Gregory Kielma • November 23, 2023
Boy This is One Mad Judge
Federal Judge: There’s No Constitutional Right to Buy a Gun
By TTAG Contributor -November 22, 202387
From the NRA-ILA
Honest people can disagree with the Founders’ decision to enshrine the Second Amendment within the Bill of Rights. They cannot, however, pretend that decision never happened. For much of the 20th Century, however, gun control activists tried to convince the public that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” had nothing to do with the right of individuals to keep and carry guns for their own self-protection.
That charade – never convincing to anyone who could read – has been debunked by the U.S. Supreme Court no less than four times in the last 15 years. But Second Amendment denialism remains an active strain of the firearm prohibition effort, as demonstrated by a federal judge in Colorado who ruled last week that whatever the provision means, it does not include the right to buy a gun
That decision came in the case of Rocky Mountain Gun Owners v. Polis, which challenged Colorado’s three day waiting period for firearm purchases. Proponents of the law undoubtedly knew it was in trouble after the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which clarified how lower courts are to analyze challenges to gun control laws under the Second Amendment.
Bruen stated: “When the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. The government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” This test likely spells doom for Colorado’s waiting period, as laws of that type were completely unknown to the generation that adopted the Second Amendment.
Faced with this reality, Judge John L. Kane – appointed to the federal bench by Jimmy Carter in 1977 – decided to stretch reason to the breaking point by deciding the right to possess a firearm doesn’t include the right to acquire one.
The court began its analysis by acknowledging that the Second Amendment right articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 2008 case of District of Columbia v. Heller meant “the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.” But then Judge Kane went on to insist: “purchase and delivery are one means of creating the opportunity to ‘have weapons.’ The relevant question is whether the plain text covers that specific means. It does not.”
Oregon gun store counter assault rifle AR-15
According to this “reasoning,” a state could completely ban the sale and delivery of firearms without implicating the Second Amendment. This would imply a right to have something, but not to obtain it through the most obvious and ordinary means.
Of course, it’s true that the Second Amendment says nothing explicitly about buying and receiving guns. But it’s also true the First Amendment says nothing explicitly about buying and receiving newspapers. Nevertheless, any judge insisting a ban on newspaper sales would not implicate the First Amendment prohibition on “abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press” would in doing so disgrace himself and ruin his professional and intellectual credibility.
Perhaps recognizing this, Judge Kane hedged his bets by offering a number of alternative theories about why Colorado’s waiting period did not infringe the Second Amendment.
First, he theorized, “Even if purchasing a firearm could be read into the terms ‘keep’ or ‘bear,’ receipt of a firearm without any delay could not be, as the Founders would not have expected instant, widespread availability of the firearm of their choice.” Judge Kane attempted to bolster this argument by pointing to “expert” testimony that indicated firearm purchases at the time of the founding were not as convenient, prompt, or accessible as they are today.
But even these “experts” acknowledged this was because technology, production, and marketing were circumstantially more primitive in those days, not because legislators made a deliberate choice to delay firearm purchases. Of course, virtually nothing that involved the delivery of a good was as efficient and accessible to the founding generation as it is in modern times. But the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly made clear that it will not tolerate “frivolous” arguments that 18th Century technological limitations delineate the scope of constitutional rights in the present day, including in a Second Amendment case that dealt with stun guns.
Next, Judge Kane pointed to language in Heller that he claimed rendered “presumptively lawful” any regulation on “the conditions or qualifications” of the “commercial sale of firearms.” He then argued: “Colorado’s Waiting-Period Act regulates only the sale, and specifically sellers, of firearms. … The Act does not apply to anyone who does not ‘sell a firearm.’”
Putting aside the fact that the disputed issues in Heller had nothing to do with firearm sales, much less mandatory waiting periods, Judge Kane was again resorting to frivolous formalism in attempting to stake his reasoning on the distinction between sellers and purchasers. Colorado’s waiting period imposes an arbitrary and de facto impediment on the purchase of guns, thereby implicating the rights of buyers at least as much as sellers.
Dragonmans gun store range
Returning to the First Amendment, no one would take seriously an argument that a person’s First Amendment right to access information was not implicated just because a particular restraint applied to a publisher or bookseller and not the reader himself.
Meanwhile, the language Judge Kane invoked to argue the Supreme Court allows firearm sales to be regulated cuts against his primary ruling by suggesting the Supreme Court considers such sales as the default starting point under the Second Amendment.
But Judge Kane wasn’t finished, and proposed yet another reason why Colorado’s waiting period is consistent with the Second Amendment, even if he were wrong about everything else.
Again, while acknowledging – as the parties themselves agreed – that waiting periods for firearm purchases were unknown in American law until well into the 20th Century, he still found them consistent with America’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. This was because, he said, “our Nation had a historical tradition of regulating the carrying and use of firearms by intoxicated individuals,” and “the Waiting-Period Act and the intoxication laws both work to prevent individuals in a temporary impulsive state from irresponsibly using a firearm.”
Judge Kane was dismissive of plaintiffs’ attempts to point out the obvious distinction that intoxication speaks to the condition of a particular individual in a particular moment, while the waiting period broadly applies to firearm sales generally, regardless of the buyer’s condition or state of mind. His response to this fundamental difference was that the intoxication laws affected all intoxicated persons, some of whom also might not have behaved irresponsibly with a firearm.
Judge Kane’s final gambit was to suggest that the Supreme Court had indicated a general openness to shall-issue licensing schemes for carrying firearms, so long as they were not directed to “abusive ends.” This, he said, was analogous to the waiting period, because both require a “defined requirement” to be met before exercise of the right, and plaintiffs had not proven the waiting period was abusive.
Judge Kane offered no limiting principles for what sorts of laws purportedly aimed at impulsive or irresponsible behavior or that imposed “defined requirements” prior to the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms might be permissible under the Second Amendment. But it’s difficult to understand how his reasoning would be distinguishable from the “interest-balancing” the Supreme Court specifically rejected in Bruen, which likewise focused on why the government purported to be acting, not on whether such actions were well-established in American history.
There is perhaps no legal rule so clear and unequivocal that it cannot be purposely misconstrued by a judge who is more interested in his preferred outcome than in actually following the law. But if the Polis case shows anything about Bruen’s historical test, it’s that it makes spotting such judges easier than ever.
This article originally appeared at nraila.org and is reprinted here with permission.
What To Do If Your Firearm Is Stolen From Your Home or Vehicle By Gregory Kielma, Tactical K Training and Firearms 4/10/2026 As responsible gun owners, we prepare for many scenarios — but few situations feel more violating or stressful than discovering a firearm has been stolen. Whether it’s taken from your home or your vehicle, the way you respond in the next few hours matters. It affects your legal protection, the chances of recovery, and the safety of your community. This guide walks you through the exact steps you should take if you ever find yourself in this situation. 1. Stay Calm and Confirm the Firearm Is Actually Missing Before assuming theft, take a moment to verify: • Did someone else in the household move it? • Was it stored in a secondary safe or case? • Was it recently transported to the range or vehicle? Once you’ve confirmed it’s truly missing, act immediately. Time is your ally. 2. Contact Law Enforcement Right Away A stolen firearm is a serious matter, and reporting it promptly protects you legally and helps prevent that firearm from being used in a crime. When you call law enforcement, be prepared to provide: • Make, model, and caliber • Serial number • Any unique markings or accessories • Where it was stored • When you last saw it • How you believe it was taken If the theft occurred from a vehicle, tell them whether there were signs of forced entry. If it was taken from your home, note any suspicious activity, break ins, or missing property. Request a copy of the police report or case number. You’ll need it for insurance, documentation, and follow up. 3. Notify Your Local Sheriff’s Office or State Agency (If Required) Some states require additional reporting beyond the initial police report. Even if your state doesn’t mandate it, notifying local authorities ensures the firearm is entered into national databases quickly. In Florida, reporting promptly is strongly recommended to protect yourself from liability and to assist in recovery efforts. 4. Inform ATF If the Firearm Was Registered on a Form 1 or Form 4 If the stolen firearm is an NFA item (suppressor, SBR, SBS, etc.), you must notify the ATF using ATF Form 3310.11 – Federal Firearms Licensee Theft/Loss Report. Even as a private owner, you are required to report the loss of an NFA item. 5. Contact Your Insurance Provider If you have: • Homeowners insurance • Renters insurance • A firearms-specific rider • A safe or equipment policy …you may be eligible for reimbursement. Provide them with: • The police report number • Photos of the firearm (if available) • Purchase receipts or documentation Insurance companies often require proof of secure storage, so be prepared to explain how the firearm was stored at the time of the theft. 6. Notify Your Local Gun Shops and Pawn Shops Many stolen firearms eventually show up in: • Pawn shops • Secondhand gun stores • Gun shows Provide them with: • Serial number • Make and model • Your contact information • The police case number They cannot legally return the firearm to you directly, but they can alert law enforcement if it appears. 7. Strengthen Your Security Immediately A theft is a wake up call. After reporting the incident, take steps to prevent it from happening again: • Upgrade your safe or lockbox • Add vehicle lockboxes if you must store a firearm in your car • Install cameras or motion lighting • Reinforce doors, windows, or garage access points • Avoid leaving firearms in vehicles overnight Criminals often return to the same location if they believe more firearms are present. 8. Follow Up Periodically Law enforcement agencies handle thousands of cases. A polite follow up every few weeks keeps your case active and ensures your information stays current. If your firearm is recovered, you’ll be contacted — but staying engaged increases the odds. Kielma’s Parting Shot: A stolen firearm is more than a loss of property — it’s a threat to public safety and a liability for the owner. Acting quickly, documenting everything, and reinforcing your security are the best ways to protect yourself and your community. Responsible ownership doesn’t end when a firearm goes missing. It begins again with how you respond. Gregg Kielma
Can Someone Accuse You of Pointing a Finger and Claim It Was a Firearm? By Gregory Kielma As a firearms instructor, I get asked all kinds of questions about what people can accuse you of, especially in tense situations. One that comes up more often than you’d think is this: “If I point my finger, a phone, or some other object at someone, can they claim I pointed a gun at them?” The short answer is yes — a person can claim almost anything. The real issue is whether that claim holds up under investigation, evidence, and the law. 1. Anyone Can Make an Accusation — That Doesn’t Make It True People report things based on: • Fear • Misinterpretation • Anger • Poor visibility • Emotional reactions Law enforcement has to respond to the report, but that doesn’t mean the accusation is automatically valid. 2. What Matters Is Evidence When police investigate a “pointing a firearm” allegation, they look for: • A firearm present on scene • Witness statements • Surveillance video • Body worn camera footage • Physical evidence • Consistency in the reporting person’s story If all you did was point a finger, a pen, a phone, or gesture with your hand, and there’s no firearm, the evidence will reflect that. 3. Intent Matters Too Most states require some level of intent to threaten or cause fear for a charge like “aggravated assault with a firearm.” Pointing a finger in a casual or non threatening way is not the same as brandishing a weapon. But if someone felt threatened, they may still call the police — and that’s why your behavior, tone, and body language matter. 4. Why These Situations Get Messy In my experience teaching firearms safety and conflict avoidance, misunderstandings happen when: • Tempers are high • People are already nervous • Someone assumes the worst • Someone wants to “win” an argument • Someone is unfamiliar with firearms and panics This is why I always teach students: your best weapon is your judgment. 5. Protect Yourself With Good Habits You can’t control what someone accuses you of, but you can control your conduct: • Avoid escalating arguments • Keep your hands visible and non threatening • Walk away when possible • Use calm, clear communication • Never mimic a firearm with your hands in a heated situation These habits reduce misunderstandings and protect you legally and personally. Kielma’s Parting Shot: Accusations are easy to make. Evidence is what matters. And your behavior — especially as a responsible gun owner — is what keeps you out of unnecessary trouble. Gregg Kielma
The Face of a Tyrant Coward: Chicago Mayor Brad Johnson **Report by Gregory Kielma**: Anti‑Gun Chicago Mayor Spends $30 Million a Year on His Armed Security Detail** Recent reporting out of Chicago has revealed a striking contradiction between the city’s political messaging on firearms and the personal security practices of its leadership. According to multiple sources, Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson — a vocal supporter of some of the most restrictive gun-control measures in Illinois — is protected by an armed security detail that rivals or exceeds that of any major U.S. mayor. Estimates place the cost of this protection at approximately $30 million per year, funded entirely by taxpayers. A Security Force Larger Than Many City Units Reports indicate that Mayor Johnson’s protective detail includes up to 150 Chicago Police Department officers, a dramatic expansion compared to previous administrations. For context, former Mayor Lori Lightfoot’s detail reportedly used around 90 officers — a number that was already controversial. Johnson’s detail now surpasses that, making it one of the largest mayoral protection units in the country. To put this in perspective, only 130 full‑time officers are assigned to patrol the entire Chicago Transit Authority system — 79 stations, 146 platforms, and 335 trains. That means the mayor has more officers guarding him personally than the number assigned to protect millions of daily commuters. Taxpayer Burden and Expanding Costs While salary costs alone are estimated at $22.5 million annually, the total cost — including overtime, vehicles, logistics, and specialized equipment — pushes the figure beyond $30 million per year. This level of expenditure has drawn scrutiny, especially as the city faces ongoing challenges with violent crime, youth victimization, and strained police resources. Policy Contradictions and Public Perception The controversy is not simply about whether a mayor should have security. Public officials often require protection. The issue, as highlighted by the National Shooting Sports Foundation and other commentators, is the double standard: strict gun-control policies for the public, paired with expansive armed protection for political leadership. Mayor Johnson has supported Illinois’ bans on certain semiautomatic rifles and magazine capacities, praising court decisions that upheld these restrictions as “important steps” for public safety. Yet his own security relies on the very tools and personnel that ordinary residents are increasingly restricted from accessing. Two Sets of Rules Commentary from constitutional analysts frames this as a “two‑tier theory of safety”: Protected class: public officials with taxpayer‑funded armed security Restricted class: ordinary residents facing tighter limits on lawful self‑defense tools This tension fuels public cynicism, especially in a city where violent crime remains a persistent concern. Kielma's Parting Shot The debate surrounding Mayor Johnson’s security detail is not merely about budget numbers — it’s about trust, consistency, and the message sent to the public. When leadership relies on extensive armed protection while advocating policies that limit the defensive options of law‑abiding citizens, the disconnect becomes impossible to ignore. As someone who trains responsible gun owners and emphasizes personal preparedness, I believe transparency and consistency are essential. Chicago residents deserve a clear explanation for why their mayor requires one of the largest armed security details in the nation while they are asked to accept increasingly restrictive limits on their own ability to stay safe.
Firearms in National and State Parks: What Responsible Gun Owners Need to Know By Gregory Kielma, Tactical K Training and Firearms Firearms and America’s public lands have a long, intertwined history. Whether you’re hiking, camping, or traveling through one of our national or state parks, understanding the laws that govern firearm possession is essential. As responsible gun owners, we don’t just carry for protection — we carry with knowledge, intention, and respect for the places we visit. Federal Law: National Parks and National Wildlife Refuges Since 2010, federal law has allowed individuals to possess firearms in national parks and national wildlife refuges as long as they comply with the firearm laws of the state in which the park is located. In other words, state law controls. If you can legally carry in that state — whether concealed or open — you can generally carry in the national park within that state. However, there are important exceptions: Federal facilities remain gun‑free zones. This includes visitor centers, ranger stations, administrative buildings, and maintenance facilities. These locations are required to post signage at entrances. Firearm discharge is prohibited except in lawful self‑defense. Recreational shooting is not allowed in national parks unless specifically designated. State Parks: A Patchwork of Rules State parks operate under state law, and the rules vary widely. Some states mirror their general carry laws, while others impose additional restrictions. In Florida where I reside, for example, lawful concealed carry is permitted in state parks, and this aligns with the state’s broader recognition of the right to self‑defense. Other states may restrict carry, limit open carry, or prohibit firearms in certain facilities. Before traveling, always verify: Whether the state recognizes your permit (if applicable) Whether open or concealed carry is allowed Whether firearms are prohibited in campgrounds, buildings, or recreational areas Whether magazine or ammunition restrictions apply Transporting Firearms Through Parks Even when carry is allowed, responsible transport matters: Keep firearms secured and under your control Follow all state vehicle transport laws Store firearms safely when not carried on your person Be mindful of crossing state lines — reciprocity changes instantly For those traveling long distances, especially across multiple states, planning ahead prevents legal surprises. Why This Matters for Responsible Owners Carrying in parks isn’t about “bringing guns into nature.” It’s about acknowledging reality: wildlife encounters, remote locations, and delayed emergency response times can create situations where self‑defense becomes necessary. But with that right comes responsibility: Know the law Respect posted restrictions Maintain muzzle discipline and safe handling at all times Understand that negligent discharge in a park environment can have serious consequences for people, wildlife, and the land itself Kielma's Final Thoughts Our national and state parks belong to all of us. As responsible firearm owners, we set the example for how to carry safely, legally, and respectfully in these shared spaces. Education is the foundation of responsible ownership, and understanding the laws surrounding firearms in parks is part of that commitment. If you have questions about lawful carry, safe transport, or training for outdoor environments, Tactical K Training and Firearms is here to help. Knowledge builds confidence — and confidence builds safety. Gregg Kielma
Why Integrity and Doing the Right Thing Every Time Isn’t Optional — It’s the Standard By Gregory Kielma Integrity isn’t a slogan. It isn’t a marketing line. It isn’t something you turn on when people are watching and set aside when they aren’t. Integrity is a discipline — a decision you make every day to do the right thing, especially when it’s inconvenient, uncomfortable, or unnoticed. In my line of work, whether it’s firearms training, business, or simply being a man people can rely on, integrity is the foundation everything else stands on. Without it, nothing you build lasts. Integrity Is Doing the Right Thing When No One Is Checking Anyone can behave when the spotlight is on them. The real test is what you do when there’s no audience, no praise, and no immediate reward. That’s where character shows itself. Cutting corners, bending rules, or “just this once” thinking always comes with a cost. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow — but eventually. Integrity protects you from that. It keeps your reputation clean, your conscience clear, and your path straight. Your Word Has to Mean Something In a world full of excuses, half truths, and people who shift blame, being someone whose word is solid is rare. When you say you’ll do something, you do it. When you make a promise, you honor it. When you give your word, it stands on its own. People trust you not because you talk about integrity, but because you live it. Doing the Right Thing Builds Strength, Not Weakness Some people think integrity is soft — that doing the right thing means being passive or letting people walk over you. They couldn’t be more wrong. Integrity requires discipline. It requires courage. It requires the willingness to stand alone if necessary. It’s easy to follow the crowd. It’s harder to hold the line when others won’t. Strength isn’t measured by how loud you are. It’s measured by how consistent you are. Integrity Protects the People Who Depend on You Students, clients, family, community — people rely on you to be steady. They rely on you to be honest. They rely on you to make decisions based on what’s right, not what’s easy. When you operate with integrity, you create safety. You create trust. You create an environment where people know exactly who they’re dealing with. That matters — especially in fields where responsibility isn’t optional. Doing the Right Thing Every Time Isn’t About Perfection It’s about accountability. You won’t always get everything right. No one does. But integrity means owning your mistakes, correcting them, and moving forward better than before. It means refusing to hide behind excuses or blame. People respect honesty. They respect humility. They respect someone who stands up and says, “That’s on me — and I’ll fix it.” Kielma's Parting Shot: Integrity Is a Daily Choice Not a one time declaration. Every day you’re presented with opportunities to cut corners or uphold your standards. Every day you choose who you are. Integrity Gregg Kielma
New York: Anti-Gun Democrat Lawmakers Pushing 11% Excise Tax On Firearms, Ammo Mark Chesnut Since the historical 2022 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, anti-gun politicians in the Empire State have instituted a number of schemes to continue infringing on the Second Amendment rights of citizens. The latest such effort by anti-gun Democrat lawmakers is a proposed tax on guns and ammo in an attempt to make it too expensive for the average New Yorker to keep and bear arms. “If they cannot outright confiscate your firearms, they will make sure you cannot afford to buy or shoot them,” NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) wrote in a recent legislative update. “Former Chief Justice John Marshall once famously proclaimed that ‘the power to tax is the power to destroy.’ Albany Democrats understand this axiom all too well, and this appears to be the motivation behind their latest push.” The measure, S. 5813-A would impose an 11% excise tax on the sale of all firearms and ammunition in the state. Of course, violent criminals, who mostly get their guns through illegal means, would not be affected by the proposal—only law-abiding gun owners. To add insult to injury, the bill would take the newly stolen “tax dollars” and launder them into a Gun Violence Prevention and School Safety Program, also created by the legislation. The measure states: “All taxes, interest, and penalties collected or received by the commissioner under this article shall be deposited and disposed of pursuant to the provisions of section one hundred seventy-one-a of this chapter, provided that an amount equal to one hundred percent collected under this article less any amount determined by the commissioner to be reserved by the comptroller for refunds or reimbursements shall be paid by the comptroller to the credit of the gun violence prevention and school safety fund established by section ninety-nine-uu of the state finance law.” “We can only imagine what that is going to fund,” NRA-ILA wrote. “The bill also has provisions for databases and gun dealer inspections. This is truly a very bad bill and needs to be stopped!” As NRA-ILA pointed out, the bill is currently in the Senate Budget and Revenue Committee, but it likely won’t be there long. Consequently, New York gun owners need to contact their state senator immediately and express their opposition to the measure. Fortunately, NRA-ILA provides an avenue for contacting lawmakers about the bill. Click here to sign a letter to lawmakers concerning the measure. “As a fellow New Yorker, I urge you to oppose S. 5813-A in your committee,” the letter states. “S. 5813-A imposes an 11 percent excise tax on the sale of all firearms and ammunition. This does nothing to address crime in the state and only penalizes lawful gun owners.”
Retail Safety & Business Safety: Protecting People, Property, and Peace of Mind By Gregory Kielma-Tactical K Training and Firearms Safety isn’t a luxury in business—it’s a responsibility. Whether you’re running a small retail shop or managing a large commercial operation, the goal is the same: create an environment where employees feel confident, customers feel welcome, and risks are minimized long before they become incidents. In my work training individuals and organizations, I’ve seen one truth repeat itself: safety succeeds when it’s intentional, consistent, and built into everyday habits. The Foundation: Awareness and Prevention Most safety failures don’t happen because people don’t care—they happen because people get comfortable. In retail and business settings, that comfort can lead to blind spots. Strong safety starts with: • Clear expectations for staff • Consistent routines that reinforce good habits • A culture where people speak up when something feels off When employees understand why safety matters, they take ownership of it. Retail Safety: Protecting the Front Line Retail environments are unique. You’re balancing customer service, inventory, cash handling, and public interaction—all at once. That creates a mix of risks that require proactive planning. Key priorities include: • Customer flow and store layout: Clear aisles, visible exits, and well lit spaces reduce accidents and deter theft. • Employee training: Staff should know how to handle suspicious behavior, de escalate tense situations, and respond to emergencies. • Inventory and cash controls: Simple procedures—two person counts, secure storage, and limited access—go a long way. • Slip, trip, and fall prevention: The most common retail injury is also the most preventable with routine checks and quick cleanup. Retail safety is about protecting both the people who walk in the door and the people who keep the doors open. Business Safety: Systems, Structure, and Accountability Beyond retail, every business—office, warehouse, service provider—faces its own set of risks. The principles stay the same, but the scale changes. Strong business safety includes: • Emergency planning: Fire, medical, weather, and security responses should be practiced, not just posted on a wall. • Workplace ergonomics: Proper lifting, workstation setup, and equipment use prevent long term injuries. • Access control: Know who belongs in your building and who doesn’t. • Technology and cybersecurity: Physical and digital safety go hand in hand. A breach in one often leads to a breach in the other. • Leadership involvement: Safety only works when management models it and supports it. A safe business is an efficient business. When people feel secure, they perform better. The Human Factor: Training Makes the Difference Policies and equipment matter, but people make safety real. Training—hands on, scenario based, and relevant—builds confidence and competence. Employees should know how to: • Recognize hazards • Respond to medical emergencies • Use fire extinguishers • Communicate during a crisis • Protect themselves and others When training is practical and relatable, it sticks. Safety Is an Investment, Not an Expense Gregg Kielma
Gaston Glock Engineer and Innovator (Deceased) Why I Consider the Glock One of the Best Firearms Made My Personal Experience's and Recommendation Gregg Kielma-Tactical K Training and Firearms 4/5/2026 Agree or disagree these are my thoughts on Glock Firearms. Let's take a look. What are your thoughts? As a firearms instructor, business owner, and someone who has spent countless hours on the range with shooters of every skill level, I’ve learned that a “good firearm” isn’t defined by hype, price tag, or trends. It’s defined by performance, consistency, and the ability to support responsible ownership. That’s exactly why Glock stands out as one of the best firearm platforms available today. I've carried the exact same Glock Gen3 9x19 as my CCW for the past 40 years and never, ever a jam or malfunction. 30K plus rounds and counting. GLOCK Unmatched Reliability in Real Conditions A firearm’s first job is to work every single time. Glock pistols have earned their reputation for reliability because they function in heat, cold, rain, dirt, sweat, and stress. I’ve seen student's limp wrist, under grip, or run low quality ammo — and the Glock still cycles. That level of consistency builds confidence, especially for new shooters. Simple, Safe, and Intuitive Design Glock’s design philosophy is straightforward: fewer parts, fewer failure points. Their Safe Action System provides consistent trigger pull and built in safety without unnecessary complexity. For training, this matters. Students learn faster, retain skills better, and spend more time focusing on fundamentals rather than fighting the gun. Easy to Maintain, Easy to Trust A Glock can be field stripped in seconds, cleaned quickly, and put back into service without special tools or advanced gunsmithing knowledge. For responsible owners, this means less downtime, lower maintenance costs, and a firearm that stays ready. Ergonomics That Work for Real People Glock frames are designed to fit a wide range of hands, and their grip angle promotes natural point of aim. Whether I’m working with a brand-new shooter or a seasoned professional, the platform adapts well. Add in interchangeable backstraps and accessory compatibility, and you have a firearm that grows with the shooter. Proven Worldwide Law enforcement agencies, military units, and civilian defenders across the globe rely on Glock. That level of adoption isn’t accidental — it’s earned through decades of performance under pressure. When professionals trust a tool with their lives, it says something. A Platform That Supports Training and Growth From dry fire practice to advanced defensive courses, Glock pistols support skill development at every level. Their predictable recoil, consistent trigger, and durable construction make them ideal for building accuracy, speed, and confidence. Kielma’s Parting Shot: A firearm should be dependable, safe, and practical. Glock checks every box. It’s a platform I trust, a platform I teach with, and a platform I recommend because it empowers responsible owners to protect themselves and their families with confidence. If you want a firearm that performs when it matters, grows with your skills, and stands up to real world use, a Glock is one of the best choices you can make. Gregg Kielma
Six Reasons Why I Chose Not to Participate, Advertise, Sell At or Attend Gun Shows By Gregory Kielma 04/05/2026 I get asked this a lot, and people are often surprised when I tell them I don’t go to gun shows. As someone who lives and breathes firearms education, safety, and responsible ownership, you’d think I’d be the first one through the door. But the truth is simple: gun shows don’t align with the standards I expect for myself or for the people I train. 1. Safety Standards Are Inconsistent My entire profession is built on safety—real, disciplined, accountable safety. At gun shows, the environment is crowded, rushed, and full of people handling firearms with varying levels of experience. I’ve seen too many fingers on triggers, too many muzzles pointed in unsafe directions, and too many vendors who assume everyone knows what they’re doing. When you run a training business, you don’t get to “hope” people follow the rules. You need structure, control, and consistency. Gun shows simply don’t offer that. 2. I Prefer Verified, Traceable, Professional Transactions As an FFL and instructor, I take compliance seriously. Every transfer, every background check, every piece of paperwork matters. At gun shows, the culture often leans toward speed and convenience over clarity and compliance. Even when everything is legal, the environment can feel rushed and chaotic. I’d rather deal with reputable shops, trusted distributors, or direct manufacturers—people who value professionalism as much as I do. 3. The Information Isn’t Always Accurate One of the biggest issues I see is misinformation. You’ll hear people giving advice that ranges from outdated to downright dangerous. Whether it’s legal interpretations, self-defense myths, or technical claims about firearms, gun shows can become an echo chamber of bad information. My job is to teach people the truth—about safety, about the law, and about responsible ownership. I can’t endorse environments where the loudest voice often wins over the most accurate one. 4. I Don’t Need the “Gun Show Culture” There’s a culture at gun shows that just doesn’t fit who I am or what Tactical K Training and Firearms stands for. I’m not interested in the theatrics, the bravado, or the “look at me” attitude that sometimes shows up in those spaces. Firearms aren’t toys, props, or personality boosters. They’re tools that demand respect. I’d rather spend my time with people who want to learn, grow, and handle firearms with maturity and purpose. 5. My Time Is Better Spent Serving My Community Between teaching classes, maintaining equipment, staying current on laws, and running a business, my time is valuable. I’d rather invest it in my students, my range, and my community—not wandering aisles looking at gear I don’t need and listening to conversations I don’t agree with. 6. I Already Have Access to Better Resources As an instructor and FFL, I already have access to quality firearms, parts, and equipment through trusted channels. I don’t need to dig through tables hoping to find a deal. I’d rather buy once, buy right, and know exactly where my equipment came from. Kielma’s Parting Shot: In the End, It’s About Standards I’m not saying gun shows are inherently bad. Plenty of good people go to them. Plenty of vendors run honest tables. But for me—for the standards I hold myself to and the example I set for my students—they just don’t make sense. I’d rather operate in environments where safety is non-negotiable, information is accurate, and professionalism is the baseline. That’s what Tactical K Training and Firearms is built on, and that’s what I stand for. Gregg Kielma
Why Some Lawmakers Target Law Abiding Firearm Owners: Understanding the Motives Gregg Kielma-Tactical K Training and Firearms 4/3/2026 From my perspective as a firearms instructor who works every day with responsible, vetted, law abiding gun owners, it’s frustrating to watch certain lawmakers push policies that seem to single out the very people who follow the rules. When legislation focuses on restricting or burdening lawful ownership rather than addressing criminal behavior, it raises an important question: why are responsible citizens being treated as the problem? Several motives are commonly discussed by critics of these policies. 1. A Belief That More Regulation Equals More Safety Some lawmakers operate under the assumption that increasing restrictions on ownership will reduce violence. Critics argue that this approach oversimplifies the issue and ends up targeting people who already comply with the law, rather than those who ignore it. 2. Political Pressure From Advocacy Groups Gun control organizations often lobby aggressively for sweeping restrictions. Lawmakers who align with these groups may support policies that appear tough on guns, even if those policies primarily affect lawful owners rather than criminals. 3. A Misunderstanding of Firearm Culture and Training Many legislators proposing strict regulations have limited experience with firearms, training, or the realities of responsible ownership. Without firsthand knowledge, it’s easy for them to view all gun ownership through the lens of fear or unfamiliarity, rather than skill, safety, and personal responsibility. 4. A Focus on Symbolic Legislation Some proposals are designed to “look” like action is being taken, even if the measures don’t meaningfully address crime. Magazine bans, licensing schemes, and restrictions on common firearms often fall into this category. Critics argue these laws create political talking points rather than real solutions. 5. A Shift Toward Government Control Over Individual Rights Another concern raised by opponents is that certain lawmakers view the Second Amendment as outdated or overly broad. Instead of seeing it as a fundamental right, they treat it as a privilege that should be tightly regulated. This mindset naturally leads to policies that burden lawful owners while doing little to deter criminals. 6. Urban Centered Policy Making Many of the strongest gun control proposals come from lawmakers representing dense urban districts where gun ownership is less common and crime is more visible. Their constituents may support strict laws, even if those laws negatively impact rural or suburban residents who use firearms responsibly for sport, training, or protection. Kielma’s Parting Shot: The Bottom Line From my point of view, the issue isn’t that lawmakers “hate” lawful gun owners — it’s that many of them misunderstand who we are and what responsible ownership looks like. Instead of focusing on criminals, they often default to regulating the people who already follow the rules. That’s why it’s so important for trained, responsible firearm owners to stay informed, stay engaged, and continue educating the public about what real safety and responsibility look like. Gregg Kielma
