We welcome CMMG to the TIBA/BDS family. Contact us to order or go to our online store to order in-stock items.
We welcome CMMG to the TIBA/BDS family. Contact us to order or go to our online store to order in-stock items.
Utah CFP class, cost is $25 per person. Includes fingerprints. Call Janke custom arms to reserve a space, our last class was completely full. 801-549-7744
Click here to receive email updates
WASHINGTON, D.C. – The American Suppressor Association (ASA) is pleased to announce the introduction of the Hearing Protection Act (HPA) by Rep. Matt Salmon (AZ-05). This historic piece of legislation will remove suppressors from the purview of the National Firearms Act (NFA), replacing the antiquated federal transfer process with an instantaneous NICS background check. The HPA also includes a provision to refund the $200 transfer tax to applicants who purchase a suppressor after October 22, 2015.
“The American Suppressor Association believes that citizens should not have to pay a tax to protect their hearing while exercising their Second Amendment rights,” said Knox Williams, President and Executive Director of the ASA. “The removal of suppressors from the National Firearms Act has been our ultimate goal since day one. For months, we have worked alongside Rep. Salmon’s office and the National Rifle Association to craft this legislation. Although we recognize that introducing this bill is the first step in what will be a lengthy process to change federal law, we look forward to working with Rep. Salmon and the NRA to advance and ultimately enact this common-sense legislation.”
Also known as silencers, suppressors are the hearing protection of the 21st century sportsman. Despite common Hollywood-based misconceptions, the laws of physics dictate that no suppressor will ever be able to render gunfire silent. Suppressors are simply mufflers for firearms, which function by trapping the expanding gasses at the muzzle, allowing them to slowly cool in a controlled environment. On average, suppressors reduce the noise of a gunshot by 20 – 35 decibels (dB), roughly the same sound reduction as earplugs or earmuffs. In addition to hearing protection, suppressors also mitigate noise complaints from those who live near shooting ranges and hunting lands.
Unfortunately, suppressors have been federally regulated since the passage of the National Firearms Act of 1934. The NFA regulates the transfer and possession of certain types of firearms and devices, including suppressors. Currently, prospective buyers must send in a Form 4 application to the ATF, pay a $200 transfer tax per suppressor, undergo the same background check that is required to purchase a machine gun, and wait months for the ATF to process and approve the paperwork. In stark contrast, many countries in Europe place no regulations on their purchase, possession, or use.
Rep. Salmon’s Hearing Protection Act will fix the flawed federal treatment of suppressors, making it easier for hunters and sportsmen to protect their hearing in the 41 states where private suppressor ownership is currently legal, and the 37 states where hunting with a suppressor is legal. This legislation will remove suppressors from the onerous requirements of the NFA, and instead require purchasers to pass an instant NICS check, the same background check that is used during the sale of long guns. In doing so, law-abiding citizens will remain free to purchase suppressors, while prohibited persons will continue to be barred from purchasing or possessing these accessories.
ABOUT THE AMERICAN SUPPRESSOR ASSOCIATION
The American Suppressor Association (ASA) is the unified voice of the suppressor industry. Our mission is to unite and advocate for the common interests of suppressor manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and consumers. To accomplish our mission, our principal initiatives focus on state lobbying, federal lobbying, public education, and industry research.
The ASA is a sponsorship driven organization. Without the help of the following sponsors, this legislation would not have been possible: AcuSport, SilencerCo, Silencer Shop, Daniel Defense, Gemtech, Yankee Hill Machine Co., Thunder Beast Arms Corporation, Advanced Armament Corporation, Federal Premium Ammunition ®, Vortex Optics, Dakota Silencer, Freedom Munitions, and Liberty Suppressors.
For more information on how you can join the ASA, and help protect and expand your right to own and use suppressors, please visit www.AmericanSuppressorAssociation.com.
Monday, JPFO contributor and National Gun Rights Examiner David Codrea noted that in its first ruling of the new year, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) has determined that a business, merely by making its machining equipment available for a fee, to individuals to use in building a firearm, has now “manufactured” the gun, and must meet all the requirements imposed on commercial gun manufacturers. This includes a gun manufacturer’s license from the BATFE, the marking of the firearm (or receiver, which for legal purposes is the firearm) with a serial number, manufacturers’ record keeping, and conducting a background check on the person who actually did the work in making the gun.
This, although heinous, should not have been unexpected. The BATFE had asserted such a position, if only informally, almost two years ago. Again from David Codrea:
. . . an April 12, 2013 letter from Debra S. Satowiak, Chief, Firearms and Explosives Industry Division, to Jason Davis, attorney for Ares Armor Metal Works, LLC, advised that a Federal Firearms License is required for “a business premises at which, for a fee, it makes available a computer numeric control (CNC) machine, tools, equipment, and instructions to persons who bring in castings or raw materials for the purpose of creating firearms.”
This, of course, raises a good many questions. Attorney Joshua Prince asks one:
“Can a company offer membership, whereby any member is entitled to utilize the company equipment for free, and the member complete his/her/its firearm on the company equipment since the business would not be engage in the business?” he asks. “Do machine shops now need to inquire of the individual as to what he/she/it is going to be utilizing the machinery for?”
If you own one of Defense Distributed’s “Ghost Gunner” firearm-optimized CNC milling machines, and a buddy wanting to complete his “80% complete” AR-15 receiver offers to bring a pizza in exchange for use of the machine, would you become an “unlicensed gun manufacturer” (and a gun trafficker) if you agreed?
For that matter, if renting out access to one’s machining equipment, which is then used to manufacture a gun, is to be considered “being in the business of” manufacturing firearms, how is selling the equipment any different?
Incredibly, the rampant illogic gets worse. Ares Armor, a company that manufactures “80% complete” AR-15 receivers (some polymer, and some aluminum), and has been doing battle with the BATFE for nearly a year now, took to their Facebook page to amusingly summarize perhaps the most ridiculous aspect of the new ruling (warning: mild profanity in the link):
Question 1: So an 80% lower is not a firearm…
ATF Answer: Correct
Question 2: So if I drill a single hole in the fire-control pocket of an 80% lower then it is a firearm…
ATF Answer: Correct
Question 3: Ok then… If an 80% lower with one hole drilled in the FCP is a firearm… can I then take the firearm that I made at home to an FFL and have him complete the rest of the work because he isn’t manufacturing the firearm, he is just “gunsmithing” the firearm… I already manufactured the firearm by drilling the hole so it should be no problem right…
ATF Answer: Oh Crap!!!!!!!! ummmmm… Let me get back to you on that. No that can’t be right… There is no way you can do that… That is not fair! you cheated!
What this is about is that the BATFE has previously ruled that by drilling a single hole in the fire control cavity of an 80% complete receiver, or even making the material that should be removed a different color, so that the home gun maker can more easily see what must be done to make the receiver usable, the 80% complete receiver is not just an 80% complete receiver, and is instead a full-blown firearm (well, firearm receiver, which amounts to the same thing by law).
This became a problem for them when people realized that they could buy an 80% receiver, drill a single hole in the fire control cavity themselves, thus making the receiver “complete” in the BATFE’s eyes, even though considerably more machining would be required to make the receiver usable in a functional firearm. That, in turn, means that if now the owner of the “gun” turns it over to a gunsmith with the right machining equipment, the gunsmith could do the rest of the machining, and it wouldn’t be “manufacturing” a gun (which, after all,” has already been “manufactured), but merely “gunsmithing” (modifying, repairing, etc.), requiring no serial number, no background check, etc.
This, of course, could not be borne. So part of this new ruling fabricates a new, artificial distinction in gunsmithing.
ATF Ruling 2010-10 does recognize that gunsmiths may improve firearms by participating in the manufacturing process. However, none of the enumerated processes (i.e., repairing, modifying,embellishing, refurbishing, installing parts, or specialized finishing) actually create a frame or receiver, or make an existing frame or receiver suitable for use in assembling a “weapon” capable of expelling a projectile.
This is consistent with the traditional services that gunsmiths offer. Generally, licensed gunsmiths perform actions in repairing or improving firearms that are already complete weapons, or capable of being assembled as such. Gunsmiths do not perform the machining or other manufacturing processes to create frames or receivers, or make them suitable for use in assembling a weapon that can expel a projectile.
So now, any gunsmith or machinist who is hired by the “gun” owner to complete the machining is going to be ruled to have “manufactured” a gun, and will thus be held to the same restrictions that apply to all commercial gun manufacturers. The BATFE is insisting on having its cake and eating it, too. They have previously argued that an 80% receiver ceases to be an 80% receiver, and becomes a “firearm,” if the manufacturer does so much as scratch an outline showing where material needs to be milled away; but now, if the buyer of what the BATFE recognizes as an incomplete receiver similarly removes some of the material that must be removed in order to make the receiver function in a firearm, and then turns it over to a skilled professional gunsmith or machinist to finish the work, the professional ends up being considered the one to have “manufactured” the gun.
We’re incessantly told about the dangers of failing to keep firearms out of the hands of the mentally incompetent. How much more dangerous, though, is it to hand guns, badges, and the power to formulate gun policy (no legislation needed!) to such people?
A former paratrooper, Kurt Hofmann was paralyzed in a car accident in 2002. The helplessness inherent to confinement to a wheelchair prompted him to explore armed self-defense, only to discover that Illinois denies that right, inspiring him to become active in gun rights advocacy. He also writes the St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner column. Kurt Hofmann Archive.
Ambiguous wording? What else would you expect from an anti Second Amendment piece of legislation spawned by gun control enthusiasts and backed by billionaires such as Michael Bloomberg and more recently Bill Gates and his Microsoft executives. Washington’s controversial I-594 was one of the few gun rights losses of late and recently went into effect. Gun owners are worried and for good reason.
I-594 passed by an 18-point margin. Had gun rights voices been louder and the truth known, the numbers might have reversed. The new law expands background checks in Washington to include all gun sales whether made in private, online or at gun shows. Opinions within the pro 2A community unfortunately vary on this point.
However, the biggest danger is not in the debate of private sales, but the ambiguous language defining what constitutes a transfer. The new law does not stipulate that such actions as handing someone else your gun to shoot at the range or for a day is not legal. Yet many critics say that the law only loosely defines what constitutes a transfer, and some gun owners worry that something as simple as handing someone else a gun at the range or while hunting could be illegal. As ridiculous as it sounds… sure, you would win in court, but after having to spend how many thousands of dollars to prove your innocence?
To test the theory, gun rights advocates are planning a rally later in December in front of the state Capitol in which they will be “exchanging guns.” There are no plans to arrest anyone exchanging firearms at the rally, says a Washington State Patrol spokesperson. However, the spokesperson did not go so far as to clarify law enforcement’s position on the matter overall.
“We don’t think that we could prove that that’s a transfer,” Bob Calkins, spokesperson for the patrol, told The Seattle Times. “These are law-abiding folks, they have a political statement. We don’t expect a huge problem.”
This leads to the question of whether the law will have any positive effects as intended. According to law enforcement, it is very unlikely, which is why the gun control crowd may well have duped the voters. The NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action cites 22 of the state’s 39 sheriffs as critics of the law. The prevailing belief among the sheriffs is that the new tighter gun restrictions will strain police resources and possibly be unenforceable. This leaves less time to enforce other laws and prevent crimes.
Critics of the law also worry that I-594 will expand the state’s gun registry and make it illegal to loan firearms to friends or family members. That sounds like an overstatement to many, but Sheriff Ben Keller of Garfield County.
“This initiative is a violation of the Second Amendment,” said Keller. “I come from a gun owning family and it would be a crime every time someone wanted to use my trap gun at a trap shoot. Being in law enforcement for 24 years, this initiative is not going to keep guns off the street. What keeps guns off the street is keeping the felons that are using the guns illegally in jail.”
Much to the dismay of its residents, California is the testing grounds for much of the anti gunners agenda. Assembly Bill 1014 is no exception. Signed on September 2014, the new law subjects legal gun owners the seizure of their Second Amendment rights without representation or due process.
Assembly Bill 1014 allows any police officer or immediate family member to petition a court for a gun violence restraining order. The subject of the order does not have to be present, is not consulted or given the opportunity to mount any defense. So basically, a disgruntled spouse, parent, child—or many others because ‘immediate family member’ is loosely defined—can feed the court any story, fail to offer any proof and your right to posses and bear arms are immediately stripped via an emergency restraining order. The order would prohibit you from possessing firearms or ammunition for 21 days. Can you say “instant victim?”
During these 21 days, the subject of the restraining order is notified and must get rid of his or her guns and then given an opportunity to mount a defense. Failure to convince the judge that you are not a danger to yourself or others results in the order going into effect for a year.
Can you imagine the nightmare this would be for anyone, not to mention a collector with hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars wrapped up in a collection? Moreover, all without proof, just someone’s contention at a hearing? If the alleged mentally disturbed person were not on the edge before the initial hearing, what would a 21-day notice of a loss of Constitutional rights do?
As would be expected, Assembly Bill 1014 is yet another knee-jerk reaction by opportunists to capitalize on a tragedy. The democratically controlled legislature quickly pushed Assembly Bill 1014 through in wake of a tragedy perpetuated by a mentally ill student at the University of California at Santa Barbara. In that incident, the attacker first stabbed three men to death in his apartment. He then used legally acquired pistols and legal magazines that held 10 or fewer rounds—both subject to ineffective laws to reduce gun crime—to kill three more people. This happened while killing and injuring more with his car.
All of this carnage, yet the only weapon the legislature was concerned with was the firearm. No legislation resulted to deal with the underlying issue of mental illness. There was nothing to keep mentally ill individuals from accessing cars or knives.
How dangerous and general is Assembly Bill 1014? Well, to begin the law defines “immediate family member” as “any spouse, domestic partner, parent, child, any other second-degree relation, or anyone who has regularly resided with the individual in the past six months.” I suppose anyone could say they were a house guest. What about a college roommate? How is “immediate family member” defined in a dorm style situation or military barracks?
Doctors of Psychology with years of academic training and field experience cannot accurately predict which patient will become violent and which ones will not. How does anyone expect law enforcement and “family members” to figure it out?
In the case of the UCSB student, law enforcement had been in contact with the subject only weeks before his spree. They did not determine him a threat then, so why would this law have changed anything? What about the Constitution? The Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms, the Fourth Amendment against illegal search and seizure and the Fifth Amendment against due process. The AB 1014 order can be issued without so much as a mental health evaluation. The defendant is judged without representation and their property seized before adjudication.
Growing up in Pennsylvania’s game-rich Allegany region, Dave Dolbee was introduced to whitetail hunting at a young age. At age 19 he bought his first bow while serving in the U.S. Navy, and began bowhunting after returning from Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm. Dave was a sponsored Pro Staff Shooter for several top archery companies during the 1990s and an Olympic hopeful holding up to 16 archery records at one point. During Dave’s writing career, he has written for several smaller publications as well as many major content providers such as Guns & Ammo, Shooting Times, Outdoor Life, Petersen’s Hunting, Rifle Shooter, Petersen’s Bowhunting, Bowhunter, Game & Fish magazines, Handguns, F.O.P Fraternal Order of Police, Archery Business, SHOT Business, OutdoorRoadmap.com, TheGearExpert.com and others. Dave is currently a staff writer for Cheaper Than Dirt!
Here’s What Happened When a Texas Police Officer Confronted an Open Carry Advocate and Thought Nobody Else Was WatchingDec. 10, 2014 2:02pm Jon Street 8.7KSharesA Houston officer has sparked an internal police investigation after video of his confrontation with anprotester legally carrying a firearm was captured on video – but only after the man objected to the officer who at first tried to delete it.“Got your ID?” the officer asked the man.“No, sir. I do not,” he said.The officer later told the man he needed to have his ID so he could tell who he was. The man then told the officer he could tell him who he was.The officer then asked him, “How do I know you’re not lying to me?”Moments later the officer demanded that the man take his gun off as the officer appears in the video to throw the man’s protest sign on the ground and then take the gun without the man’s consent.Image source: YouTubeImage source: YouTube“You are going to jail for failure to ID because you can’t tell me who you are, you can’t prove who you are. I’m tired of you idiots coming out here,” the officer said.It was then that officer must have realized the man had been recording the entire incident.“Take the phone off now because we are going to erase it because you’re recording everything,” the officer said.But fortunately for the man involved, the officer tapped the button to end the recording twice, thus stopping the video and then starting it again.The video was posted to YouTube December 6 but a police spokesman said the exact time and date of the incident cannot yet be confirmed because of the ongoing investigation.David Amad of the gun advocacy group, Open Carry Texas, responded to the controversial encounter by accusing the officer of being an “un-convicted felon.”“He may not ever get convicted, but the fact of the matter is this one particular officer broke the law big time,” Amad told KRIV-TV, while adding that he thinks this was an isolated incident of police misconduct and does not necessarily reflect accurately on the organization’s relationship with the Houston Police Department.KRIV-TV legal analyst Chris Tritico called the officer’s actions “completely illegal,” and a “violation” of police policy.“Someone calls up and says this makes me nervous, they were pointing the gun, whatever the complaint was, the police then have the right to come to you and investigate that complaint and so at that point they lawfully have the right to say give me that weapon while I talk to you and you have to give it up,” Tritico told the outlet.No charges were filed against the man who was confronted by the officer, an HPD spokeswoman confirmed to TheBlaze on Wednesday. The spokeswoman said she believed the man was lawfully carrying the gun and was released at the scene but that information was not immediately confirmed by officials, who cited the ongoing investigation.
Every body—and I mean the way we are shaped—is different. Some have more on top, or broader hips, while others stand as straight as a board. Be it the curves, extra padding, hips or breasts—small and large—there is no denying women are shaped differently than men; this means traditional holsters probably won’t fit any of us well. Deciding which concealed carry setup works for you can be time consuming, expensive and just plain frustrating. There are so many choices with little guidance on which holster to choose. It is very overwhelming for the new gun owner or to those new to conceal carry.
There is not one definitive gun and holster that will work for every single shape. What you do on a daily basis and how you dress is a factor for which gun and carry method will work best for you. Fortunately, there are many women shooters out there designing and making holsters exclusively to meet women’s needs. I feel sure you can find one that suits your needs.
However, all holsters have their drawbacks. Depending on type of clothing worn and the season, many of us choose to have a few different conceal carry setups. A thigh holster is no good worn under pants, while your inside the waistband holster has nothing to clip onto when wearing a dress. Additionally, warmer months require less clothing, which makes carrying a larger gun a challenge.
Firearms expert, trainer and instructor Clint Smith said, “Carrying a gun is not supposed to be comfortable; it’s supposed to be comforting.” Us women know something about being uncomfortable—shoes that pinch, jeans that dig, undergarments that bind and bra wires that poke. Though we do sometimes choose fashion over function, our holster and carry gun cannot be like those Manolo Blahnik heels we wear a few times a year. Your daily carry gun and holster must be as comfortable as possible, because as Clint says, “The gun that’s with you is better than the one that’s home in the safe.”
Here are five tried and true carry setups that real women find work for them.
The Smith & Wesson Bodyguard is a double-action only .38 Special revolver made specifically for concealed carry. It is lightweight at 14.36 ounces, 6.6 inches long with a 2-inch barrel and integrated laser. The thin profile and light weight makes it easy and comfortable to carry in a variety of ways. The Flashbang bra holster by Looper Law Enforcement is worn between the breasts and attaches the bra via a leather strap. This set up is comfortable and drawing is quick and easy with some practice. However, the Flashbang works best for C cups and larger.
Pro: Wear virtually any outfit without printing
Con: Doesn’t work for smaller breast sizes
Other firearms to consider for the Flashbang:
The Kel-Tec P3AT is an incredibly slim, lightweight semiautomatic handgun that lays flat any way you carry it. Ankle, corset, small of the back and bra carry—all done successfully—is easy with this little number. The .380 ACP P3AT has a 2.75-inch barrel, is 5.2 inches long and very thin at 0.77 inches wide. It holds six rounds, has no external safeties and shoots double-action only. The Can Can Concealment garter holster is a thigh holster that does not require a garter belt to keep the holster secure on your thigh. However, a garter belt is optional. For dresses and skirts, it is the perfect set up. Even in a long skirt or dress, the gun is easy to access and does not get in the way when sitting cross-legged, nor does it print when you position the firearm correctly on your thigh.
Pro: Comfortable summer carry, good for skirts and dresses
Con: Holster will slide down slighty toward the knee
Labeled a compact, GLOCK’s model 23 is a .40 S&W semiautomatic handgun with no external safety. Though it is one of GLOCK’s smaller models, it is large compared to many other typical concealed carry firearms with a 4-inch barrel and 7.36-inch overall length. The GLOCK offers 13 rounds of .40 S&W—a larger caliber preferred by some to the .380 ACP. With a barrel swap, the GLOCK 23 will also shoot 9mm or .357 SIG. The Blackhawk SERPA holster has a finger release that keeps the gun securely in place inside the holster and places your trigger finger in the ready position when you draw. Since the SERPA clips to a belt on the outside of the pants, in concealed carry-only states, a cover garment is necessary. This combination is best when carrying in winter.
Pro: SERPA is an incredibly secure holster
Con: Entire set up is slightly bulky; requires cover garment
Other firearms to consider for the Blackhawk SERPA:
The Charter Arms Undercover Lite has a 2-inch barrel, simple fixed sights and holds five rounds of .38 Special ammo. It only weighs 12 ounces and has soft rubber grips. Bellyband holsters conceal virtually under any outfit and are extremely versatile in all the different ways you can carry. You can position the bellyband in the middle, top or lowest part of your abdomen. Because of the bellyband’s design, you can also position your firearm on your body where you feel it is the quickest and most comfortable to access. Once used to wearing a firearm, you may find that under your arm is the most comfortable position.
Pro: Comfortable and unobtrusive
Con: Bellybands fit better on flatter stomachs
Another firearm to consider for a bellyband holster is the Kel-Tec P3AT.
The SIG Sauer P938 is a 9mm single-action only 1911-style small pocket pistol. It has a beavertail grip frame, exposed hammer and ambidextrous thumb safety. It has a 3-inch barrel and is 5.9 inches long overall. Despite the all-metal construction, the P938 only weighs 16 ounces without a magazine. The 1.1-inch thickness aids in the ease of its concealability. It has night sights and holds six rounds. Lisa Looper’s AVA belt holster is worn inside the waistband—meaning it clips to a belt or the waistband of your pants and is worn between your pants and your skin or undershirt. The AVA is made of leather and thermoplastic, and designed specifically to mold to a women’s curves. The purple suede back is soft and comfortable enough to wear without an undershirt and does not rub or chafe even during the summer months. Worn with or without a belt, the AVA is good for dress pants or jeans without belt loops. Depending on what is most comfortable for you, the AVA’s clips are adjustable so you can carry where and how you prefer.
Pro: Traditional, preferred inside the waistband carry
Con: Larger guns may print under tight shirts
Another firearm to consider for the AVA is the SIG P238.