Now get to work as somebody has to pay for my Teachers Pension! Grumpy
Categories
Author: Grumpy
Founded in 1976, Gunsite Academy remains a rite of passage for all serious firearms owners, writers and enthusiasts. Founded by Lt. Col. Jeff Cooper, this modernized training facility quickly became the benchmark for firearms instruction on all platforms. I am perpetually late to nearly everything in life, and embarrassingly enough, it took me more than 25 years to get to this legendary site located just outside of Paulden, Arizona. However, that came to an end just a few short weeks ago, and my perspective on shooting will remain forever changed.
As I entered the gates, I was welcomed with a sign that read, “Excuse our noise; it’s the sound of liberty.” This set the tone of the instruction style that graces this establishment—fun but genuine. It wasn’t too much further down the road that we started seeing signs reminding us of Cooper’s basic four safety rules:
1. All guns are always loaded. Even if they are not, treat them as if they are.
2. Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy. (For those who insist that this particular gun is unloaded, see Rule 1.)
3. Keep your finger off the trigger till your sights are on the target. This is the Golden Rule.
4. Identify your target, and what is behind it. Never shoot at anything that you have not positively identified.
After making our way to the main classroom, we started filling out our paperwork as well as our lunch orders for the next few days (nutrition and hydration are emphasized during these courses). This was just moments before Gunsite CEO Sheriff Ken Campbell (Ret.) gave us the lay of the land and explained a little more of the site’s history and what to expect over the next few days. After his presentation, he introduced Rangemaster Lew Gosnell, the first Gunsite Instructor to whom I would be exposed.
Lew hails from a law enforcement background with a career serving some of the most crime-ridden areas in the country. As he listed these locales, I prepared myself for a week of dealing with a “work-hardened cop” who had no sense of humor. To my delight, Lew was quite the contrary, remaining utterly engaging and humorous when appropriate. I got to experience this as he demonstrated a new method of firing a Mossberg Shockwave, making it far more controllable and safe to use at eye level. After this demonstration, each participant had the opportunity to try it with live ammunition as we patterned these guns in preparation for our next course of fire, affectionally known as “The Wash.”
Sometimes, Mother Nature makes the best ranges, and all that is required is a little cleaning up. The Wash is an area on the Gunsite grounds that water flows through during heavy rainfall (yes, this part of Arizona gets rain). As a result, it cuts a deep canyon with unpredictable twists and turns, perfect for placing surprise targets. Instructor Aimee Grant took us through individually and stressed the importance of taking our time and moving side to side to better pie each turn. Running shotguns, she also introduced us to the Gunsite mantra “Load what you shoot,” a routine that helps you to keep your scattergun topped off. After my first run, I was hooked and proud to say that I aced the exercise, even showing restraint from engaging the no-shoot targets.
After finishing what was effectively an “outdoor shoot house,” we met with Rangemaster John Hall to take us through the indoor variety in one of the many fully enclosed structures on the property. Prior to this, Mr. Hall covered the best ways to open doors and enter rooms, but when we approached the house, he offered zero insight.
This is all part of the realism that Gunsite tries to maintain. Hall could have easily given me the layout of the house, how many bad guys were there, and other details that might have made it easier. However, to do so would destroy the experience, as you seldom have this information in real life. After working my way into the front door, I had to make a decision to go left or right. Remembering what the outside of the building looked like, the left seemed to make the most sense, as there couldn’t be too many subsequent rooms on that side of the house.
After neutralizing a target there, I proceeded to the right and walked through a series of rooms and hallways, identifying and neutralizing targets in realistic scenarios. Everything was going well until I shot a friendly target because I didn’t move to a point where I could get a positive ID of who I was seeing. This was a sobering experience as there is a high likelihood that I would respond like this in real life.
The trip ended with a walk through the “Urban Scrambler,” a straight-line course of fire that challenges you to overcome various obstacles and fire from unorthodox positions. By the end of the day, we were all trying to top each other in speed and technique while introducing moderate handicaps. This variation was not only accepted by our instructors, but encouraged, as it forced participants outside our comfort zone and better represented real-life shooting. This cornerstone of Gunsite training makes the experience well worth the price of admission and, in my opinion, encapsulates everything that they do.
After three full days of shooting, it was sadly time to leave. Before dismissal, we were given each instructor’s information should we need to follow up with them with specific questions. Overall, I found their lessons concise, consolidated and enjoyable. Over the course of the week, I felt pushed and engaged but never uncomfortable, which is a tough balance to strike. Feeling like I had struck gold, I started looking at the other courses that Gunsite offers, reveling in the variety on the table. Needless to say, I’ll be back!
Editor’s Note: You may have noticed that Gunsite’s “Four Rules” of gun safety aren’t exactly the same as the NRA’s “Three Rules.” Which set should you follow? Whichever one is easiest for you to remember! Whether you go by three rules or four, the most important thing is safety.
Amish Farmer Targeted by Govt for Operating Outside Reach of USDA Regulations
An interesting story promoted by
Rebel News, highlights the plight of an Amish farmer who operates a private market club for his products. Because his crops, dairy and beef are not sold to the ‘general public,’ and only to those who are members of the private food club, Amos Miller contends he should not be subject to USDA regulations.
Miller’s organic farm operates on century old farming practices. His farm uses no electricity, no tractors, no diesel, no gasoline, and he produces exceptional all natural yields which people are willing to pay top dollar to purchase.
Additionally, because Mr. Miller doesn’t use chemical fertilizer or fuel, his farm has not been impacted by the increased costs that have hit industrial farms. He and his customers are completely unaffected by outside influence.
However, a federal judge ruled that despite his closed members-only market, he must have USDA inspectors for his beef and cattle slaughter processes. Miller does not want to use the regulated and required pharmaceutical antibiotics, and other regulatory processes required by the USDA. He now faces jail time and a $300,000 fine. [Rebel News Article]
While CTH is completely on the side of the Miller farm, it’s not fair to share this story without providing the alternative perspective from the side of the regulatory agencies.
(Via Lancaster Online) – […] “The United States submits that Mr. Miller’s continuing recalcitrance and flouting of the court’s orders requires a robust, more-coercive civil contempt sanction than previously imposed,” government attorneys wrote in its request filed in late July. “Specifically … the court should order him to be incarcerated until he has paid these sums that are long overdue.”
U.S. District Judge Edward G. Smith scheduled a hearing for Sept. 26 at the federal courthouse in Easton for Miller to show why he should not be jailed.
And the government wants Miller’s wife, Rebecca Miller, added as a defendant in the case because she is a co-owner of Miller’s Organic Farm. That will also be addressed at the hearing.
Miller — who has an attorney, but has been filing paperwork on his own — filed a response on Aug. 5 suggesting Smith and the government are “working in concert” in supposedly violating his rights. The filing seeks a stay of the proceedings and indicates Miller plans to appeal issues in which he contends the judge is wrong.
[…] Miller first came to the attention of federal authorities in 2016, when the Food and Drug Administration said it identified Listeria in samples of Miller’s raw milk; the agency found the Listeria to be genetically similar to the bacteria found in two people who developed listeriosis — one of whom died — after consuming raw milk.. (read more)
It’s an interesting issue, specifically interesting because the members of the private food club are in a hold-harmless relationship with the Miller farm.
What do you think?
The Supreme Court Will Decide Whether You Have a Right to a Prompt Hearing After Cops Seize Your Property
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear two consolidated cases by Alabama women whose cars were both seized for more than a year before courts found they were innocent owners.
(Gary Blakeley | Dreamstime.com)
Do you have a right to a prompt hearing after the government seizes your property? The U.S. Supreme Court will consider the question in its upcoming term.
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear Culley v. Attorney General of Alabama, two consolidated cases concerning whether property owners have a due process right to a hearing to determine if police had probable cause to seize their property.
The issue may seem esoteric, but it’s hugely important to people who have their property seized by police under civil asset forfeiture laws. Under civil asset forfeiture laws, police can take property suspected of being connected to criminal activity even if the owner hasn’t been charged with a crime. Property owners then often have the burden of going to court and proving their innocence, a process that can take months and sometimes years.
Take the two cases at issue: In the first, Halima Culley’s son was pulled over by police in Satsuma, Alabama, while driving Culley’s car. He was arrested and charged with possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia. The City of Satsuma also seized Culley’s car. It took 20 months, during all of which Culley was bereft of her vehicle, before a state court ruled that she was entitled to the return of her car under Alabama’s innocent-owner defense.
In the second case, a friend of Lena Sutton took her car to run an errand in 2019. He was pulled over by police in Leesburg, Alabama, who found methamphetamine in the car and seized it. Sutton also eventually was granted summary judgment on an innocent-owner defense, but not until more than a year after the initial seizure of her car.
These sorts of long delays have been documented elsewhere around the country. In 2018, three Detroit residents filed a class-action lawsuit alleging that Wayne County police and prosecutors seized their cars and forced them to wait months, sometimes years, for a hearing. Two years later, the Institute for Justice, a libertarian-leaning public interest law firm, filed another class-action lawsuit challenging Wayne County’s asset forfeiture program, including its practice of not providing defendants with prompt post-seizure hearings.
“The government should not be able to take your car without providing you with a prompt opportunity to challenge the seizure,” Dan Alban, a senior attorney at the Institute for Justice, said in a statement. “In criminal cases, after the government arrests you, it must hold a probable cause hearing shortly after the arrest so that a judge can make a preliminary determination about whether the arrest was legitimate. The government should provide the same kind of prompt hearing after it takes your property.”
The specific question before the Supreme Court is which test district courts should apply when determining if someone’s 14th Amendment right to due process was violated by being deprived of a prompt hearing.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, which has jurisdiction over Alabama, has held that the “speedy trial” test, a particularly vague balancing test created to resolve allegations of Sixth Amendment violations, applies and that due process is satisfied by the civil forfeiture process itself. However, every other circuit that has weighed in on the issue uses a different balancing test established in the 1976 Supreme Court case Mathews v. Eldridge to determine due process violations.
Culley and Sutton both filed lawsuits claiming that the towns violated their Eighth and 14th Amendment rights by depriving them of their cars for months when a pretrial hearing to establish probable cause for the seizures could have quickly determined that they were innocent owners under Alabama law.
The 11th Circuit rejected their claims, finding the state’s civil forfeiture process satisfied the requirements for a timely hearing under the speedy trial test.
Alabama Attorney General Steven Marshall filed a brief opposing Culley and Sutton’s Supreme Court petition, arguing there is no circuit split on the issue and that the women had no constitutional right to an additional hearing.
“As an initial matter, petitioners’ ‘innocent owner’ status does not entitle them to special solicitude under either test,” Marshall wrote. “For centuries, this court has confirmed that in rem civil forfeitures need not inquire into the guilt or innocence of the property’s owner—only the use of the property itself in a prohibited act. That Alabama chose to enact statutory protections for innocent owners thus does not entitle those owners to heightened constitutional protections.”