MAG-80 Lessons Learned, Pt. 2

 Still on the shotgun, but without the fancy language this time.

Lessons Learned Part 2:

2A. If circumstances require you to fire your shotgun one handed, you should do so from cover, using said cover to brace said shotgun.
2B. If, when doing so the slide opens upon firing, do not assume that it has opened far enough to pick up the next shell, even if it has ejected the fired one.

Mas had said that the slide opening was a possibility, for Remington 870s, and  seemed surprised that it happened on a Mossberg. I guess that spray-can gun lube is better than I thought, or the action on my Mossy is smoother than usual. Or, I suppose it could have something to do with having replaced the stock fore-end with the Surefire replacement, with light. 

Anyway, the slide opened, ejected the spent shell, I slammed it shut, not realizing that it had not picked up the next shell, and the bolt was closed on an empty chamber. Since the chamber was empty I had to depress the Action Lock to chamber a shell. On the range doing a drill, this merely slows me (and potentially everyone else) down a second or two, but when the excrement hits the rotary air circulation device...

BTW, if anyone has been following these drivelings for years, I can say that the Surefire fore-end gave me no problem this time around, so possibly the issues I had during the FAS Defensive Shotgun class back in 2015 were due to the Magpul sling adapter.

I was also able to acquire a supply of Federal Low Recoil Tactical slugs, and Low Recoil 8 Pellet 00 Buckshot with the Flite Control wad, which may have also led to a less-punishing experience. 

The other issue I ran into with the 'scattergun was due to having the "Persuader" version of a Mossberg 500, with the 20" barrel and full length magazine. The barricade/cover positions for shotgun call for bracing the front of the mag' tube against the vertical or horizontal cover as a rest -- thus Part B of Lesson 2 above -- but that full length tube puts the muzzle right there, which is less than optimal. Fortunately I had added an after market clamp-on forward sling adapter which served OK as a brace. 

MAG-80 Lessons Learned, Pt. 1

Thou shalt take care when firing slugs from thy Shotgonne with rapidity, lest thy thumb slippeth out of position and ye giveth thyself a Fatte Lippe...

Rangemaster Combative Pistol, Take Two

See also: Rangemaster Combatives Pistol, Take One, which was posted a few weeks ago, when I really thought it would take me a day or two to finish this.

Here is the description of the course curriculum from the Rangemaster Web Site:

This is an intensive weekend course that covers all of the essential skills involved in fighting with a handgun. There is an all day session Saturday and Sunday, 9:00am to 6:00pm.  Topics covered in this course will include:

• Rapid presentation from concealed carry
• Effective gun handling techniques, designed to work under stress
• Rapid reloading techniques
• High speed accuracy at close ranges
• Precision shooting at mid-ranges
• Shooting effectively with one hand, with either hand
• Fixing malfunctions rapidly and reliably
• Proper defensive mindset, personal tactics, and more.

Expect to fire about 800-1,000 rounds of ammunition. This course is designed expressly for the armed citizen who carries a concealed handgun, or the plain clothes or off duty police officer.  You will need a good handgun, holster, belt, and magazine pouch, at least three magazines, a ball cap and concealment garment (vest, jacket, windbreaker, etc), eye and ear protection, and rain gear (we train rain or shine). A cooler with soft drinks and snacks is a very good idea.
You will need a quality handgun and gear. It is a good idea to bring a second gun just like your primary, in case something breaks on your primary gun. Please bring good quality ammunition. You will shoot better, your gun will function better, and you will learn faster. Leather or kydex holsters are fine—PLEASE NO flimsy nylon or cloth holsters.  Your primary instructor will be Tom Givens.

The class started out in the classroom, with the obligatory review of the facilities and of safety rules.

Tom gave a brief introduction to his experiences as a police officer in Memphis, Tennessee; generally ignored by the media is the fact that Memphis has, and has had for decades, a violent crime rate that rivals or exceeds those of Chicago and Detroit.

Tom says that, "not counting active duty military", he has trained over 40,000 people, and that of them he has confirmed that 66 of them have been in gunfights. Of those 66, three have lost the fight.

Tom gives the stats as "63-0-and 3", explaining that all three losses were actually forfeits, since all three violated what has become known as "Rule 1 of Gunfighting: Have a Gun."

We also reviewed the basics of "Defensive Shooting Technique".

Rangemaster Combatives Pistol, Take One

This weekend I took Tom Givens' Rangemaster Combative Pistol class, at West Coast Armory North

• The way you know it was a good class is you walk away from it not sure if you can digest all the learning that occurred.
• AAR/Comments on actual learning that occurred will follow in a day or two three. {edit: OOPS! Sorry, DWD}
• We spent more time on the range than in the classroom, about a 3 to 1 ratio or higher, but the classroom time was well-spent. 
• I've heard some say "If I spend money for a shooting class, I want to shoot, not hear a lecture."
• While some topics lend themselves best to demonstrate/drill on the range, others are really best addressed sitting at a desk, taking notes.
• West Coast Armory North is a nice facility. Three bays with 6 lanes each, well-ventilated, and clean and well-lit. John (owner, who was in the class) mentioned that they are changing out the backstop material later this summer.
• My complaints are two:
  
  1. It's too far north for me, and
  2. After most of the day on my feet, I was wishing John had put in an elevator.
• Seriously, returning to the (upstairs) classroom I felt like I'd just finished a 20 mile ruck march.
• Also, John, I was wrong about no mention on the blog about dancing: There is a reference to The Hot Brass Dance.
• The Detroit Holster Hastings worked well, within its design parameters. 
• I went with the Tek-Lok belt attachment.
• This meant that the holster stuck a quarter inch or so out from my body.
• This meant that there was a little more leverage for the holstered pistol to sag a bit.
• When I got home Saturday night I figured out how to move the spacers -- the Tek-Lok can work with up to a 1.75" belt, and comes with spaces for 1.5" belts -- to take up the slack. 
• I also switched to the Wilderness Frequent Flyer belt, which is a tad stiffer than the 5.11 Double Duty belt I had been wearing.
• Bottom Line: Good holster, not ideal for concealed carry for me. (Maybe the Metro, for concealed carry.)

Ernest Langdon Tactical Pistol Skills AAR, Take 2

The Kent, WA, Police Department hosted Ernest Langdon for his two-day Tactical Pistol Skills course at their indoor range on October 24th and 25th. (And again on the 26th and 27th.) 

Unusually for a class sponsored by a law enforcement agency, it was open enrollment; after securing authorization from the CFO I signed up. (And almost had to cancel, but the Salt Mines decided they didn't need me to help clean up after Hurricane Matthew after all.)   

There were twelve students in the class: 2 Kent PD officers, 3 Federal Way PD officers, and one each from Auburn, Seattle, and the King County Sheriff's department. Most or all of the cops were firearms instructors, SWAT team members, or both.

Besides myself, the "civilians" included a Microsoft engineer, a heavy equipment operator in the logging industry, and a gun 'riter.

10 of the students were shooting Glock 17s or 19s; Rick (logger) was shooting a 1911 in 9mm, which meant That Guy was the only one shooting a full-size 1911 in .45 ACP.

At least 3 of the SWAT officers had RMRs on their Glocks.

The Kent PD's indoor range is located at the Kent Fire and Emergency training complex; I was surprised, because despite the fact that I had done my CERT training up there, had been a member of the Kent Emergency Communications team which meets up there, and that Mrs. Drang and I helped the Kent PD's Public Information Officer teach a Refuse To Be A Victim class there, I no idea there was a range on the premises.

It is a pretty impressive facility, for all that it's unassuming on the outside; the soundproofing is excellent, so that those who usually double-up on ear protection in an indoor range didn't need to. The air system was also over-built ( I believe they told us to three times what is required) and the filters are changed every three months.

The range is set up with six firing positions at the"near" end, but they are built to easily open up and provide minimal obstruction, making one large open bay; the target system seems to use the newer digital controls so that you can precisely control the range. The range is a full 25 yards long, allowing meaningful training with rifles and shotguns.

Unfortunately, health and safety rules completely prohibited food and drink inside the building, which made staying hydrated awkward, to say the least.

Course Description from Langdon Tactical's website:

MAG 40 -- Thoughts

So, it's been just over two months since I took MAG40 at Firearms Academy of Seattle. Before I went, I had noticed that there seemed to be few reviews/AARs of the course on the Internet. I wasn’t sure why, perhaps Massad Ayoob discouraged such, lest proprietary information be revealed?

I am now prepared to state that it more likely that the “drinking from a fire hose” nature of the class makes it difficult, to say the least, to distill the lessons into a blog post.

“Drinking from a fire hose”: That’s the way someone, I think it was Ry Jones, described the class when, at dinner after Ray Carter’s funeral, I explained why I was staying in a motel in Centralia rather than make the hour and a half one way drive to FAS every day.

Anyway.

My notes from the classroom portion run over 30 pages, and I am not done¹ transcribing/editing them; I have no intention of trying to publish multiple uber-posts of the class, but that's what it would take, because I cannot distill the experience into a single post.

But here's an attempt:
(After the jump. It was kind of long...)

"Law of Self Defense", Andrew Branca

On Valentine's Day, Mrs. Drang and I went on a very romantic outing to attend a seminar by Andrew Branca on the Law of Self Defense in Washington and Oregon. Andrew is the author of the book by the same title, available at his web site Law of Self Defense, or on Amazon. Because, after all, what isn't available on Amazon these days? (Ammo. Ammo isn't available on Amazon. And kittens.)(I think.)

As responsible gun owners we all know that, to borrow a phrase from President Reagan, much of what folks know about self-defense just isn't so.  By now one benefit of all those forensic crime shows on TV is that people should be aware of the fact that it is not, in fact, a good idea to shoot the bad guy on your front porch and drag him inside, but that does not mean that common sense necessarily prevails in all cases.

It is a common place to say that you are justified in using deadly force in self-defense if you were in fear for your life or safety, but is it enough to say "I was in fear for my life"? What about the common advice to ask for your lawyer and then clam up, refusing to say anything? What will the police make of that, and what if that lawyer doesn't magically appear right away?

As for the self-defense claim, much of the class was spent going over the 5 factors that go into making up justified acts of self-defense:

1. Innocence
2. Imminence
3. Proportionality
4. Avoidance (we'll come back to this...)
5. Reasonableness

Other topics included Defense of Others, Defense of Property, Consciousness of Guilt (and how it can impact your legal defense),  Self-Defense Immunity, and Interacting with the Police. (These are all straight out of the syllabus. The presentation PowerPoint slides -- yes, I still think PowerPoint is a tool of the devil! -- were available for purchase in a printed, bound book, and I'm glad I did!)(Andrew made good use of it, BTW, speaking to the audience, not the screen, and not simply reading each slide.)

The discussions of each of these topics were salted liberally (pardon the expression) with citations of the statutes, regulations, court decisions and case law, and in some cases jury instructions, that impacted the points being discussed for both Oregon and Washington State.

For example, sources of Self-Defense law in Oregon include:

• Oregon Revised Statutes SS161.190, Justification as a defense
• Case law: State v. Wolf, 317 P.3d (OR Ct. App. 2013)
• Jury Instructions: Uniform Criminal Jury Instructions (UCrJI) No. 1107 Defense-Physical Force-Defense of Person

(Note that Andrew's book goes over much of this statutory material; that is, each chapter discusses key points and has an appendix with citations form statutes and case law form each state where such exists. So if you can't get to his seminar, you can still read his book.)

Part of the reason I have waited two weeks before posting this review of the class is that I have been debating how much I should say about the content. I am not a lawyer. I am not qualified to give legal advice (assuming anyone would be fool enough to take legal advice from a blog post...) So I think that I will just cover a couple of points I found notable, and suggest that, if you are interested, you purchase Andrew's book, and if he does not have a seminar scheduled where you can get to one, you should try and see if a local gun club or range/training facility would be interested in hosting him.

I alluded above to an exception to the "Self Defense Factor" "Avoidance"; this came up as part of a lengthy discussion of "Castle Doctrine" and "Stand Your Ground".

Avoidance imposes a duty to retreat; under certain circumstances there is no duty to retreat. Generally speaking, you have no duty to retreat in your home, AKA "Castle Doctrine". (Unless it is also the home of the person attacking you.) Some states extend the definition of "home" to the boundaries of the home, some stop them at the exterior walls. Even if there is  duty to retreat it only applies if one can do so safely; jumping off a cliff does not count.

Stand Your Ground is different; "SYG" laws generally say something to the effect that "one need not flee an attack if one is where one has a legal right to be."

Note that while "SYG" may be included in statute, it may still be advisable to retreat if one may do so safely! Why be there when trouble comes looking for you? Just because the law says you do not have to avoid it, does not mean you shouldn't make it work...

Washington State is what Andrew referred to as a "Hard" Stand Your Ground jurisdiction, as explained in the Pattern Jury Instructions:

WPIC 16.08 No Duty To Retreat
It is lawful for a person who in a place where that person has a legal right to be and who has reasonable grounds for believing that [he][she] is being attacked to stand [his][her] ground and defend against such attack by the use of lawful force. The law does not impose a duty to retreat.

And also in at least one court opinion:

In Washington, one who is assaulted in a place he has a right to be has no duty to retreat. Flight, however reasonable an alternative to violence, is not required.
State v. Williams, 916 P.2d 445 (WA Ct. App. 1996)

Complicating the Stand Your Ground issue is the possibility of the prosecution in a criminal case, or a lawyer in a civil case, making the argument that you were the aggressor. In this case, you will want witnesses that you made efforts to de-escalate and leave the scene, in order to "regain your innocence", as it were.

Oregon does not have statutory law regarding Stand Your Ground; however, in the 2007 case State v. Sandoval (156 P.3d 60) the Oregon Supreme Court rendered the following opinion :

Nothing in [Oregon self-defense statutes] suggests that a person who reasonably believe that another person is about to use deadly force against them must calculate whether it is possible to retreat from that threat before they use deadly physical force in self defense.

 Which sounds great except that, in a footnote, advised that "a person who wishes to avoid criminal liability may well be required to avoid the danger..."

Which seems prudent anyway, if you can.

On another front, neither Oregon nor Washington State have any self-defense immunity from either criminal prosecution or civil suit. Washington does, however, have a (so far as I know) unique Self-Defense reimbursement law under 9A.16.110 of the Revised Code of Washington, if it is determined in a trail that you acted in self-defense, the state can be required to reimburse you of you for the expenses incurred in defending yourself at trial.

I have never heard of this being done. I am also unaware of any charges being dropped because the prosecutor decided it was not worth it due to this. Nor do I know anyone who has volunteered to be a test case.

I see that I have barely scratched the surface of this seminar. The slide deck ran to nearly 420 slides, counting the conclusion, and I have skipped much material, as much to keep this post a manageable length and to avoid getting over my head on legal technicalities as to avoid getting sued by a lawyer for copyright infringement. (Just kidding!)(I think...)

So I will wrap it up by saying that the experience was well worth the money, and it is highly recommended; if you cannot attend the appropriate session for your state, and are at all concerned about the legal aspects of self-defense, then you should at least read Andrew's book, and see about bringing him to your neck of the woods.


NOTE for Washingtonians: Dave Workman's excellent book Washington Gun Rights and Responsibilities covers a lot of ground that Andrew's book and seminar did not, like Open Carry, where you can and cannot carry in the state, reciprocity, and so forth. Also highly recommended.