Gregg Kielma Your Firearms Instructor "Let's Get The Training Started"!
Gregory Kielma • December 21, 2023
Guns for Beginners or Advanced Firearm Owners: How to Find Quality Self-Defense Firearm Training
Guns for Beginners or Advanced Firearm Owners: How to Find Quality Self-Defense Firearm Training
By
John Boch
December 20, 2023
Carrying a gun lawfully for self-defense can make the difference between life and death in a critical situation. Yet at the same time it comes along with risks to the carrier thanks to laws and land sharks. Training can help reduce those risks dramatically.
In a perfect world (and most states), you wouldn’t need a license to carry or training in the effective use of a firearm for self-defense. Unfortunately, the world isn’t perfect and neither are we.
In the real world, mistakes happen. All it takes is a single moment of oversight, sloppy gun handling or lousy gear and you can find yourself jammed up and wearing handcuffs. Heaven help you if you have a negligent discharge or make a mistake in judgement about when to pull your gun. Make those kinds of mistakes and you risk everything, including prison.
With good training, the risks attendant with carrying and using a firearm for self-defense are greatly diminished. You’ll become an expert at gun safety and can share those skills with your family and others to make them experts at safety as well. You’ll also learn better situational awareness.
The right training will teach you body language and behaviors that will make you less likely to be “selected” for victimization by bad guys. Best of all, your odds of prevailing in a deadly force encounter will be significantly enhanced. But remember .
All Training Isn’t Equal
With the growing numbers of new gun owners across America, many people are looking for classes, especially those who also want to apply for a carry license. These concealed carry classes tend to be plentiful where required, and are often conducted by National Rifle Association-certified instructors. Classes run the gamut from borderline incompetent to barely adequate to well-presented, comprehensive learning programs.
As an example, in Illinois a year before right-to-carry was passed, there were approximately 42 NRA instructors who had taught ten or more people the previous year. Today, we have over 3000 Illinois State Police-approved instructors.
Beyond learning the basics from an introduction to concealed carry class, there are other programs out there for people looking for basic gun safety skills or to make themselves better shooters…everything from competition and marksmanship to hunting and self-defense.
When it comes to self-defense firearms training, easily the most common are those designed to teach self-defense fundamentals. The best of these “save your bacon” courses will incorporate all three of the following:
Mindset
Mindset is the knowledge and attitudes needed to avoid and, if necessary, survive a confrontation. This includes the mental preparation for dealing with all aspects of a violent encounter at home or in public…and to never give up in a fight for your life.
This particular aspect of training emphasizes conflict avoidance, layering your defenses, and knowing the legal standard by which you will be judged for using lethal force against another. A well-taught class will help you avoid trouble through situational awareness and conflict de-escalation, and also keep you out of jail for inappropriately introducing a weapon – firearm or otherwise – into a situation.
Functional ability/training
Functional ability training consists of knowing how to make your gun work, the ability to use it safely and effectively, and the associated aspects of your gun’s proper care and feeding.
Any reputable course will inculcate you with basic firearm safety. Exercising proper muzzle discipline and keeping your finger off the trigger until you have decided to shoot should be as natural as breathing. Sadly, for those without formal training, poor muzzle control and trigger finger discipline are the norm.
Gun selection plays an important role as well. Some folks may have compatibility issues with a gun they like, making it a bad choice for them. If you can’t manipulate your preferred gun, then you should find another one. Arthritis, hand strength, or other physical limitations are common causes for these issues, but so are a lack of familiarity with a firearm’s controls.
Good schools will steer you away from poor gun choices without making fun of what you may already have. Just because you thought the Beretta 92 looked really cool in Lethal Weapon doesn’t mean it’s a good carry choice for you.
Tactical training
Tactical is not “tacticool” where people dress up in tactical bro gear and pretend they’re something they aren’t. Instead, it’s the practical, hands-on study of the tactics needed to avoid conflict or, failing that, to fight with your personal defense tools.
This includes learning the effective use of cover and concealment, proper presentation of the gun, situational awareness, proper force “application” strategies, malfunction clearing procedures, reloading techniques and so much more.
Reading a book or watching a video helps and can serve to introduce these concepts, but there’s no substitute for doing it yourself under the tutelage of a skilled instructor who will ensure you’re using good technique and minimizing wasted movement. This allows you to act quickly and decisively, without “thinking” about the mechanics of what you’re going to do once you’ve decided to act.
The old saw that ‘you don’t rise to the occasion, you fall to your level of training’ is pretty much true. Indecisiveness, wasted motion and/or poor skills seldom win competitions or gun battles.
Finding a good course
Better, more enjoyable courses will share many common attributes. Here’s how to find for them and some attributes to seek out.
Research the instructor/school. Start with their website. Pictures will often tell the tale of how many people they’re training and how they do it. Is poor muzzle control or other questionable safety issues shown in the pictures? I’ve seen images of everything from people shooting inside a pole barn without proper ventilation to people walking in front of other shooters on an open range. If it’s the same three “students” in all of the photos, that’s a clue. If there are no photos, that should be a clue as well. No website? Why not?
Unless they are very small or very new, there will often be reviews of their training courses online at various gun forums or other locations. If there aren’t any reviews, that should tell you something.
Call and talk with them. Speak with the instructor ahead of giving them your money. Ask them any questions you might still have…anything from describing their previous experience, to inquiring about accommodations for those less-mobile or otherwise disabled. Ask them about how many instructors will be present and the expected ratio of staff to students. Ask them why they became a firearms instructor. Good teachers should have good answers for your questions.
Look for experienced instructors. While everyone has to start somewhere, previous instructional experience measured in years — not months — will usually lead to a better end result for you, the consumer/student. If prospective instructors try to dazzle you with their experience in the Boy Scouts, ROTC, or “personal interest,” look out.
Look for instructors who have continued their education especially if they’ve been to some of the nationally-known schools. They will most likely bring lessons and techniques they’ve learned from the nationally-respected masters to your local class.
Instructors who carry Do the instructors themselves carry every day, or are they just teaching theoretical concepts to their students?
“Team teaching” is a good thing, as instructors can teach to their strengths and students enjoy hearing a more diverse set of perspectives. The end result is usually a better educational experience for the students.
A team of instructors also offers greater opportunities for the student to get more one-on-one help as needed, particularly on the firing line during live fire or in other practical aspects of the class.
If there aren’t enough instructors, there’s little or no opportunity for one-on-one help to help learn, develop, and understand new skills, especially for those new to the gun world.
Previous law enforcement or military instructional experience is a bonus. Again, it’s about bringing applicable aspects of the latest tactics to the class. I’ve been teaching for two decades and seen first-hand that “military” and “police” listed in someone’s credentials, while a net positive, doesn’t necessarily mean a lot when it comes to teaching new skills to new shooters.
Your class isn’t (or shouldn’t be) a boot camp or police academy. What matters is instructors’ ability to communicate with everyday people, teaching and empowering them with the skill sets they need to avoid becoming a statistic in the real world.
High instructor-to-student ratios. I can’t stress this one enough, especially for range exercises. If you have one or two instructors trying to run a range with ten or twelve entry-level students on the firing line at once, you’re getting badly short-changed as a student and it’s not as safe as it could be.
Ability to communicate with everyday people outside of the gun culture. Do schools try not to use jargon and are they willing to spend that extra time (and do they have the staff to do so) to work with new shooters, including women and children? Are they there for those who are a little slow at absorbing the subject material?
This one’s harder to assess outside of personal referrals or recommendations, but it’s especially important if you’re a novice, the lone woman in the class or you’re bringing your kids.
Courses that offer more than the minimum. Good instructors won’t cut corners, but in fact will supplement the minimum required material with valuable and useful (not to mention life-saving) information they’ve learned from other schools or instructors.
Loaner gun availability. Do they have loaner guns for folks who come with inappropriate or malfunctioning firearms, especially for basic firearm/home defense/CCW-type courses?
Sometimes they might even have an armorer on staff, but usually just having a loaner gun and gear (holster, ammo pouches, etc.) will be very helpful. You might have to pay a nominal fee, but loaner availability is a big plus.
Referrals, testimonials, and word of mouth are all things to look for in reputable, experienced instructors. Ask your friends who have been to a class what they thought of it. Visit your local gun club or gun rights organization and ask those present for recommendations on instructors and/or classes.
Red flags
With booming gun sales and more demand for firearm training, there are a lot of instructors — especially newly-minted ones — who vary significantly in skill, ability, and ethics. There are some red flags you can look for in entry-level training to help you avoid a disappointing experience.
Unsafe gun handling: Do instructors demonstrate safe gun handling or do they routinely put their cotton pickin’ finger on the bang switch inappropriately? Are they careless about muzzle control or are there not enough of them to police muzzle discipline of untrained/careless students?
Even worse, do they stand downrange while students are shooting or handling their guns? If you see any of this, the first step is to bring those concerns to the staff. If these problems go unaddressed, it might be a good time to pack your bag and walk. Training-related accidents are very rare, but if those running classes are lackadaisical about safety, it’s time to make yourself scarce. Internet classes: Do instructors attempt to “teach” the classroom segments of the class via the internet? In general, that’s sub-optimal. Given social distancing and limits on the number of people in indoor spaces, that may be done more frequently these days.
Cost: Expect to pay a little more for experienced instructors with solid reputations or classes in big cities where range space is at a premium. But any course that’s advertised for dramatically less than the normal market rate for similar training from similarly-credentialed instructors is a big red flag.
Example: If a hypothetical CCW class goes for $200-250 at most locations and someone’s advertising theirs for $50, beware. Find out why it falls so far outside the norm.
Charging for free items like license application packets: One firearms training group in Illinois charged students $20 each for Florida and Arizona license application packets, even when those respective states send them out to anyone for free.
Cutting corners to do less than the minimum requirements: If it’s supposed to be an eight-hour class and the instructor finishes in six hours, that’s not good. In fact, it may constitute fraud in state-mandated CCW classes depending on local laws.
“Instructors” who haven’t had training: If the only formal training your prospective instructor has had was their “instructor certification” class, that’s cause for concern. Good firearm handling skills and knowledge of self-defense, personal protection, and the judicious use of deadly force don’t come from on high. They are learned.
Instructors teaching flawed, out-of-date or just plain unsafe information: That could get students killed or injured, either from tactical or a safety perspective. Example: “You should carry your gun with an empty chamber and rack the slide on your pants.”
Courses that are unrealistic: Do they teach you to hang upside down out of a pickup truck, firing one-handed under the door? Do they teach you barrel rolls while you hold your gun? Pack your gear and run. Worry about a refund later.
Things you can do to make your training experience better
1. Come bright-eyed and bushy-tailed. Get a good night’s rest. Leave the drinking and nightlife alone the night before.
2. Come with an open mind. Leave preconceived notions behind along with your man-card if you’re a guy. If they teach you something new, try it. You can always discard it later.
3. Dress appropriately. Wear closed-toe shoes, long pants with a belt, and bring along a baseball cap or similar. Ladies, leave the low-cut shirts at home. Also bring rain gear or extra clothing for unseasonably cool weather.
4. Bring your own eye and ear protection. Bring sunscreen and bug spray, just in case.
5. Hydration should be provided by the class sponsors. Hydration is a safety issue, but bring some of your own just in case. Avoid caffeine as it contributes to dehydration.
6. Bring lunch, as necessary along with any medications or other personal needs.
7. Bring your gun, gear and the required amount of ammunition, minimum. Check your gun and gear before the class. If a family of dust bunnies has taken residence in the barrel, clean it. If it’s filthy, clean it. If your ammo dates from the Spanish-American War era, looks corroded, or the lead has turned white, buy new ammo.
8. Bring a backup gun in case your front-line gear goes down, especially for intermediate and advanced classes where you expect to shoot a lot. Ditto for any gear you know you’ll need.
9. For rifle classes (or if you have a fancy optic on your pistol), come to class sighted in. Bring spare batteries for your holographic sights and a sling for your long gun
10. Bring a notepad and pens.
11. Read the recommended gear list and follow those instructions.
12. Turn your phone off or on completely silent mode before class starts.
13. Everyone’s a range safety officer. If you see someone doing something unsafe, ask them to stop. Report any safety concerns to the instructor(s) right away.
14. Address any concerns or questions you might have privately before class or during breaks where possible. Don’t tie up class time.
Do your own research
There’s no need to settle to waste your hard-earned money on a course that will disappoint you. Use the information contained here to help guide your course selection. It’s not that difficult to find training that meets or exceeds your needs instead of settling for a marginal offering that falls short.
Life is precious, training is cheap
Remember, training is inexpensive compared to your life and the lives of your loved ones, so it’s not a place to cut corners. Good training that allows you to avoid becoming a victim and come out on top is truly priceless in the long run.
Should gun owners be subject to surprise home inspections by law enforcement to ensure they're storing their firearms 'safely' and not posing a threat to the community? Thoughts from an avid reader. By all means! Show up at my home without a warrant and demand I let you in so you can inspect my firearms and their storage. You know that “not posing a threat to the community” you were blathering on about? So long as no one tries to violate my Fourth Amendment protections from unlawful search and seizure, there will be no threat! Better yet, since the law CANNOT do what your sick imagination comes up with, why don’t YOU come do it? LEO’s can’t just show up to inspect guns, but you sure can. Why don’t you put your money where your mouth is? If you’re so concerned about your safety regarding my gun possession, frisk me when you see me and relieve me of my firearm. Or break into my home when I am not on the premises…I strongly advise you NOT attempt to break in while I am at home, because it will become very loud and an acrid scent will fill the air, and if you’re still able to inhale and expel oxygen, you’ll smell it, too! Lastly, by virtue of your hateful question/suggestion, you show you have zero actual concerns over my ability to safely possess firearms, cause if you were truly scared you would not come near any of my firearms. So, you’re paying a little game with old Jimmy Boy. That’s a losing proposition, Sparky. I do not play games. My rights are non-negotiable. For your sake, commit that last part to memory. We’ll all be happier if you do, especially you! Enjoy your day.
I'm reading a book where the protagonist specifically requests 20 round magazines for an AR-15. If money is no object, is there any benefit to getting 20 round magazines over 30 round magazines? Thoughts from an avid readier. What are your thoughts? My unit had an old senior master sergeant that loved the 20 round magazines. He also coached our shooting team and oversaw the squad designated marksman program. He had a lot of experience with pretty much every small arm in the military inventory. In addition, he shot most weekends with a civilian shooting team. He also served in the Marine Corps earlier in his military career, where he was in combat in the Gulf War in 1991. So, he was probably the most experienced shooter in my Air Force unit and he preferred them. But I think it was mostly his ego in believing that if he ever got into a shootout, he was an excellent shot and he wouldn’t need as much ammo. Yes, they help a little when firing from the prone position, but not so much that you’d prefer them over 30 round magazines. Also, I thought he set a bad example since no junior airman would ever be allowed to have 20 round magazines for their weapon. Only he could get away with something like that.
The New York Times’ Latest Anti-Gun News Story by Lee Williams Print journalism is simple, really. At least it used to be. For decades there were basically two types of stories, news and opinions. Reporters wrote news stories. Columnists and a few others wrote opinion pieces. But in recent years we’ve seen another type of journalism rise in prominence, the anti-gun story, which masquerades as a regular news piece but is chock-full of opinion and false claims. When reporters fill their anti-gun stories with their opinions their editors do nothing, because they often share their staffer’s opinions. During my 20 years as a newspaperman, I would call out the authors of anti-gun stories whenever I saw them, but my criticisms were usually never addressed, even though we have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Nowadays, journalists talk constantly about the accuracy of their reporting. However, when they write anti-gun stories, normal journalism standards are gone, and the editing is a complete joke. The size of the newspaper also makes a difference. Smaller newspapers are generally more accurate when writing about guns than the big ones. Case in point: The New York Times. On Monday, the Times published what is perhaps the most anti-gun news story seen in quite a while. It was written by reporter Glenn Thrush, who started at the newspaper in 2017 and claimed in his bio that his most “fulfilling assignment” was writing obituaries, which is odd. Writing about the recently departed is far from fulfilling. Thrush’s story was titled “Trump Administration to Roll Back Array of Gun Control Measures.” The array was described as a reversal of the strict gun control rules Joe Biden ordered “to stem the flood of unregulated semiautomatic handguns and rifles.” If you look closely at Thrush’s story, you will find factual errors and anti-gun hyperbole in nearly every paragraph. For example, Thrush wrote that gun dealers stripped of the Federal Firearm Licenses by Biden’s crazy zero-tolerance policy were “found to have repeatedly violated federal laws and regulations.” This is far from the truth. Biden’s insane policy stripped hundreds of gun dealers of their FFL’s solely because of extremely minor clerical errors. It is estimated to have increased the FFL revocation rate by 700 percent. Thrush never mentioned that, or that the ATF occasionally sent its poorly trained SWAT team to the gun dealers’ homes, or that the dealers were handcuffed and laying on their stomachs during their conversations with the ATF. In one case, the alleged suspect never got the chance to respond to any of the federal allegations, because ATF’s SWAT team shot and killed him in his own home before they had a chance to talk. Thrush was not kind to Attorney General Pam Bondi or her plan to use the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division to investigate the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department to determine whether it is “engaging in a pattern or practice of depriving ordinary, law-abiding Californians of their Second Amendment rights.” Even though this task is clearly covered by federal law, Thrush claimed that Bondi was “repurposing an investigative unit that had been used to expose racial discrimination and police violence by local enforcement agencies.” Bondi’s decision didn’t involve any repurposing. The federal laws that govern the Civil Rights Division are very clear, unlike Biden’s ATF rules. The author spoke to the executive director of Giffords, who falsely claimed Trump gave his seal of approval to “reckless dealers who are willing to sell guns to traffickers and criminals.” Over the years I have met more than a few gun dealers, but no one is willing to sell arms to anyone with a criminal record. That this made it into a New York Times story is incredibly damning. Thrush also claimed that the ATF took “an abrupt U-turn” from the schemes of Biden and ATF’s former director to “stem the flood of unregulated semiautomatic handguns and rifles that have contributed to mass shootings and exacerbated the violent crime wave that peaked after the coronavirus pandemic.” A flood of unregulated handguns and rifles? Remember that the next time you fill out an ATF Form 4473. The Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project wouldn’t be possible without you. Click here to make a tax-deductible donation to support pro-gun stories like this.
CDC Staff Cuts Alarm Anti-Gun Advocates Mark Chesnut The Trump Administration has announced plans to cut 10,000 federal employees under the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the parent organization for Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which has pursued an anti-gun agenda for the past decade or so. The move will make it harder for the CDC to fund anti-gun research intended to show results favorable to gun-ban advocates, and that is drawing the ire of gun control groups who have relied on slanted CDC research to bolster their outrageous claims. The gun-ban organization Brady, formerly called Handgun Control Inc., immediately attacked the Trump Administration’s “guns everywhere” agenda. “The dismantling of CDC’s injury data collection team is nothing short of a public health catastrophe, and the latest strategic move to consolidate information control under President Trump,” Brady President Kris Brown said in a news release. “CDC’s WISQARS is a crucial tool that informs our understanding of America’s gun violence epidemic. Without it, we’re cast into the dark as to the scope of the number one killer of kids in this country. But this latest assault doesn’t come as a surprise; it tracks completely with the administration’s autocratic tendencies. Stemming the flow of knowledge is a tactic that has been deployed throughout history to control the public, and today’s news is a prime example of history repeating itself.” Whoo boy! Not to be outdone, the group Giffords called the cuts a “reckless move (that) puts us all at risk.” Of course, the reaction to the Trump Administration’s move by those on the pro-Second Amendment side of the argument was quite different. The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) said that, hopefully, the cuts would take the CDC out of the gun control arena. “With these reductions, the government is no longer treating gun ownership as a communicable disease,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “Ever since the CDC inserted itself into the gun rights debate, the agency has spent millions of dollars to promote the notion that gun-related violence is a public health issue, and they’ve mostly gotten away with it, thanks largely to their allies in the media treating everything they say as gospel. But it’s not a ‘health crisis,’ it’s a crime problem, and the antidote is not restricting the rights of law-abiding gun owners, which CDC research invariably seems to suggest, but instead restricting the freedom of violent repeat offenders.” Gottlieb added that anti-gun groups wailing over the CDC cuts are making a big deal over something that has never effectively curtailed violent crime. “One complaint we’ve heard is that these cuts have ‘decimated’ staff responsible for so-called ‘gun violence research and prevention,’ but so far all of this research does not appear to have prevented a single violent crime,” he said. “Instead, we see declarations that more research is needed, while anti-gunners use CDC data to erode Second Amendment rights. That sounds like a perpetual ‘make work’ effort to keep the public funding flowing while gun owners are essentially treated like plague carriers or lepers.”
Pam Bondi AG Pam Bondi Creates 2A Task Force Mark Chesnut April 11, 2025 U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi announced on Wednesday the creation of a Second Amendment Enforcement Task Force to protect the fundamental right to keep and bear arms. The task force is part of Bondi’s response to President Donald Trump’s executive order of February 7 to root out unconstitutional Biden Administration rules on firearms and roll them back to protect the Second Amendment rights of all Americans. “For too long, the Second Amendment, which establishes the fundamental individual right of Americans to keep and bear arms, has been treated as a second-class right,” Bondi wrote in a memo to Department of Justice employees. “No more. It is the policy of this Department of Justice to use its full might to protect the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens.” Bondi said that the new Second Amendment Task Force is one element of a comprehensive plan of action that she is proposing to President Trump. “This task force will continue the Department’s ongoing work to implement Executive Order 14206 and protect the fundamental right secured by the Second Amendment,” she wrote. “The Task Force is principally charged with developing and executing strategies to use litigation and policy to advance, protect, and promote compliance with the Second Amendment.” Bondi will chair the task force and the associate attorney general will serve as the vice chair. Other members of the task force will include representatives from Bondi’s personal staff, the Office of the Deputy Attorney General, the Office of the Associate Attorney General, the Office of the Solicitor General, the Civil Division, the Civil Rights Division, the Criminal Division, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. “The prior administration placed an undue burden on gun owners and vendors by targeting law-abiding citizens exercising their Second Amendment rights,” Bondi said in a press release announcing the action. “The Department of Justice’s new Second Amendment Task Force will combine department-wide policy and litigation resources to advance President Trump’s pro-gun agenda and protect gun owners from overreach.” Of course, pro-gun organizations, including the Citizens Committee On The Right To Keep And Bear Arms (CCRKBA), reacted very positively to AG Bondi’s announcement. “This is the news we’ve been waiting for,” said Alan Gottlieb, CCRKBA chairman. “From the wording of Attorney General Bondi’s memo, it looks like ‘gloves off’ time may have finally arrived. It marks a significant, and welcome change at the Department of Justice, because it is clear we now have leadership in place which treats gun owners as allies instead of antagonists.” Gottlieb added that his organization is hopeful the task force will have a long-term effect on the freedom of all American gun owners. “We’re hoping this bold step by Attorney General Bondi brings an end to years of harassment and penalization of gun owners and begins the process of dismantling unconstitutional laws and regulations at the federal, state and local levels of government,” Gottlieb said. “The Second Amendment protects a first-class right, and it feels great that after years of fighting this battle, gun owners now have support, rather than resistance, from the Department of Justice, and an administration that is definitely in our corner.”
Prosecutors File Federal Criminal Charges Against 34 Defendants Who Allegedly Re-entered the U.S. Following Removal Friday, April 18, 2025 U.S. Attorney's Office, Central District of California LOS ANGELES – Federal prosecutors this week filed criminal charges against 34 defendants who are alleged to have been found in the United States following removal, the Justice Department announced today. Many of the defendants charged previously were convicted of felony offenses prior to their removal from the United States, including domestic violence, unlawful sex with a minor, and assault with a deadly weapon. The crime of being found in the United States following removal carries a base sentence of up to two years in federal prison. Defendants who were removed after being convicted of a felony face a maximum 10-year prison sentence and defendants removed after being convicted of an aggravated felony face a maximum of 20 years in federal prison. Some of the recently filed cases are summarized below: • Maximo Medrano, 59, of Mexico, was charged via a federal criminal complaint with being an illegal alien found in the United States after removal. Medrano, who was removed from the U.S. in 1998 and 2023, has a criminal history that includes a felony conviction in 1997 in Monterey County Superior Court for transportation of a controlled substance, for which he was sentenced to two years in California state prison. Medrano also was convicted in Orange County Superior Court in 2023 of inflicting corporal injury upon a spouse/cohabitant and four counts of disorderly conduct, video/photo of bedroom/bathroom/etc., for which he was required to register as a sex offender. Medrano is scheduled to make his initial appearance this afternoon in U.S. District Court in downtown Los Angeles. Assistant United States Attorney MiRi Song of the Domestic Security and Immigration Crimes Section is prosecuting this case. • Adrian Chopin-Sánchez, 32, of Mexico, was charged via a federal criminal complaint with being an illegal alien found in the United States after removal. Chopin-Sánchez, who was removed from the U.S. in 2017, has a criminal history that includes a felony conviction in Orange County Superior Court in 2013 for unlawful sex with a minor, for which he was sentenced to one year in California state prison. Assistant United States Attorney Gregory Scally of the Orange County Office is prosecuting this case. • Daniel Giovanni Rivera-Peralta , 32, of Mexico, was charged via a federal criminal complaint with being an illegal alien found in the United States after removal. Rivera-Peralta, who was removed from the U.S. in 2021, has a felony conviction in Orange County Superior Court in 2020 for assault with a deadly weapon, for which he was sentenced to four years in California state prison. Assistant United States Attorney Gregory Scally of the Orange County Office is prosecuting this case. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Homeland Security Investigations are investigating these matters. Federal prosecutors today also filed a criminal complaint against four illegal aliens who allegedly stole $10,000 in cash from a victim on Wednesday at a gasoline station in the East Hollywood neighborhood of Los Angeles. The defendants allegedly loitered outside bank branches in Los Angeles, including in the Los Feliz neighborhood of Los Angeles, before following a victim who appeared to leave with a large sum of money. After stealing the money, law enforcement who surveilled the defendants then pursued them at a high rate of speed. After law enforcement eventually pulled them over, two defendants fled on foot before being arrested. The $10,000 in cash was recovered inside one defendant’s underwear. While searching the defendants’ residence in the Mid-City neighborhood of Los Angeles, law enforcement found several fake passports. The defendants in this matter are charged with conspiracy to transport, transmit or transfer at least $5,000 of stolen money in interstate or foreign commerce: • Javier Jesús Cordoza Araújo, 41, of Venezuela; • Ingrid Carolina Medina, 40, of Colombia; • Gladys Gruz Navarro, 62, of Venezuela; and • Guadalupe Delcristo Martínez, 46, of Mexico. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ Orange County Violent Crimes Task Force is investigating this matter. Assistant United States Attorneys Jena A. MacCabe and Kevin J. Butler of the Violent and Organized Crime Section are prosecuting this case. Criminal complaints contain allegations. All defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. These cases are part of Operation Take Back America, a nationwide initiative that marshals the full resources of the Department of Justice to repel the invasion of illegal immigration, achieve the total elimination of cartels and transnational criminal organizations (TCOs), and protect our communities from the perpetrators of violent crime. Operation Take Back America streamlines efforts and resources from the Department’s Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces (OCDETF) and Project Safe Neighborhood (PSN). Contact Ciaran McEvoy Public Information Officer ciaran.mcevoy@usdoj.gov (213) 894-4465 Updated April 18, 2025
Kansas City Resident Arrested and Charged in Connection with Tesla Arson Friday, April 18, 2025 A Kansas City resident, attending college in Boston, was arrested and made his initial court appearance today in U.S. District Court in Massachusetts, to face federal charges related to an arson at a Tesla business in Kansas City, Missouri. According to the criminal complaint, filed in the Western District of Missouri and unsealed today, Owen McIntire, 19, is charged with one count of unlawful possession of an unregistered destructive device and one count of malicious damage by fire of any property used in interstate commerce. “Let me be extremely clear to anyone who still wants to firebomb a Tesla property: you will not evade us,” said Attorney General Pamela Bondi. “You will be arrested. You will be prosecuted. You will spend decades behind bars. It is not worth it.” “Crimes have consequences. The people behind these violent and dangerous attacks on private property will face decades in prison — we will not make deals and we will not negotiate,” said Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche. “This is the second arrest this week of a suspect charged with targeting Tesla, more proof that the FBI will not stand for these destructive acts,” said FBI Director Kash Patel. “These actions are dangerous, they are illegal, and we are going to arrest those responsible. We will work with our partners at the Department of Justice to hold accountable anyone who commits such crimes. I commend our FBI teams in Kansas City and Boston for their work.” “ATF’s Special Agents and forensic experts recovered and analyzed key evidence—including Molotov cocktails—used in this deliberate and dangerous arson attack,” said Acting Director Dan Driscoll of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF). “This wasn’t vandalism — it was a violent criminal act. Thanks to the relentless work of ATF special agents, and our close coordination with the FBI and local law enforcement, we now have a suspect in custody. I am committed to ensuring ATF continues to stand on the front lines of public safety. ATF will not tolerate those who incite political violence in our communities.” According to an affidavit filed in support of the federal criminal complaint, on March 17, at approximately 11:16 p.m., an officer with the Kansas City, Missouri, Police Department (KCMOPD) in the vicinity of the Kansas City (KC) Tesla Center observed smoke coming from a grey Cybertruck parked in the KC Tesla Center parking lot. The officer also observed an unbroken suspected incendiary device near the burning Cybertruck. KCMOPD recovered the unbroken incendiary device, also known as a Molotov cocktail. The fire spread from the Cybertruck to a second Cybertruck in the lot. The Kansas City Fire Department responded to the scene to extinguish the fire. The Cybertrucks had sale prices of $105,485 and $107,485. Additionally, two charging stations were damaged by the fire, each of which is valued at approximately $550. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Sean Foley and Trey Alford for the Western District of Missouri and Trial Attorney Patrick Cashman of the National Security Division’s Counterterrorism Section are prosecuting the case. The FBI Kansas City and Boston Field Offices, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, and the Kansas City, Missouri, Police Department are investigating the case. A criminal complaint is merely an allegation. All defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. Updated April 18, 2025
ATF Tampa Field Division Contact: Public Information Officer Jason Medina 813-439-7542 ATF National Response Team Investigates Florida Fire TAMPA, Fla. – The Tampa Field Division of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives requested assistance from ATF’s National Response Team investigating a fire in Ocala, Florida. The fire started on April 8 and destroyed a 12,000 square foot structure and caused the deaths of 21 horses. The team concluded their on-site investigation and is reviewing and analyzing additional data from the fire. Once this step is complete a final determination will be made regarding the cause of this fire. “This deployment highlighted NRT’s distinct role in supporting state and local investigators," said Kirk Howard, Special Agent in Charge of the ATF Tampa Field Division. "Our partners recognize that ATF is the federal government’s gold standard when it comes to complex fire investigations and that we’ll mobilize our capabilities wherever we’re needed.” The team consists of Special Agents, Certified Fire Investigators, Fire Protection Engineers, Electrical Engineers, Forensic Chemists, Certified Explosives Specialists, an Intelligence Research Specialist, a Medic and an Accelerant Detection Canine with handler. Since its inception in 1978, the NRT has responded to 928 incidents, including eight activations this fiscal year alone. The NRT’s rapid-response structure enables it to generally deploy within 24 hours, bringing in state-of-the-art technology, including drones, 3D mapping, and portable labs, to aid in fire origin and cause determinations. The NRT has a proven track record of handling the nation’s most tragic and complex fire and explosive incidents. Past deployments include: • The Maui Wildfire Disaster: One of the deadliest U.S. fires in over a century, requiring an intricate investigation due to high winds and rapid fire spread. • Conception Dive Boat Fire: A fatal fire near Santa Barbara where the NRT helped uncover key evidence leading to safety reforms in marine operations. • 2020 Midwest Civil Unrest: The team processed over 200 arson scenes linked to protests, providing critical evidence that led to arrests and prosecutions. ATF is the federal agency with jurisdiction for investigating fires and crimes of arson. More information on ATF can be found at www.atf.gov.
Is The Florida Senate Getting Cold Feet About Lowering The Gun Purchase Age Back To 18? Mark Chesnut Says FFL and Firearms Trainer Gregg Kielma, in my humble opinion, and I truly do not like saying this, no. 21 should be the legal age to own a firearm throughout the United States... for multiple reasons. I'll have a lot more to say on in my blog this soon. The effort to roll back the arguably unconstitutional Florida law banning 18-, 19- and 20-year-olds from purchasing long guns has been humming along quite well since Gov. Ron DeSantis announced his support for the legislation. The restriction, which was passed in the aftermath of a 2018 mass murder in Parkland Florida, resulted in a series of legislative measures this year—Senate Bill 94, Senate Bill 920, Senate Bill 1716, and House Bill 759—all designed to restore the ability for young adults 18 to 20 to acquire rifles and shotguns, just like those in other states can. Late last month, the state House of Representatives passed House Bill 759 by a 78-to-34 margin. Since then, however, nearly two weeks have passed, and the Senate version has yet to be considered in committee, causing alarm by some pro-2A observers. “HUGE WIN for Gun Owners!” Luis Valdes of Gun Owners of America (GOA) posted on X. “The Florida House just PASSED HB 759! But the fight isn’t over. Now, it’s the Senate’s turn. SB 920 MUST get a vote! Call Sen. Jonathan Martin NOW: (850) 487-5033. Demand he brings SB 920 to the floor! No excuses! @GunOwners never quits!” The problem appears to be that Senate leaders are somewhat divided on the issue of lowering the purchase age back to where it used to be. Senate President Ben Albritton isn’t fully on board with lowering the age restriction. “I felt like we needed to pump the brakes and let’s keep talking to figure out what that win-win is,” Albritton after the House passed the measure. According to GOA’s Valdes, Sen. Albritton has an important choice to make concerning the bill. “Gun Owners of America is fired up to see the House pass HB 759, marking the third straight year in a row now that lawmakers have voted to repeal Florida’s unconstitutional under 21 gun purchasing ban,” Valdes told WFSU. “Senate President Ben Albritton has a choice. He can either champion the will of the people and restore their Second Amendment rights, or he can follow in (former Senate President) Passidomo’s footsteps and betray gun owners across Florida.” For his part, Gov. DeSantis has been on board with the idea since the very first of the legislative session. “I can tell you that we, in spite of us saying we’re the Free State, in spite of us being like, ‘Oh, we’re this Republican conservative bastion,’ we’ve definitely lagged on that issue,” Gov. DeSantis said in his state of the state address. “The free state of Florida has not exactly led the way on protecting Second Amendment rights. We need to be a strong Second Amendment state.” Gov. DeSantis has also voiced his support for repealing the state’s red-flag law and allowing open carry. Earlier this year, he proposed what he called “Second Amendment Summer,” which would eliminate the sales tax on the purchase of guns, ammunition, and accessories from Memorial Day to the 4th of July. If the Senate fails to pass the age change legislation, it will mark the third year in a row that the House passed the bill and the Senate didn’t have the courage to do so. e.
Tyrant Govenor Hochul U.S. Supreme Court Refuses To Hear Challenge To NY Concealed Carry Law Mark Chessnut One would think that the U.S. Supreme Court would be interested in considering the constitutionality of New York’s restrictive carry law since the law was hastily written and passed because of the court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. In fact, at the time, the law was referred to by many as the Bruen-response law, and in many ways was more restrictive than the original law was. Alas, on Monday, SCOTUS, without giving a reason, declined to take up the case concerning the law, which not only set up vast swaths of the state as “sensitive places” where carry is restricted but also required handgun owners to prove “good moral character” before purchasing a gun. Because the court declined to hear the case, an earlier ruling from the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals will remain in place. The 2nd Circuit Court had ruled in October 2024 in Antonyuk et al. v. James that the law banning people from carrying weapons in locations such as schools, parks, theaters and bars is constitutional under the Second Amendment. The court also declared constitutional the state’s restrictive “good moral character” requirement for getting a concealed carry permit. In December 2023, 2nd Circuit Court had ruled that the law was constitutional, and plaintiffs then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. But rather than taking up the case then, the Supreme Court ordered the 2nd Circuit to reconsider the case in light of its decision in the Rahimi case. In its subsequent ruling, the appeals court said the Supreme Court analysis in the Rahimi case supported its prior conclusions. At the time of the second 2nd Circuit ruling, Erich Pratt, president of Gun Owners of America (GOA), had expressed frustration with the ruling since the Supreme Court had sent the case back for reconsideration. “The 2nd Circuit got it wrong the first time, SCOTUS told them so and said try again, and this nearly identical ruling is a slap in the face to the Justices and every gun owner across New York,” Pratt in a press release. “We will continue the fight against Gov. Hochul and anti-gun legislators in Albany until New Yorkers can finally carry for self-defense without infringement.” Understandably, Pratt was again frustrated with the Supreme Court’s decision to not hear the case. “While we are disappointed by the Supreme Court’s decision not to take this case, we will never stop fighting to defend the rights of gun owners across the country,” he said. Of course, Democratic New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, who just signed three more gun control measures into law last week, was ecstatic to hear about the court’s decision, stating, “New York’s strong gun safety laws save lives.” e.
