TSA and Flying with Ammo

I just returned from a trip and had some more unpleasant experiences with TSA.

PART I: Checking Baggage

The people I were visiting had a few rounds of ammunition that they never planned on using. I figured I'd bring it back with me and it would get used. The last time I flew with ammo was awhile ago, but they had no problem with it being packed in plastic bags. So, this time, I tossed it in a ziplock and packed it securely in the bag. I declared it to the airline agent at the ticket counter as well as to the TSA person who was running the baggage screening line.

Well, this was apparently a big deal. The TSA person immediately sequestered the bag and began searching it. I told her the location of the ammo -- she didn't bother asking, of course -- to facilitate the search and she just gave me a dirty look. After finding the ammo, she set it aside, said, "You can't fly with this!" and continued to toss my luggage.

Careful to stay behind the line that demarcates the TSA-only area of the search zone, I volunteered to either pack the ammo in a cardboard box I had inside my luggage (their website says such boxes are fine), or just leave it behind. It was only a dozen rounds of pistol ammo or so, so I didn't really care too much about bringing it with me. She gave me a dirty look and told me to stand back (even though I was 20 feet away at this point). Of course, this now requires her to call her supervisor.

The supervisor comes and demands my boarding pass and ID. I provide both. He then asks for a second form of ID that has my physical residential address on it, like a driver's license. Given that my first form of ID was a government-issued photo ID, I didn't see the purpose for the second and I inquired why he needed another. He curtly replied, "This is our procedure; I need it to write the report on this incident." I considered making a bigger issue of it and declining to hand over more ID (I mean -- who says you need a driver's license to fly, right?) but decided that I wanted to get home so I give them my driver's license too. I again volunteer to simply not fly with the ammo and to remove it from the baggage; the TSA guys get alarmed at this idea and accuse me of trying to circumvent procedure.

Next, the TSA folks get a local police officer who is patrolling the airport involved. He comes in and takes all the ID and calls me in, I assume checking for warrants and such. Then, they all talk in hushed tones for a few minutes and keep me tapping my feet. Luckily I wasn't in a hurry. After a few minutes, the police officer ambles over with my IDs and the ammo and tells me that the TSA folks say that I can't fly with the ammo, and that they have decided not to take "further action" at this time. I decide to avoid a scene and just hand the ammo off to my relatives who had dropped me off at the airport.

PART II: The Checkpoint

Of course, I know I'm going to get selected for "random screening." My relatives were skeptical, but come on, the random screening isn't random. Of course, about 6.9 seconds after I go through the metal detector with no alarm, a beep triggers and the attendant tells me curtly that I'm a "RANDOM! Got a random here!" I get herded into a small glass enclosure, with the supervisor who dealt with me at the baggage check smirking a bit.

I keep it cool, still having plenty of time. There are no male screeners working right now other than the supervisor so it may be a few minutes. Meanwhile, a family -- mom, kid, dad -- are going through security. The kid is kind of freaked out and is grudgingly pried away from mom. Dad goes through the scanner, mom sends kid to dad, then mom goes through; kid, sniffling a bit, jumps into her arms. Mom also get selected for random screening. She walks into a second enclosure, kid in arms.

"Ma'am, your child will have to wait outside." Mom hands kid to dad, and kid starts SCREAMING. Then, dad and bawling kid watch while a screener does an "enhanced patdown" of mom: the full monte, touching the breasts, feeling inside the waistband, touching the groin. Dad averts his eyes and looks a bit shamed. Kid is really upset. I felt bad for them.

Once mom's screening is over, there is a bit of a lull. Given that I've been hanging out separated for a few minutes from my stuff including my wallet, I ask one of the screeners: "Excuse me, do you mind putting my wallet into the enclosure here? I don't want it to get lost in the shuffle." She looks at me like I'm an alien. I continue, "Well, if you'd prefer, I can just go grab it." This of course is a no-no: I can't leave my plexiglass prison, apparently. This screener -- who is doing nothing, as the line is now zero people -- can't reach three feet away. She calls over to the belt operator and tries to explain the request.

The belt operator picks up my wallet, opens it (for no apparent reason!!!), closes it, and puts it in a second little bin before placing it back on the belt. She then lectures me about how it is my responsibility to maintain positive control over my items at all times, even though I haven't said another word at this point. She is clearly irritated at having had to get off her little stool behind the computer monitor. After she tells me to take positive control over my items, I then take a step to leave and go get my wallet but then I get told to stand still by the first person who is still doing nothing. I shrug and just say, "Do you mind please placing the wallet into the enclosure with me then?" This triggers another lecture about how it is solely my responsibility to maintain control over my stuff, and then belt operator goes back to my stool. My wallet is still sitting on the belt.

I decide not to press things, and there is still no traffic anyways, so I'm not urgently concerned about my valuables walking off. After another few minutes of the three of us sitting there a bit awkwardly, the far side of my plexiglass prison is opened by the bomb-sniffing-machine operator. She tells me to stand on the mat where the mom was recently searched.

Interestingly, these mats have little footprints showing where your feet are. They seem to be a bit awkwardly placed. It really is a clever posture: put people in their stocking feet, in a stance that is a bit too wide, with feet that are side by side so they are a bit off balance. Nice way to make it clear who is dominant, I guess. I assumed a bladed stance, ignoring the little white outlines, and waited for more directions.

Apparently I was not getting the full monte today as there are still no male screeners to touch my genitals, except for the supervisor who is alternating between smirking and messing with his cellphone. I get asked to select one of my bags for extra screening. I demur and see which one she picks (the smaller laptop case), which then gets swabbed for explosives. I then get sent on my way.

As I walk by the supervisor, he asks me another question or two about the ammunition. I politely but curtly reply. The interrogation appears like it is going to go on for awhile, so I ask, "Excuse me, am I being detained and am I required to stay here?" The supervisor replies that I can leave if I like but it will go into "the report." I shrug and go get a beer at the airport bar near my gate. They can put that into the report.

\\

I'm really sick and tired of TSA. Technically, I was in the wrong; the ammo should have been packed in a box. However, they've let me fly with ammo in plastic bags before and didn't bat an eye. When I offered to fix the situation on the spot by removing it or packing it in a proper box, they refused and proceeded to treat me like a perp. Heck, I don't even know why a LEO got involved. I don't have a problem with screening people non-randomly at the checkpoint (that's actually smart), but there is no need to be vindictive, smirk, or be unprofessional. I see the relationship with TSA as very adversarial: I am not inclined to cooperate with them nor do I trust them enough to report suspicious activity. If I saw something suspicious at the airport I'd be afraid of being hassled by them when I reported it, frankly. Of course, now I'm entered into a master TSA database (name, address, etc). Putting on my conspiracy theory hat, who knows if TSA is building a list of personal information on everyone that flies with a firearm or ammunition; it wouldn't surprise me, and it'd be trivial for them to do.

While I didn't get one, this is the third time I've seen the full body patdowns up close and personal. They are totally inappropriate. We are raising a generation that thinks it is ok for a government agent to touch mothers in front of their children and vice versa without even reasonable suspicion. We have an agency which systematically targets disabled people (try flying with a wheelchair, prosthetic, or medical device) for extremely invasive and uncomfortable searches.

Unfortunately, TSA is with us to stay. No politician wants to get rid of them and be "soft on terror." And most travelers are apparently ok with having their children molested in front of them, which says a lot about Americans these days I guess.

Drive By Downtown: Ban Sedans

ADN reports that one car with three people in it opened fire on another vehicle downtown.

Our local bigot blames sedan drivers everywhere for facilitating this heinous crime:

Hey sedan owners, congratulations on making yet another drive-by in Alaska possible. But don’t worry. Your irrational, consequence-free love of cars won’t be looked at by a society that’s totally blinded by dated politics and purchased politicians. We’ll soon forget that this drive-by , like nearly ALL of the others, was not in defense of anything, it wasn’t done to prevent crime. This was yet another crime made easier because of YOUR love of cars and YOUR ignorance.

Oh, wait. I played the "find replace" game. Funny how narrow minded a bigot she is. Apparently, guns are totally different from cars, which are never used to kill people.

By the way, what kind of person gets targeted by a hit like this? Someone like this. The victim in this case has a huge record of arrests including multiple felonies, violent misdemeanors, restraining orders and DV arrests, and countless traffic violations.

I don't mean to blame the victim, but this fits the trend I identified in last year's murder statistics: the perps are almost always prohibited persons (felons, on restraining orders, or substance abusers) and the victims often are themselves (only 5/18 murder victims last year had clean records). If you aren't a felon, don't beat women, and don't do drugs, then you are substantially less likely to get whacked by a gang. Dollars to donuts, the perps will turn out to be prohibited persons themselves in this case.

Of course, this is all far too complicated for Gwen, who would simply prefer to blame the 99.9% of Alaskans who own firearms responsibly.

Unpossible Shooting in that place where GB used to be

Man executed for breaking up a fight in McDonald's.

This father of four fled for his life, was cornered with his back to the wall, beaten and pistol whipped, then executed while he begged for his life and bystanders looked on. Of course, all this was done by members of the criminal class (as Sean Sorrentino calls repeat offenders). How's that gun control working out for you across the pond?

Sorry for the non-Alaska post but jeez, this was crazy.

Hey, didn't I read that somewhere?

The NLRB is putting the brakes on a Boeing plan to relocate 787 production to South Carolina, which happens to be a more labor-friendly environment. Some commentators observe that this is unusual.

Sounds like something I've read before...

"Point Two. All industrial, commercial, manufacturing and business establishments of any nature whatsoever shall henceforth remain in operation, and the owners of such establishments shall not quit nor leave nor retire, nor close, sell or transfer their business, under penalty of the nationalization of their establishment and of any and all of their property.

The administration hasn't threatened to seize Boeing yet, but they are saying the activity is illegal. Even if it isn't, Boeing has surely broken some sort of law.

Too bad we can't get Boeing to move to Alaska. I think that a transportion-oriented economy -- especially aviation sector transportation -- makes a lot of sense for Alaska given its strategic location. We sit astride most major air corridors and with ice melt in the Arctic we're going to sit on major shipping corridors too. Geographically, we're close to Seattle (relatively) where Boeing's other operations are HQ'd.

The military has a fairly large and diverse aviation presence in Alaska, as do many civilian air shipping firms. The Alaskan culture is very supportive of civil aviation as a way of life. That means it will be easier to recruit a motivated workforce, and there are some great possibilities for National Guard/Reservist programs to allow the military and civilian firms share personnel with specialized skills like aircraft maintainers.

Unfortunately, the expense of jet fuel, poor flying weather, high cost of living, and limited land available for construction of large complexes in South Central are probably all major factors that contend against us attracting this kind of investment. Still, it wouldn't be bad to try and recruit it!

Gun Free Zones Increase the Risk of Negligent Discharges

The media is reporting that a man who went into a TV station -- which has a no-guns policy -- had a negligent discharge when he returned to his car.

"He claims it was fired by accident. The shot went into the floorboard of his
car. No one was hurt. Police on scene..."

The FOX-owned WJBK television station where the incident took place has a policy of not allowing guns inside the building.

First off, I'll say that this isn't about the man's politics, religious views, or agenda. I just want to highlight the firearms safety implications. This topic is near to me as I frequently have to enter gun-free zones that require me to handle a sidearm upon entering/exiting the area.

Any time that sidearm comes out of the holster, the chance of a ND has increased. Inside the holster -- especially if all the gear is in good repair and you're using a modern heavy duty pistol -- the chance of a ND is just about zero. If that trigger guard is properly safeguarded inside the holster then the gun is not going to go off.

The situation is made even more dangerous when fumbling around with the sidearm inside close quarters, for example, in a car. We want to be discreet with our CCW so trying to reload and reholster inside the car makes sense; it is far more private than brandishing a firearm in the street while we make it ready and reholster or clear it. However, in close quarters things get awkward. In fact, messing around with a firearm inside a car possibly in poor light when you're probably a bit rushed (as we're trying to be discreet) is a recipe for disaster.

Because I have to deal with this situation frequently, I have made some choices to help mitigate the risk. First is mindset; I try to be mindful of the four rules, especially keeping that firearm pointed in a safe direction and keeping everything off the trigger including fingers, clothes, etc.

Next, I opted for an M&P with the external thumb safety. This provides one mechanical safeguard in the event that the trigger gets snagged on clothing or something else while handling the firearm inside the car.

Next, if there is anything that makes me feel especially uncomfortable (feeling rushed, wearing bulky clothing, car is especially crowded), I don't chamber a round (and sometimes don't even load a mag). I'd prefer to get the firearm concealed then safely load and chamber a round in, say, a rest room stall where I have plenty of room to do what I need to do in a well-lit space than to have a ND in the car. I also weigh the risk of having a ND as being slightly higher than the risk that I'll die because I didn't have half a second to rack the slide and chamber a round or the ~1.5 seconds to do a full tac load.

The other option is I consider open or semi-concealed carry. An OWB holster is much easier to deal with under such conditions. In fact, with a paddle holster, it is easy to get the gun to condition 1, holster it, then put the holster inside your waist band, which allows the trigger to be secured inside the holster during the entire process and gets rid of the risk of snagging the trigger on clothes or seat belts. In Alaska it is pretty trivial to wear an OWB holster with a loose fleece or other layer over the top, year round. Some IWB holsters also let you chamber a round, put the pistol into the holster, then tuck the holster into a concealed position as well, and those can be a good choice.

However, the ultimate take away is that "gun free zones" don't make us safer. Gun Free Zones increase the risk of negligent discharges (as well as being magnets for criminals). However, I have a feeling that Gun Free Zones will be with us for some time, so that means that we as responsible gun owners need to find ways to safely comply with the law through a combination of gear and habits.

Murder - Get the Paper

ADN is reporting that a woman shot and killed her long time housemate.

Surprisingly, unlike most murders, the perp in this one does not have a long criminal record of violent felonies, drug abuse, or domestic violence. Other than a minor traffic violation she has no adverse record in Alaska that I could find. At first blush, this could be one of those fabled shootings that the antigun people fear so much: the blood-in-the-streets person who just snaps "all of a sudden."

However, ADN reports this interesting nugget:

The night before, officers responded to the same house, where they found Peterson holding a knife. Peterson appeared to have been drinking and Fukuda was sober, Shell said.

Officers ordered Peterson to drop the knife, which she did. Neither woman was injured and no charges were filed, Shell said.

This sounds like domestic violence of some sort. I don't mean to imply anything about the relationship between the women by that, I'm just stating that clearly they knew one another well as they bought a house together and lived in it for decades, and there was violence under the roof. I wonder how many other times the police were called -- or should have been called -- to that house.

This highlights to me the importance of seeking restraining orders for truly abusive people in our lives. Nobody wants to see their long-time roommate (and presumably friend) jailed. We also all know that restraining orders are just paper that can be ignored by perps bent on revenge or violence. However, restraining orders lay the legal groundword for the perp to lose their gun rights due to a felony or DV conviction.

Before I moved to Alaska, I bought the stereotype that only woman were domestically abused; that the perps were almost always men. At least I knew that it was an underreported crime. Now, after living in AK and seeing hte situations that unfold here in the daily paper and looking at the AK court record cases, I see that the statistics are right. Men are usually the abusers, but not always; a fair number of women perpetrate violence too.

So, if you're in an abusive relationship, get the paper (restraining order). Lay the legal groundwork so that you have options before things escalate. People don't "just snap;" almost always there is a long train of abuses, substance abuse, and violence. If the police never get involved then the abuser can never get treatment for substance abuse issues, counseling for anger management, or if it comes to it, an option to press criminal charges (taking away their gun rights and putting them in prison). Learn about Gov Parnell's "Choose Respect" campaign, which has received bipartisan support as an effort to address the epidemic of violence within Alaskan homes of all types, among people of all sorts of relationships.

It is far too early to speculate much more than I already have. I just think it was worth pointing out that the stereotypes we hold about violence between close friends and housemates and families are not always correct, and that even though paper restraining orders are easily ignored they are not worthless.

Post Script

Note that the weapon used was a single shot .410 gauge shotgun. Even in countries with extremely strict gun control like Britain, single shot shotguns are among the last to be banned. Guns are just tools to be used for a variety of purposes; the real issue is the person wielding them.

QotD: Alaska State Troopers

THis is paraphrasing... DW and I were watching Alaska State Troopers a few weeks ago. One of the troopers was investigating a wanton waste of a moose off the grid. That is, he's going after a suspect who must be armed (he shot a moose, right?) with no backup.

The trooper commented something to the effect that he focuses on communication skills to get voluntary compliance from the people because relying on overwhelming force or threats are not as effective in the long run when the people are armed. He got a confession, by the way, and peaceably resolved the situation.

Meanwhile, in the People's Republic of Massachusetts, a panicked call about a man with a gun (note to self: do not carry a black umbrella in MA... or, just don't go to MA) brings down the SWAT team with federal agents for backup on a shopping mall.

This was an interesting contrast: a LEO commenting that he changes his enforcement style when he knows the people are armed. As a consequence, he consciously focuses more on communication, behaving respectfully, and getting voluntary compliance rather than threats and force. What relationship do you want with your police? Which approach do you think is more effective in the long run at controlling crime?

Magic Gun Powers

Soldier cleans .45. Soldier has a negligent discharge, which hits his wife in the breast then goes down into the apartment below his.

It always amazes me when people assume that police and military must be proficient with firearms. Um, no. Most people in the military don't have "tactical" jobs that require them to deal with weapons on a daily basis. Even the ones that do are familiarized with the weapons they use and not necessarily others. The average enlisted Joe (not an MP) may not be qualified on the M9 or have received much or any pistol training much less fam fire. When they do receive the military certainly does not do a very good job of training safety rules, marksmanship, or combat pistol skills.

Also note that this soldier lived under a fairly onerous gun control regime like our opponents support: I believe that USARAK still requires off-post soldiers to register weapons (I don't expect that to last long) and store them safely per USARAK policy, off-post soldiers are still forbidden from concealed carry (also should be changing soon), "parking lot carry" at the place of work is obviously forbidden, there's mandatory education and background checks. None of those things worked. The National Academy of Sciences has said that they don't work in reducing mayhem on a larger scale either, so this isn't surprising. They'll use this incident to screech for more bigoted gun control efforts to keep the guns away from "those people" even though this incident highlights that none of those gun control efforts they want actually work.

Luckily, this soldier has been charged with two felonies (Misconduct Involving Weapons 3 and Assault 3). I imagine that the assault charges could be dropped by his wife, but the MIW3 charge certainly could stick. If convicted, this would make him a prohibited person which would likely have a high degree of impact on his army career. It would also keep his neighbors safe from negligent discharges in the future.

Interestingly though, I see no obvious violation of MIW 3. I assume that neither individual was a felon in possession which would count. The pistol could have been a prohibited weapon, he could have been drunk, or he could have fired from a moving vehicle. MIW2 covers discharge of a weapon towards a dwelling, so I'm wondering if they stepped the charge down from MIW2 to MIW3 so that they can plead him out on a misdemeanor.

Frankly, I don't know what the right charge is. On one hand, should a single ND be a life altering event? You could argue that it should, as it certainly has an impact on others around you (especially if that stray round hits someone). On the other hand, without criminal intent there is no "guilty mind" which limits the charges to negligence. A high grade misdemeanor or low grade felony seems appropriate.

However, the fact that he fled the scene, didn't take responsibility for his round and initially lied to officers makes me inclined to endorse the maximum charge possible. What if he had hit someone downstairs and they had bled out while he was busy fleeing instead of calling 911 or checking on his neighbors? However, there could be some extentuating factors.

As always, education education education. The four rules are there for a reason!

Conversation with a Yankee

Recently I was at a social function back east. Word had gotten out that I was from Alaska so a gentleman asked me about our bears, specifically about bear attacks. Maybe its TV, but for some reason people are fascinated with bear attacks.

I started out by pointing out that bear attacks are pretty rare, and that simple preparation like controlling food odors and trash did wonders to prevent human-bear conflicts, along with a basic knowledge of bear behavior was really the best solution.

"What if a bear still attacked you, then?" asked the gentleman. I replied that I'd probably spray it with bear mace, and explained how big a can the stuff comes in, and that its been shown to be pretty effective against bears which are curious or hungry or even surprised (i.e. the majority of bear encounters). I also explained how bluff charges work, and how most bear behavior is based on posturing, and that if you stand your ground firmly you won't trigger the prey-instinct most bears have.

The man looked dubious. "What if it still kept coming and it was going to maul you or eat you?" he inquired, expressing doubt that pepper spray would stop a big bruin.

Matter of factly, I replied, "Well, I'd probably consider shooting it at that point." At this point, he looked very concerned. He bleated if it was probably illegal to carry a gun, or illegal to shoot a bear, or if the bear would somehow wrestle the gun from me and shoot me with it (he actually expressed concern that I'd shoot myself, or that the bear would somehow develop opposable thumbs or something). I then rhetorically asked, "Well, what would you do?" (to which he had no answer except to be eaten, I suppose) and then changed the subject to moose, which are actually far more dangerous than bears as far as wildlife goes.

Seriously, I hope that I never have to DLP a bear. First, it is a waste of a good bear's life. Next, it limits a resource that we exploit for hunting as well as tourism and viewing; every DLP'd bear is considered when they set the tag limits and hunting rules and even land access policies. Third, it is a huge pain in the neck. You have to finish off a wounded animal, then skin it and properly care for the hide--all to give it to the state for free! I much prefer to exercise some prevention and learn a bit about bear behavior and then in the unlikely event of an encounter, spray it. But if one gnawed on me, absolutely, it'd probably take a few rounds if I thought that would get it off of me faster than playing dead would.

It just highlighted to me how different people think in the People's Republics back east, though. I suppose the answer to them is that you should let yourself get mauled, or maybe negotiate with it or something. Since when did people back here decide to stop being tool using monkeys?

Security Theater

We recently took a plane trip. One of us got selected for the enhanced pat down, which by the way, IS totally unacceptable. Heck, US forces treat Afghans at checkpoints in a war zone with more respect than TSA treats the American people with every day.

The funny thing is that despite the enhanced patdown, TSA missed a bladed utility tool that was inadvertantly left attached to a keychain. I hope you feel safer. Total security theater.

Frankly, I am no longer concerned about people hijacking the airplane. The "unorganized militia" developed a pretty effective countertactic on 9/11; the first plane crashed at 8:46 AM and Flight 93 went into a field in Pennsylvania less than 90 minutes later as passengers realized they were going to be turned into guided missiles. Every other would-be terrorist on airplanes has also been aggressively dealt with by the other passengers. So, the specter of commercial passenger airliners being used as guided missiles is pretty much past us.

The primary remaining threat to the airplane itself is some sort of bomb, and the terrorists seem to have some sort of obsession with blowing up civil airliners. None of the TSA nonsense we have now seems relevant to that threat. Frankly, as we've seen in Russia with attacks on crowded security checkpoint lines, the terrorists are evolving and reacting to hit softer targets. They aren't dumb.

So, this is my plan for better aviation security:
- Reinforce all cockpit doors. Relatively cheap and easy.
- Anyone with state, local, or federal law enforcement powers as well as the pilots can be armed as long as they comply with reasonable ammunition limitations (for example, frangible rounds like glaser safety slugs may make sense in an airplane).
- Anyone with a CCW can carry non-lethals (tasers, mace, etc) onto the aircraft so long as it is legal in both the state of departure and the final destination.
- Reduce lines at checkpoints to minimize targets by speeding screening and increasing "trusted agents." Anyone with law enforcement or military credentials goes in the EZ-Pass lane. So do people with CCWs (as it shows they have passed a background check and are, as far as society knows, trustworthy). If there are other credentials that demonstrate similar levels of background checks -- maybe teaching or professional licenses? -- should also be afforded such treatment. Screening can be rapidly speeded up by cutting out the "Rapiscan" full body scanners, enhanced pat downs, and other such invasions of privacy. A simple metal detector combined with intelligence-cued "extra screening" for suspected bad guys would probably do the trick.
- Refocus on explosives detection. That means lots of dogs; each bomb dog can only work an hour or so before losing focus so you'd need a bunch of them. It also means sniffer technology, which still remains somewhat unreliable. Randomized, unpredictable checks -- including at the gate of the plane or even on the plane itself -- rather than a single checkpoint to avoid or defeat will reduce the line (and thus the target) as well as make it harder for terrorists to plan.

Of course, it seems like the goal isn't to make us safer, so I doubt these ideas will get anywhere. Enjoy the security theater.

The Other Side of Training

Today, I ventured into the "other side" of firearms training - the teaching side.

Last week, while we were taking our handgun course, I was honored to be asked to come back this weekend and help coach today's ladies class.  The ladies class will always have a special place in my heart; without it, I would not be who I am today.  I know some people scoff at women-only classes, but this class was the first place I handled a firearm and it truly was a life-changing experience.  I really do not think I would have gotten started shooting if the ladies class was not available, so to have the chance to help other woman have that experience... well, like I said, I was very honored.

So, I became "Gun Girl Number Three," and pitched in with two other women coaches to help the instructor with the class.  On the surface, the job is fairly simple - watch for safety violations, offer one-on-one advice, answer questions, etc.  However, by the end of the day, I was mentally fried, well beyond what I had expected.  Watching for safety is a pretty big responsibility, and though I have plenty of experience teaching, it's not generally in ways that could save someone's life some day.

Still, despite the exhaustion, it was an amazing experience.  I guess I did a good job too, as I've been invited back.  All in all, a really fantastic day!

What to Bring to a Handgun Class?

We recently took a defensive handgun class and had a great time. The class instructions were a bit vague on what to bring and really just addressed the basics: pistol (9mm or greater caliber), OWB holster, mag carrier, 6 mags, ammo, safety gear, and "appropriate clothes."

I just wanted to spend a few minutes talking about what worked and what didn't.

• Holster: I just used a cheap Fobus holster. Worked like a champ. Some folks later in the class brought their IWB CCW holsters. I originally thought that would be a good idea, but for a general handgun class, I don't think so. At the class, you are learning new stuff. You want to minimize distractions and make things as simple as possible. Once you learn to do something with the OWB holster, then you want to practice on your own and move up to doing the same things from concealment.
• Mags: Some folks seemed to have fewer than the suggested six mags. A few showed up with the 2-3 that came with their gun and no more. They were constantly running dry. With our six 15-rounders, we were doing just fine. If you have a 1911-style gun with smaller mags then a few extra single stacks may make sense.
• Sidearm: We brought the full-size M&Ps, even though we often carry the shorter compact version. This is the same theory as the holster setup: make things as simple as possible at the class so you can maximize learning. Building muscle memory is something you'll do later in practice. Walk before you run, and use the equipment that keeps it simple.
• Speedloaders: Essential when you're shooting that many rounds.
• Staying Warm: You need to be prepared for the elements, especially up in Alaska. YOu also want to minimize bulky clothing to keep your draw as simple and unobstructed as possible. In addition to keeping it simple, you want to keep it safe: loose and bulky clothing can get caught in the holster and get inside the trigger guard which can lead to negligent discharges. The answer is layers. Long underwear, underarmor, flannel pants, and fleece is good. If you need to wear lots of bulky clothes or rain gear, then a tacti-cool mall ninja thigh drop holster may be the answer to keep the handgun clear of all the bulky clothes.
• Gloves: I used my nomex flight style gloves. Any sort of thin yet warm and sturdy glove is good though. First, they keep you warm. Next, they keep you from getting bit by the slide or having your hands torn up over a few days of intensive shooting.
  
• 5.11 Tactical Pants. I wore my comfy flannel lined tactical pants from 5.11. They worked great. The cargo pockets and slash pockets were nice for stashing extra mags, hats, gloves, speedloaders, and so on. The extra mag pouch on the front left leg was also very handy.
• Water and Snacks. Bring a good water bottle and some snacks, including things to munch on at breaks.
• Ammo. Take whatever the suggested amount of ammo is, and add 10-20%. Some folks were running low and worrying about running out. Buying ammo at the range is impossible or expensive. I'm glad we had plenty of extra.
  

I wish that I had brought some sort of wet wipes or hand sanitizer to help clean up during breaks and reduce lead contamination issues. That would have been smart. Water gets the job done though.

Staying warm was really the key; if you're warm then you aren't distracted and can focus on the class, learning, and safety. I was a little cold the first half-day. For day two, I added the flannel pants and underarmor which helped a ton.

All in all though I'm pretty happy with how my gear worked out.

New Pistols: The x4 Rule of Thumb

This weekend we took a defensive handgun course, which was great and I'm sure it is something we'll blog about some. However, I thought about a rule of thumb which really seems to make sense, especially for newer shooters getting into your standard pistols for personal protection (glocks, 1911s, S&W M&Ps, etc): Budget out 4x the cost of the pistol right up front.

That sounds crazy. However, let me break it out:

• 1x: Cost of the pistol itself. Duh.
• 1x: Cost of accessories you need to have a serviceable defensive firearm. For example, most semiautos come with two mags. I think you need to have three standard capacity mags for carry minimum. A standard "basic load" for cops and military is 3 mags, one in the gun and two extras, which isn't a bad idea for civilians, and even if you think that's overkill and only want one reload on hand, an extra mag for tossing in the glovebox is a good idea. You also need three mags to practice with (minimum), and five will be better. You also need a decent holster and mag pouch set up. You may need two or more holsters (at a minimum, a good open carry range holster, and a good quality CCW holster; maybe more if you want a chest holster or something). And finally, you need a few boxes of premium CCW ammo to run through that gun and keep on hand.
• 1x: Cost of training. You need some sort of training. Even if not legally required, you need it. If you're already really shit hot at pistols them maybe you can skip this step. However, in our class, we had someone running it for the third time (using a different handgun with their off hand). Training training training!
• 1x: Practice ammo. Budget out the price of the pistol for hardball FMJ practice ammo.

A few examples of how that breaks out.

A standard S&W M&P setup costs around $450. So you should budget out around two grand. The shopping list would look something like this:

• Accessories: 1 x extra mag for carry + 4 x extra mags for practice = 5 mags @ $30 each = $150. Holsters & such is ~$100... Fobus holster (open carry) = $25. Galco leather IWB holster = $50. Fobus double mag pouch = $25. Four boxes of premium ammo like Remington Golden Sabers (100 rounds) that you can run through the gun to verify that it feeds properly and that all your carry mags are good, plus another two boxes (50 rounds) to fill up your carry mags will run another ~$150+. That's around $400, and you can bet there will be another fifty bucks or so of accessories you want if you decide to, say, change out your holster.
• Training. Alaska Tactical 3-day Defensive Handgun I runs ~$500.
• Practice Ammo: $450 will buy you about 1350 rounds of ammo. You'll use 700-800 of them in Defensive Handgun I. That leaves you with a few hundred to practice with and get you started, which sounds like a lot, but even if you go to the range once a month and shoot off 1-2 boxes you'll burn through it in less than a year.

On the low end, a HiPoint runs you around $200 or so. The shopping list for that would run:

• Accessories: Fobus or Uncle Mike's Holsters and Mag Pouches, possibly used = ~$55. Four extra mags @ $10 each = $40. The last hundred bucks goes towards as many hollowpoints as you can get.
• Training: NRA Basic Pistol course or most state's basic CCW courses will run ~$200. AK Tactical's CCW course is $250 for example.
  
• Practice Ammo: Pick up a case of ammo and practice, practice, practice!

Obviously an experienced shooter picking up a HiPoint to toss in the truck may not need NRA Basic. But I think the x4 Rule of Thumb is useful for folks who are getting into shooting and trying to estimate what the whole endeavor is going to cost. It may be a bit higher or lower but 4x is not a bad estimate. I think that defensive handguns are something that every law abiding, responsible citizen should be able to get into but unfortuanetly, the cost to get a properly outfitted firearm and the necessary training -- even a cheaper one like a HiPoint -- gets up to around a grand pretty quickly.

Slow posting...

Because we've been taking a defensive handgun class all weekend.

I'm sure we will have a nice post about it once it's over - for now, though, I know I am absolutely beat and still one more day to go.  It has been a fantastic experience thus far, despite the exhaustion, and I'm definitely excited for tomorrow!

Remember, its "Don't Visit Antigun Blogs" time

Looks like the idea caught on. I'm instituting at least a 72 hour moratorium on looking at any anti-gun blogs. Let their traffic drop to zero. Nobody reads their junk except for us anyways.