Givens at the Memphis, Tennessee Police Academy. Over 200 students and dozens of designated instructors, all of us in the latter category being students too, of course.  Tom brings in “the best of the best,” and the course is open to armed citizens, not just police and military, though of course all three groups are present.

A truly great seminar. Next year’s has not yet been scheduled for multiple logistical reasons, but stay tuned and keep an eye on the rangemaster.com website.  It’s the best bang for the buck a private citizen can get in armed self-defense training.

A part of the program is the Polite Society Match. Essentially, it’s Tom Givens’ RangeMaster qualification course of fire.  158 of the attendees and instructors participated. I was grateful to claw my way into the top ten overall by the skin of my teeth, and came in fourth in the Lawman division, while my sweetie the Evil Princess came in third among the 40 or so females.  Congratulations to overall winner Kirk Clark, top cop John Hearne (a past overall winner!), and high woman Cindy Bowser.

You learn from your mistakes. I managed to get a 100% score on the targets with my Wilson Custom Beretta 92 Compact Carry pistol, but shot it too damn slow.  (Note to self: next year, get some trigger time in the live fire courses before you shoot the match, to get warmed up and grooved in.)

Hit Chicagoland on Monday for the annual International Law Enforcement Educators and Trainers conference, arriving in time for the evening session titled “Trainers’ Perspectives on Police Reform,” inspired by the recent PERF (Police Executive Research Forum) guidelines. First off, “Police Reform” is something we normally associate with cleaning up corrupt police departments, and that’s simply not the right terminology for use of force issues. We discussed PERF’s “Are We Guardians or Warriors” meme, my take on which is that cops can’t be one if they aren’t the other. Kinda like the old “Are We Law Enforcers or Peace Officers?”  The simple answer is that we are both. Yin and Yang.

This conference continues through this week. On Wednesday morning I’ll once again chair the Panel of Experts on Deadly Force, and I expect the same issues will dominate.

An interesting week is about to get more interesting, methinks…

15 COMMENTS

  2. Mas, what, if there was one or more, was the prevailing sentiments about the PERF guidelines? Pie in the sky, political claptrap, something that needs to be done eventually, something that needs to be done urgently, a pick and choose version of one of those, or something else?

  5. Your Beretta mention made me wonder what ever happened to that long-barreled nightstand Beretta you showed off years ago in “Combat Handgunnery?” Anybody else recall that one? I know my first reaction was, “Umm, wha? Bet that’s fun to shoot with one hand while the other is ripping off the sheets or trying to sit upright!”

    Did Wilson Combat (I think that’s what you meant, as Wilson Custom makes baseball stuff) finally cut it down for size for ya, Mas? Sorry, buddy, couldn’t resist!

    TXCOMT

  6. Just my $.02 but,
    I have noticed more and more regular police going about daily patrols in what I’ll call for lack of better terms “tactical gear” instead of the traditional collared, button up shirt w/ badge and kevlar worn underneath. Wearing body armor is a given; all LEOs on duty should have common sense to armor up. But wearing it conspicuosly over form fitting black Under Armour w/ the POLICE patch across the back (in case we couldn’t tell), with drop leg holster instead of traditional duty belt just rubs me the wrong way. I’ve noticed this particularly amongst the Colton PD and Redlands PD whilst my local patrol units, San Bernardino Sheriffs wear a discreet tan polo over their armor.

    Sorry to rant, but what’s your take on this, Mas? Is SWAT gear on beat cops the new norm? I appreciate any and all thoughts!

  7. TXCOMPT, I still have that stainless Beretta 92 from a quarter century ago or more: Magna-Ported 6″ BarSto barrel, Jarvis action, 20-round 93R machine pistol mag, and all. The old-style dedicated SureFire light is still attached, old-school tech that makes it too bulky for concealed carry. The Wilson Combat Compact Carry 92 I used in the match is the model I wrote about in the cover story of the current issue of Combat Handguns magazine. I liked the test gun so much I bought it, and have been wearing it on my current training tour.

    Bama Drifter, I too am more comfortable with concealed soft body armor. However, a growing number of cops in our country (as in others) are opting for outside vests. There’s a comfort factor going in its favor, and with the growing amount of gear patrol officers have to carry, the outside pockets on the vest carrier allow the officer to spread out the ancillary equipment and distribute its weight for all-day wear.

  8. Interesting Week- Up Date

    On Wednesday, President Barack Obama nominated Judge Merrick Garland to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court. Here are five quick facts you need to know about Garland.

    1. Garland is considered anti-Second Amendment. As the National Review noted last week: “Back in 2007, Judge Garland voted to undo a D.C. Circuit court decision striking down one of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation” and voted “to uphold an illegal Clinton-era regulation that created an improvised gun registration requirement.” Obama will use his pick to pursue a gun control agenda.

    Full Article: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/03/16/merrick-garland-five-facts/

  9. This was sent to me this morning by a pro 2A friend. I think it is worth sharing. I am a mostly conservative Independent, who registered Republican in January so I could take part in the Nevada closed Caucus. If your a gun owner and believe in the Bill of Rights, we need to unite and fully support pro 2A candidates even if it means crossing our traditional party lines. The Presidency is only 4 years the Supreme Court is a generation.

    ___________________________________

    HERE IS SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT!!!!!!!!

    A lot of people have brought up the fact that they won’t vote for Trump if he’s the eventual nominee. I just want to put something in perspective.

    Justice Scalia’s seat is vacant. Ginsberg is 82 years old, Kennedy is 79, Breyer is 77, and Thomas is 67. Nowadays, the data shows that the average age of a Supreme Court retirement or death occurs after 75.

    These are 5 vacancies that will likely come up over the next 4-8 years. The next President will have the power to potentially create a 7-2 Supreme Court skewed in their ideology.

    Think about that… 7-2. If the next President appoints 5 young justices, it will guarantee control of the Supreme Court for an entire generation. And 7-2 decisions will hold up much more over time than 5-4 decisions which are seemed to be lacking in mandate.

    Hillary has made it clear she will use the Supreme Court to go after the 2ndAmendment. She has literally said that the Supreme Court was wrong in its Heller decision stating that the Court should overturn and remove the individual right to keep and bear arms. Period.

    Everyone saying that they won’t vote for one candidate or the other if they are the GOP nominee, please realize this: If Hillary Clinton wins and gets to make these appointments, you likely will never see another Conservative victory at the Supreme Court level for the rest of your life. Ever.

    If you are a Conservative, a vote for anyone but the GOP nominee, whomever that will be, is a vote for Hillary Clinton.

  10. Bama Drifter,

    You asked for “….any and all thoughts!” on “tactical gear” on beat cops. Here’s my $.04 (due to inflation, don’t you know). It may be that you, and I, and everyone, may simply be reacting to style differences. I actually prefer the good guys to look tough, and capable, and rugged, but to still look like the good guys. In my mind I’m picturing a Vietnam Special Forces soldier, wearing tiger stripe camo, face paint, and a camo bandana over his head. Looks cool to me.

    When I picture the traditional cop, white shirt, black pants, tie, gold badge, it looks nerdy to me. Like someone who should be behind a desk, an accountant. I especially don’t think anyone who can get physical should be wearing a tie, even though I know they are clip-ons. Imagine teenage punks. Would they have more respect for a cop who looks like a soldier, or a cop who looks at home in 1953?

    Of course, if a cop had his hands tied by lots of regulations, like modern soldiers and their crazy rules of engagement, I am sure the bad guys would lose whatever respect or awe they had of the good guy anyway.

    This style thing may just be similar to the way guns look today. You see less and less metal and wood, and more and more synthetics, whether black or camo. An AR-15 looks WICKED! Muskets with hammers, lever-action guns, and even wooden bolt-action rifles look pretty tame next to today’s black beauties.

    I think it really is all about style and not substance. Let’s face it, in America today, looks are everything! That is probably due to TV viewing since 1948. I guess I would opt for the good guys to look wicked, but still be clearly identifiable as good guys, if that is possible. Like I said before, it produces a sense of awe, wonder and respect in me, while Barney Fife and Andy Taylor look tame. Then again, some citizens may be frightened by that new look. I can’t imagine grandmothers looking at things the same way I do.

    Fire trucks used to be red. Now many of them are that florescent yellow.

  11. The allegations raised by Nevada Vin about Judge Merrick Garland are extremely misleading and can be regarded as being false.

    “Back in 2007, Judge Garland voted to undo a D.C. Circuit court decision striking down one of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation” Here’s what happened. The trial court upheld the ban. The case was appealed to the circuit court of appeals. Most such appeals are heard by a three judge panel of the court, but after the panel rules a party can ask for the case to be reheard by the entire circuit court. The three judge panel by a 2-1 vote overturned the trial court decision and held the law unconstitutional under the 2nd A. Garland was NOT a member of that three judge panel. A motion was filed to have the case reheard by the entire Circuit Court “en banc.” Garland did vote to review the action of the 3-judge panel before the entire court, BUT so did Judge A. Raymond Randolph, a jurist with extremely strong conservative credentials. More importantly, cases can be reheard by the entire court for any reason, indeed judges who support the outcome of the panel will sometimes vote to have it reheard, for example, because they believe that the reasoning of the panel was weak or defective and better reasons can be given. Just like the Supreme Court isn’t necessarily voting to “undo” a lower court decision when it agrees to hear a case, an entire circuit court isn’t necessarily voting to undo a panel decision when it agrees to hear a case en banc.

    Voted “to uphold an illegal Clinton-era regulation that created an improvised gun registration requirement.” Now reading this, most would presume that (a) some court held this regulation to be illegal and (b) Garland voted to uphold it even though it had already been held illegal. Unfortunately, no court had ever held this to be illegal. The question in the case was WHETHER it was illegal and the trial court had already held that it was legal, not illegal. This was an appeal of that decision and in a 2-1 panel decision it was again held to be illegal. It was appealed to the Supreme Court, who declined to hear the case. In short every court which looked at the regulation held it to be legal or didn’t think that what the other courts had said was so wrong or so important as to merit review. What this criticism is saying is that someone disagrees with the courts and still thinks that it’s illegal and disagrees with Garland about that. But at least two other judges – the trial court judge and the other judge in the panel majority agree with Garland.

    If the only way to be not anti-gun is to absolutely and in utter lockstep oppose every legal position that infringes the position that the 2nd A gives the absolute right to own, possess, and carry guns of any kind, anywhere, and any time, then I’m sure that Garland is by that definition anti-gun. But then so was the late Justice Scalia and so was virtually every, if not every, judge who has ruled on gun rights. Other than being on the wrong side of what the NRA thinks ought to be the right side, there’s noting in either of these actions by Judge Garland which necessarily suggests any ideological position on his part about guns. Something may certainly come out which suggests a position, but these two events aren’t that.

  12. Dave the Liberal

    The real point is there are so many very old Supreme Court Justices that the next President has to be Pro Second Amendment if 2A is going to survive. As I stated before:

    ” If your a gun owner and believe in the Bill of Rights, we need to unite and fully support pro 2A candidates even if it means crossing our traditional party lines. The Presidency is only 4 years the Supreme Court is a generation.”

    You reasoned conclusion may have merit but I’ go with the NRA’s conclusion.

    ” In fact, a basic analysis of Merrick Garland’s judicial record shows that he does not respect our fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. Therefore, the National Rifle Association, on behalf of our five million members and tens of millions of supporters across the country, strongly opposes the nomination of Merrick Garland for the U.S. Supreme Court.”

    https://www.nraila.org/articles/20160317/nra-member-action-needed-to-oppose-obama-supreme-court
    -nominee

  13. I’ve been over the NRA’s website and cannot find any indication or proof that their “basic analysis of Merrick Garland’s judicial record” is based on anything other than those two incidents I described above. I rather think that the only part of his judicial record which they really base that analysis on is the very last entry: “Nominated by President Obama to the Supreme Court.”

  14. Well Merrick Garland’s nomination is DOA until after the election, just as the Dems blocked Bush’s nomination in an election year.

    In Nevada we are facing a Bloomberg Anti Gun ballot item which hopefully will also be dead at the ballot box.

  15. @Mas, who said, above: “Dave, I’ll be able to answer that better at the end of the week.”

    Eh?

    Or is that to be the topic of a new post altogether?

    I think I may know the answer, at least from the street rank and file:

    http://www.policemag.com/channel/patrol/articles/2016/03/a-revolution-in-use-of-force-policy-and-training.aspx

    http://www.bluesheepdog.com/2016/02/27/police-executive-research-forum-misguided-guidelines-ugly/

    http://www.officer.com/article/12174475/perf-and-their-questionable-principles

    https://www.policeone.com/use-of-force/articles/75734006-Will-PERFs-new-UOF-recommendations-put-cops-in-danger-A-real-world-example/

Comments are closed.