Congratulations Wisconsin!!  Today is the official day that Wisconsin will allow concealed carry in their state. For Wisconsin residents they can now start submitting applications, but for non-residents who hold a permit that is honored by WI you can carry there legally now. This is a big day in the concealed carry world–state #49 moved over to the CCW side leaving only Illinois where no citizen can legally carry a loaded weapon (unloaded CCW may be legal).  It has been great watching state laws move more towards firearm freedom over the last several years and I look forward to a day soon where Illinois will follow suit. For any questions about concealed carry in Wisconsin check out the WI DOJ FAW.

We are in the process of updating our reciprocity maps and will have them updated shortly. Thanks for your patience.

In June 2010 the Supreme Court struck down Chicago’s gun bans. Predictions about Chicago running red with blood in the streets (not sure what they thought was already happening)  and turning into the wild wild west (that probably would have been better than what was currently happening in Chicago).

Chicago Mayor Daley predicted the following:

Overturning the gun ban was “a very frightening decision” and predicted more deaths along with Wild West-style shootouts and that people “are going to take a gun and they are going to end their lives in a family dispute.” . . .

Well, it didn’t happen. Time and time again (Virginia’s firearms in restaurants) we’ve seen more guns equals less crime. John Lott, author of “More Guns, Less Crime” analyzed the crime rates in Chicago before and after the gun ban was struck down.

See the rest of John Lott’s analysis of Chicago and DC after their gun bans were lifted:

John Lott’s Chicago Analysis

John Lott’s DC Analysis

A little over a year ago I was given a certificate to attend a free 2 day defensive handgun coarse at Front Sight Firearms Training Institute by a friend of You Can Carry. Because of a busy work schedule it took me a while to get out and use it–but a few months ago my wife and I  finally decided it was  time for a vacation for the two of us. So we planned out a week long trip to Las Vegas with the first 2 days being set aside for the class at Front Sight. Overall it was a great experience for us–so here’s my take on Front Sight .

We arrived at 6:30am and waited in a line of cars for about 15 minutes as cars filed into the facility. They have a very controlled facility with gates surrounding everything and they had 2 staff members greet each car. The gates were on a schedule so people weren’t coming in and out except at specified times (obviously they would open the gates to let you out should you need to leave the facility at another time, but no one was getting in unless it was during the hours the gates were open ).  The beginning of the first day was check in and weapons inspection. They verified that you were in fact registered for the class and then inspected your equipment–your firearm, magazines, ammo, and holster.  They had some specific requirements in place for safety and wanted to make sure that everyone and their equipment were in compliance. They have all of the information on their website for review before you show up, and they have a pro shop where you can buy most anything that you may need including gear, ammo, shirts, etc. We didn’t feel rushed (which I enjoyed, but also was wanting some of that sleep back that I missed earlier that morning!).

At 8:00am or 8:30am we began the initial introduction and “housekeeping” items. Basically we got the introduction/philosophy for Front Sight and signed the waivers. Every class was grouped together in a big classroom which was connected to the pro shop and surrounded outside by a bunch of shooting ranges. When we were done there we headed out to the range.

The range we were at was 75 yards with a pavilion and chairs at one end, and three dirt berms surrounding the range. Our class had 38 students and 3-4 instructors at any given time. There was one instructor that was in charge and lead the group and then 2 or 3 others that mostly stayed the same, but we did have one join us on the second day that wasn’t there on the first day.

Range time was split up into three different activities–first was the lecture where we were seated in the pavilion and were listening to the instructors and watching the demos that they were going through.  We went over basic firearm safety rules, then started into the defensive use of a handgun.  The second activity was dry practice (they do not refer to this activity as dry fire–simply dry practice–since you can not fire an unloaded weapon). At the 75 yard marker we would line up and dry practice various drills including drawing from a holster, getting in the “ready” position, trigger control, malfunction clearing, and more.  Lastly, we did live fire drills from the 3 yard marker out to the 15-20 yard marker.

We didn’t fire a round for the first portion of the class, but lined up on dry practice line for exercises. For both dry fire and live fire exercises they implement what they call a “coach system”. Essentially, this just means that you split the group up into two firing lines and everyone is matched up with one person. The person not firing is supposed to offer help and critiques, as well as encourage and enforce safety with the person on the firing line. One line would go through the drills, then they would switch and the second line would go through the drills with the first line coaching.

I have mixed feelings about this coaching system–most of the time I was paired up (by choice) with my wife. While I am quite a bit more advanced in my training, she felt comfortable offering reminders and suggestions based on the instruction that we had received. Obviously, I felt the same and was more than comfortable making sure that she was safe and performing the drills properly.  However, on the second day the instructors switched it up and gave everyone a new partner (without a choice) so we got to know some more people in the group–but it is a little different “coaching” someone that I just met and I found it less effective because I didn’t want to be too intrusive or critical of my new partner. My wife had a similar experience but was even a little more magnified based on her shooting partner. At that point I felt like I was only on the lookout for major safety violations–and not as much of a coach. Either way, the system did allow for the instructors to give more personalized attention simply because only half the group was shooting at any given time.

After we went over the basics and practiced without ammunition, we lined up on the firing line. Following commands issued by the instructor we started from the ready position and slowly started to work through the proper mechanics of shooting. Sight alignment, sight picture and trigger control were the main focus as we began to slowly build our skills and speed. We didn’t begin drawing our gun from the holster and firing until the second day (the entire first day anytime your gun went in or out of the holster it was unloaded)–which left time for beginners to build up the confidence and skills to safely draw from a holster–and allowed time for the more experienced to gain muscle memory for the specific actions that they wanted you to perform. I found myself constantly walking through each step one by one in my head so it was nice to start with a slow repetition and work up speed.

By the end of the second day we were drawing from a holster and firing two rounds to center body mass–most of us could do it from 10 to 15 yards in under two seconds. However, we were taught to only go as fast as we could guarantee the shots.  That meant different speeds to different persons at different distances, but for a two day class I felt like we made good progress. They advertise the fact that you can take this class even if you have never fired a round before–which is true–but you’ll get more out of it if you are familiar with the basics of handguns, and specifically the one you are using.

One of the activities on the second day of class was the shooting house. It was a very simple and beginner version of a realistic shoot/don’t shoot scenario–but I found it was a good test of the skills we had learned and provided a step up in realism of the training. In this particular scenario we were standing about 10 feet in front of a house door with one window on one side of the door and two windows on the other. Targets would then present themselves and you would have to identify the target, decide if they are a threat or not, and then fire or not fire based on what you saw. One of the targets had a hostile holding a child as a hostage and you only have the face visible on the hostile.  Even though it was a pretty simple scenario, it was a good step up from a silhouette target that doesn’t move.

One of the other positive aspects was the lectures that they gave. During lunch and at other “break” times they brought everyone into the classroom for lectures on the legal and moral side of using your firearm in self-defense. They walked through different scenarios and asked thought provoking questions to get you to see different sides of situations–some that still get me thinking about various possibilities when you are tempted to use your firearm. Two stories in particular from one of the instructors have stood out in my mind. I won’t share the stories but they definitely made me think about when/how I would use my weapon if I am faced with certain situations.  I would also sit through these lectures again if/when I go back to Front Sight (even if they are the same lectures). I also liked the fact that they used lunch time to go through lectures so you didn’t waste shooting time going through lectures at a different time.

During some of the lecture series there was also a couple sales pitches–one from Front Sight themselves for anyone who wasn’t a lifetime member and another from Fort Knox safes (which was completely voluntary and was after the rest of the activities for the day were completed so you could leave if you didn’t want to attend).  The Front Sight sales pitch wasn’t over the top and they simply said that they wanted us to become members and then they explained the offer. There wasn’t any “pressure” tactics to get you to join.

Because I was out of state we drove down which meant that for the “free class” it costs my wife and I about $400 between gas, the hotel, food, and ammunition and the mandatory background check that Front Sight completes before you can attend a class.  We did not rent guns but we did buy a few items to get ready for the class (such as electronic ear protection which is required).  I enjoyed the two day course and now want to go back for the four-day defensive handgun class which goes beyond drawing and firing from a standing position. I don’t know that I’ll adopt every single step that they taught, but I think the training is fundamentally sound and will prepare you if you ever have to use your firearm for self-defense.

One side note—I am aware of a lot of the negative aspect of Front Sight–between the first members who purchased plots of land to the lawsuit(s) to the over-the-top marketing campaigns there are definitely some people that have negative feelings towards them. While I may not agree with how they conduct their marketing, my main concern is that I receive quality training for a good price in an environment that I feel safe and able to learn.  Others might feel that they don’t want to be included with an organization that does those types of things which is perfectly fine and understandable–but based on my experience I have every intention of returning for more training. I also have every intention of expanding my training with other organizations as time and money permit (including local instructors).

Also–if you are looking for a female perspective on the training check out this post.

**Lastly, in full disclosure, the link at the top is an affiliate link and I may receive commissions if you click through and sign up for a class. However, the review here is based solely on my opinion  based on my personal experience with Front Sight and is not influenced by my affiliate (or any other) status–in fact, I signed to be an affiliate after my class because of the positive experience that I had. If you have any questions about the course or my association with the Front Sight do not hesitate to contact us or leave a comment below. **

As students (or parents/family/friends of students) get ready for another semester of classes, studying, and tests–you should also be aware and protect against violent crimes. Of course, most schools won’t let you adequately prepare with a firearm, but there are other things you can do to prepare and also help with (such as promoting organizations like Students for Concealed Carry on Campus).

Read more here: http://www.ammoland.com/2010/09/13/gun-free-zones-an-open-invitation-for-psychotic-killers/

This was posted on our Facebook page–but I wanted to share it here as well.  It was written by

a Marine who shares his feelings on why he carries a gun.  It’s been around for a while, but it’s definitely worth the read (even a second or third time).

The Gun is Civilization by Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.

The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat–it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed.

People who argue for the banning of arms ask for “automatic rule” by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a forced monopoly.

Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won, by the physically superior participants. The result is overwhelming injury inflicted on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.

The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force.  It removes force from the equation… and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)

The following article was written by Robert G. Heinritz, Jr., J.D. on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 in the wake of the Virginia Tech school shootings. The article is being printed with his permission.

The issue at hand is still relevant today and is being debated at schools across the country as they continue to argue whether guns have a place on campuses. Incidents at Colorado State University, in Texas and Arizona, Utah, and elsewhere show that people are still searching for the best solution to protecting the students, faculty, and others on campus. Unfortunately, most of them get it wrong.

“Gun-Free” School Zone Again a Failure

“We’re all ignorant, just on different subjects.” Will Rogers

“Without data, we’re just another schmuck with an opinion.” D. Chris Anderson, Ph.D.

All of us should feel a little sick, and great sympathy for the victims and their families, as a result of the tragic series of shootings by a deranged killer in Blacksburg, Virginia.  Unfortunately, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand the killing-spree at Virginia Tech is precisely what the anti-self-defense forces have been hoping for:

(1) Predictable, the followers of Sarah Brady – and perhaps many of the Democratic candidates for President – will exploit this needless tragedy to call for more gun control among the law-abiding.

(2) Second Amendment advocates, with knowledge of the scientific data, will observe that, in that terrible nightmare-situation in Blacksburg, if just one civilian with a firearms concealed-carry permit had been among the shooter’s intended-victims, he or she could have stopped the killing and saved many lives – long before the police arrived.  This is exactly what happened on January 16, 2002 at Appalachian Law School in Grundy, Virginia, where three individuals, two of whom were legally armed with handguns, stopped a disgruntled former student who was trying to kill everyone.

But self-defense was impossible at Virginia Tech.  In an incredible act of “feel-good” ignorance, “Policy 5616 – Campus and Workplace Violence Prevention Policy” prohibited all firearms for self-defense from the Virginia campus.  Lawful gun-owners – who had submitted applications, paid all fees, submitted fingerprint-cards for national police-checks, and confirmed knowledge of the law and proficiency with their firearm – were told by Virginia Tech they do not have the right to defend their life, even though the State of Virginia has said they can.  Their uninformed desire to “feel safe” prompted this foolish university policy, which actually made people less safe.  Virginia Tech’s Policy-5616 enabled the needless carnage on their campus.  The cost this day – some 33 killed, plus more wounded and possibly dying in a premeditated murder-spree.

It could have been avoided.  All credible scientific data confirms in the United States roughly 2.5-million crimes are stopped or deterred by armed civilians every year – most with no shots fired, and fewer than one in a thousand resulting in any death.  2.5-million crimes!  There have been scores of credible, independent, criminological-studies which confirm guns in the hands of the law-abiding save lives.  You might start by reading economist John Lott’s MORE GUNS, LESS CRIME, and his later, MEDIA BIASES AGAINST GUNS.  There are hundreds of such publications – many by well-known, liberal Constitutional scholars – on the Constitution, history, and current criminological data.  There is no – repeat, NO – valid data that indicates so-called “gun control” laws prevent violence, or keep guns out of the hands of criminals.  The data indicates just the reverse – where the law-abiding are deprived of their right of self-defense, violent crime increases.

So-called “gun control” laws harm innocent people.  My friend, Dr. Suzanna Gratia Hupp, lost her parents in the Luby’s massacre in Killeen, Texas.  Dr. Hupp, who kept her gun locked up that day in compliance with the law at the time, said “I blame the deaths of my parents on the legislators who deny me the right to defend myself.” Just 2-months later, in an eerily-similar incident in a restaurant armed-robbery in Anniston, Alabama, all innocent lives were saved by a lone customer who happen to have a legally-concealed pistol in his possession.  The national press – which had such an anti-gun feeding-frenzy over the Killeen incident – never bothered to mention the 21-lives saved by the lone gunman in Anniston.

There is an old legal maxim, “Hard cases make bad laws.”  As I am writing this, all major TV networks – following their

ethic “if it bleeds, it leads” – are rehashing every past school-shooting incident in their TV libraries.  I have no doubt they will dig up Sarah Brady, Bill Clinton, or some other politician to once again call for their discredited and dangerous laws.  What every TV-report has failed to mention is every one of those schools were by law, “gun free” – meaning the killers knew their victims were defenseless.  In Israel, attacks on schools were abruptly stopped when teachers and (where appropriate) adult-students were permitted guns for self-defense.

What position will the media take?  A rational policy based on the data?  Or still more hysterical calls for useless anti-gun laws, which are ultimately more dangerous to our values and public safety?

MSNBC wrote about the history of concealed carry today–one of the big points of the article was the debate between pro-gun and anti-gun folks regarding crime statistics in relation to concealed carry permits.  Bottom line–there is no credible source that says more concealed carry increases violent crime-none (unless you count the factless opinions of the Brady’s and VPC). A lot of studies says that there is no correlation and some say crime drops with concealed carry. This is after almost 25 years of concealed carry. If after 2 decades of people trying to find stats that show concealed carry is dangerous and no one can provide any credible proof that crime goes up then why do people care?

I personally believe that concealed carry does reduce crime (the overall crime rate for the country has dropped significantly over the last 25 years as concealed carry has significantly risen–a lot of factors need to be taken into account, but it’s a strong correlation in the right direction). Regardless, if they can’t come up with anything in 25 years showing that concealed carry can lead to an increase in crime then drop the issue. Let us live our lives by the constitution (even if they don’t want to) and have the ability to protect ourselves and our families.

The guys over at Legal Heat were nice enough to send us a promo copy of their iPhone/iTouch app “Legal Heat: 50 State Guide to Firearm Laws and Regulations” for review. It is compatible with both the iPhone and iTouch (but you must have an updated firmware). I’ve had it for a few days now and have been able to play around with it. On a couple of occasions during conversations with co-workers and friends I’ve pulled out the app to answer questions I couldn’t recall off the top of my head (granted I probably talk about concealed weapons more than the average guy).

The app is basically a quick pocket guide for concealed carry laws for each one of the 50 states.  It covers the basics (definitely not a comprehensive review of all firearm laws) but captures most of the questions you would like to know when you carry a firearm using reciprocity laws. It has a page for each state CCW laws, then a “Transport Rules” section, and also every Attorney General phone number (an email for each AG would also be nice to have but isn’t currently included).  The navigation is very simple, clean, and easy.

The front page of the app gives you a rating from 1 bullet to 5 bullets (with Illinois and Wisconsin earning head stones instead of a bullet rating!) ranking their friendliness towards concealed carry.  From there you can go to the state you want with each state page including a section for prohibited areas (both state and federal) and any special notes or exceptions–this may include any weird laws or general attitudes that may be different than written laws in the state.  There are two reciprocity maps on the state page as well–first is what states honor the permit of the current state and the second is which state permits the current state will honor (not all maps are currently on there but Legal Heat has confirmed that they will be updated soon).

It would be nice to know if you were required by law to notify a police officer if you are detained (although we recommend doing this even if it’s not required by law). It would also be nice to know what the laws are when carrying a firearm in your car (with or without a permit) for when you are driving through a state that does not recognize your permit and you need to know if you can still have your firearm loaded or if it needs to be locked and hidden.  There are tons of other random things that could be included, but they’ve kept the information simple enough to where you can find the pertinent information at a glance.

From talking to Legal Heat they are really committed to making this the best app for concealed carry.  They just submitted an update yesterday to add reciprocity maps and add clarification on some points. They also have plans for a much bigger update coming next month which will include open carry information and some additional features.  For $1.99 it’s definitely worth snagging.  But before you run to iTunes we’ve got 3  promo codes for the app for free (thanks to Legal Heat and App Ventures) so we’re giving it away to three of our Facebook fans on Monday (March 1st). So make sure that you are a fan on Facebook and let us know that you want a free copy of the app.

Very few schools allow concealed weapons on campus. Colorado State University was one of the few that did–but recently they voted to ban concealed weapons on campus. The student association had previously voted to continue to allow concealed weapons by a vote of 21-3 but the school board didn’t seem to listen or care.  So the students wanted it, but the faculty board voted unanimously (7-0) to ban guns.

Just a state away, the state of Utah prohibits state owned schools from banning concealed weapons, which means that all Utah public colleges, in addition to all public elementary, middle, and high schools, allow concealed weapons. Other than suicide, I can not find any deaths caused by guns on a school campus in the state of Utah. Ever.  The Utah Supreme Court struck down the University of Utah’s attempt to ban guns in 2006. Since then there have been no problems that I know of.

There was a shooting at a mall in Salt Lake at Trolley Square in 2007. It was a posted gun-free zone and the shooter was pinned down after killing 5 people by an off-duty police officer who was carrying a firearm until emergency response showed up.  Nothing like this has ever happened at schools in Utah.

I personally have experience with carrying firearms into elementary schools, middle schools, high schools, and colleges and universities in the state. If nothing more than a convenience it isn’t worth banning them when they do not cause any problems. More than once, I’ve unexpectedly found myself on school property with my concealed firearm, and was glad that I didn’t have to turn around or break the law. I’ve never gone crazy and started shooting just because I am on school property. And when you add the benefits of reduced crime and the ability to protect yourself, I feel that every school in the county should allow concealed firearms. We’ve written about this before (specifically regarding teachers, not students) when a school district in Texas passed a law allowing teachers to carry concealed weapons and we haven’t had problems there. We see it over and over again–concealed carry does not lead to wild wild west shootouts and random gun fights.

Now–back to CSU. More compelling reasons to allow concealed weapons.  Here are some graphs for various crime trends (original source here)–note that in 2003 CSU changed their policy to allow concealed weapons.

Across the board CSU crime trends peaked in 2003, then decreased–usually dramatically–until 2009. I’m not sure what else you want to see, but this is convincing enough evidence for me. Guns do have a place at school.

We hope that everyone had a great Thanksgiving day and nice break.  We hope you were safe through any holiday shopping and got to go out and shoot sometime this weekend.

There is so much to be grateful for even during this uncertain time. We have more freedoms and opportunities in this country. We have concealed carry in more states than ever and we are making progress in the other 2 towards CCW. In many states we have shall issue CCW and you can carry a firearm for protection almost anywhere you go.

Even though some gun rights are under attack and the country is headed down a dangerous path we have a great opportunity in America to correct the path. It may not be easy or fast, but we can do it. Continue to fight for our freedoms and for our country and remember all that you have to be grateful for. Happy Thanksgiving.