HAVE A GREAT LABOR DAY WEEKEND!

From ZT KNIVES

NAME OF THE GENTLEMAN IN THE PICTURE

For those of you who do not know who the
GENTLEMAN/MASTER HANDGUNNER, in the picture is, let me introduce you to the late Col. Retire Marine, founder of the the GUNSITE TRAINING ACADEMY, & FATHER OF THE MODERN COMBAT PISTOL, COL. JEFF COPPER! 

THIS IS SO TRUE!

I don't know the origin of this, but truer words have never been spoken.

Test....Do You Know Who This Is?

I will post his name in a couple days.

Handgun Combatives….Dave Spaulding

After yesterday's post, I received a number of e-mails asking what drills I regularly practice or what I thought of this drill or that drill. FYI my current column in HANDGUNS Magazine discusses shooter fascination with certain drills. Let me reiterate here...A DRILL IS NOT THE FIGHT! Too many shooters are relating combat competency to particular drills and I think this is dangerous! It is obviously due to no frame of reference as few people have faces death in armed conflict. While I mentioned the 2 Second Drill as a self-evaluation of particular skills I do not practice any particular drill...I PRACTICE SKILLS! To successfully complete any drill, whether it is shooting or open hand combat, the skills in the drill should be practiced...trigger control, drawing from the holster, reloading, presentation from ready...not the drill itself. It does not matter if it is the 2x2x2, the FAST or the El Prez', shooting the drill over and over is a waste of...

AWESOME COMBO!

NOW IT'S JUST A MATTER OF GETTING THE PROPER
TRAINING.  YOUR GEAR IS IMPORTANT BUT YOUR TRAINING IS MORE IMPORTANT!

EXCELLENT ANALOGY OF THE GEORGE ZIMMERMAN INCIDENT

The Unmeritorious Prosecution of George Zimmerman

Analysis by Marty Hayes, J.D.

Note: We deviate from the format of our normal lead article to give Network President Marty Hayes, J.D. the leeway to analyze the recent criminal prosecution of George Zimmerman, as viewed through Hayes’ experience as a former police officer, expert witness and self-defense instructor. The reader will recognize that Hayes’ opinion permeates this article, as removing his observations would reduce the lessons armed citizens should learn from this incident. —Editor

As I absorb the details of the jury trial and acquittal of George Zimmerman, several issues are foremost in my mind. These I would like to share with our members, and unless a new Federal charge is brought against Zimmerman (which I doubt) or a civil suit against him from Trayvon Martin’s estate (more likely), this will conclude our discussion of the Zimmerman case. Additionally, this review of the case is drawn from the court proceedings and other evidence that may not have made it into court.

Pre-Confrontation

Most trial watchers and the media have finally acknowledged that Zimmerman did not ignore or disregard the dispatcher’s orders not to follow Trayvon Martin. Media commentators and other ignorant individuals persist in calling Zimmerman a “night watchman,” though. This is pure, unadulterated crap. The term “night watchman” conjures up images of a guy walking around at night, flashlight in one hand and billy club in the other, keeping an eye on things. This was not George Zimmerman, nor does it describe the role Block Watch plays in our neighborhoods.

Recently the media-driven narrative has shifted from asking, “Why did Zimmerman follow Martin?” to “Why didn’t Zimmerman confront Martin, identify himself as a Block Watch representative, and question Martin’s actions?” This is not the role of the Block Watch program, either. The purpose of neighborhood watch is to observe and report suspicious activity and be a good partner to law enforcement.

The Retreat at Twin Lakes neighborhood in Sanford, Florida had been beleaguered by burglaries and at least one home invasion robbery. In response to these crimes, the neighborhood invited the Sanford Police to help them form a Block Watch program. Zimmerman was later appointed by his neighbors to act as Block Watch captain, also referred to as a Block Watch contact. This took place several months before the incident we’re discussing, and during the time leading up to February 26, 2012 Zimmerman had called the police non-emergency line at least five times to report suspicious persons, in addition to the call he made to the non-emergency line the night of the shooting, which we have all heard.

Many, many people have called George Zimmerman an idiot for getting out of his car. I fully disagree. He was perhaps guilty of being naïve and uneducated about carrying a gun for self defense (so much for the efficacy of mandatory training for obtaining a concealed carry license), but I cannot see a single thing he did wrong. Let me repeat. HE DID NOTHING WRONG! Are we becoming such a nation of wimps, that a full-grown man cannot even keep an eye on a suspicious person in his neighborhood?

He was part of the neighborhood watch program, for God’s sake! Frankly, I think I would like George as a neighbor. He seems like a stand-up guy. For those who ask why he got out of his car to keep an eye on a suspicious character in his neighborhood, I say, “grow a set.” As we know, Zimmerman got out of his car to keep an eye on Martin after Martin circled Zimmerman’s car, all the while having his hand in his waistband, according to Zimmerman. After Martin started running from Zimmerman, Zimmerman apparently tried to keep an eye on him but lost him in the darkness. (Remember, Martin was wearing dark clothing). The dispatcher, hearing the wind blow against the phone and Zimmerman breathing heavily, realized that Zimmerman was on the move and asked, “Are you following him?” He then told Zimmerman, “You don’t need to do that,” so Zimmerman turned back towards his vehicle. Zimmerman didn’t know his exact location, unable to see any street signs or house numbers, so he told the dispatcher to have the arriving cops call him and they would then rendezvous. With that call disconnected, the next several minutes went undocumented, except for Zimmerman’s statement after the shooting. We do know, though, that Martin did not go back to his father’s home (which was only a hundred yards or so away) but instead, hung around in the dark, talking on his phone to Rachel Jeantel. The Confrontation According to Jeantel, she listened to some of the initial discussion between Zimmerman and Martin, then heard a noise that sounded like a thud, and what she calls the sound of “wet grass.” She also relates hearing Martin tell Zimmerman to “get off, get off.” I do not find this credible because it is at odds with any other information from any of the eyewitnesses, nor is there any forensic evidence that Zimmerman was on top of Martin at any time. Zimmerman had grass on his back, but Martin did not. Martin had wet knees, but Zimmerman did not. Zimmerman had injuries to his face, but Martin did not. Martin had bruising to at least one hand (his left) but there was no bruising on Zimmerman’s hands. Two bleeding lacerations on the back of Zimmerman’s head coincide with his report that his head was being beat against the concrete sidewalk, and of course, Zimmerman’s nose was broken. It seems more likely that what Jeantel heard was Zimmerman telling Martin to “get off, get off” right before the beating and screaming started. Indeed, the best eyewitness, John Good, testified that he saw Martin on top of Zimmerman throwing punches down on Zimmerman. The screaming lasted about 30 seconds. The Martin family identified Martin’s voice as the one heard screaming when a neighbor called 911, and the Zimmerman family identified Zimmerman as the man screaming for help, as did others. Jeantel identified the voice as Martin’s. What was supposedly being done to Martin to make him scream for help for 30 seconds? Perhaps it was when Zimmerman attacked Martin’s fists with his head. Commentators made much about why the screaming stopped immediately after the gunshot. Well, gee, maybe it was because Martin stopped hitting Zimmerman. Without question, Zimmerman shot Martin after being beaten. There is no evidence that Martin suffered any wounds except for the gunshot that killed him. [Continued...]

Articles from the Journal

·         The evidence, as brought forth by expert witness and pathologist Dr. Vincent Di Maio conclusively showed that Martin’s hoodie sweatshirt was in contact with the muzzle of the Kel-Tec 9mm, but that the muzzle of the gun was a few inches away from Martin’s chest when the shot was fired. This can lead to only one conclusion: that Martin was above Zimmerman when the shot was fired. This is the narrative the jury heard, one born out by the facts, and often in Zimmerman’s own words from earlier recordings. This goes against the whole prosecution narrative that Zimmerman pursued Martin and when he caught up to him, he shot him in cold blood. The prosecution narrative was chock full of lies, deceit and emotion. One only had to watch the prosecution’s opening or closing arguments to see that the prosecution did not have the facts on their side.

·         The Prosecution

·         I watched about two-thirds of the trial and recognized a desperate attempt by the State of Florida to convince six jurors that George Zimmerman criminally used deadly force against Trayvon Martin. Because the facts were not on the prosecution’s side, they needed to twist the facts, and bring up witnesses who either lied or massaged their testimony to lend credence to the narrative that Zimmerman hunted down and executed Martin.

·         I was reminded of Massad Ayoob’s theory that juries are not comprised of twelve people too stupid to get out of jury duty, but rather are made up of twelve separate and functioning bullshit detectors. Though numbering only six in the Sanford, FL courtroom, those jurors saw through the web of lies and emotion to understand the facts as they truly were.

·         I have often seen the same dynamic played out in other cases when other juries saw through the prosecutions’ lies and deceit.

·         I was enthralled watching defense attorneys Mark O’Mara and Don West tear apart the prosecution’s case point by point. A lot of commentary by the talking heads wondered if the defense needed to put on a case at all, seeming to believe that the prosecution failed to prove the elements of second-degree murder. Of course, O’Mara and West understood that the judge in this case could likely give a manslaughter instruction, too, and thus they did need to put on a defense. And so they did.

·         The defense introduced solid witnesses, like the Federal Air Marshal who was Zimmerman’s friend. They brought in expert testimony by Dr. Vincent Di Maio, who taught the jury about the facts of the altercation.

·         And then there were Zimmerman’s own words, clearly heard, presented courtesy of the state of Florida, although Zimmerman himself did not testify in his own trial. In an attempt to prove that Zimmerman was criminally liable for the death of Martin, the state chose to play for the jury the police recording made the night of the incident, then played the recording of the next day’s scene walk through with Zimmerman and Detective Serino, and then, to top it all off, they played Sean Hannity’s interview with George Zimmerman. The State hoped to highlight some minor inconsistencies in these various statements to prove that Zimmerman was being deceitful and thus was guilty of murder.
 

·         We here at the Network have long understood and promoted the argument that one should not give detailed statements to the police immediately after the incident. In this case, it worked out in favor of Zimmerman, but this is the exception that proves the rule. I am really fascinated that these statements were theoretically not admissible in court because they are considered hearsay statements. The defense could have objected to bringing the videotapes into the trial.

·         What would have been the likely outcome? Without the video statements, the jury would not have known the story as told by George Zimmerman. As a result, he would probably have needed to take the stand in his defense, so the jury could understand his side of the story. But, if Zimmerman had testified, the State would have been able to present the video tapes as an exception to the hearsay rule, stating that the video tapes were rebuttal evidence to Zimmerman’s courtroom testimony. Or, perhaps the tapes would have been admitted over objection anyway, as they could have been offered as exception to the hearsay rule by virtue of being statements against interest. Were they really statements against interest? I am not sure, but given the nature of Judge Debra Nelson and her obvious bias against the defense, I suspect she likely would have allowed them in. In any event, the tapes were golden for Zimmerman, because it allowed him the luxury of not needing to testify, but yet to have his story told in his own words, without being cross-examined.

·         The Verdict

·         As we all know, the jury deliberated for about 16 hours and came back with a verdict of not guilty.

·         I am frankly amazed that this jury seemed to be unaffected by what they heard about the case ahead of time. I believe they would have convicted Zimmerman of either manslaughter or murder if given half a chance, supported by at least a few facts to bolster the prosecutor’s theory of the case. One juror has publicly stated that she wanted to convict George Zimmerman but because of strict reading of the law, she had to vote for acquittal.

·         What might have been the outcome if the State could have shown even a hint of malice? For example, what if there had been evidence that Zimmerman had a history of racism, if he had tweeted or otherwise left a digital trail of racist comments? At that point, the prosecution would have had their hook, and likely convicted Zimmerman of murder.

·         Lessons Learned

·         So, what lessons can members of the Armed Citizens’ Legal Defense Network take away from this case?

·         We can start by understanding that there are many people in this country who hate armed citizens. They hate everything we stand for. They will jump on any excuse to eliminate our ability to own and use guns in self defense. Attacking the armed citizen as the State of Florida attacked George Zimmerman is just one example. I saw it several years ago in Arizona in the Larry Hickey case, and I saw it again earlier this year in Pennsylvania, in political prosecutions of innocent men who did nothing more than defend themselves in a reasonable belief they were in danger of dying or suffering great bodily injury. And of course, the prosecution of George Zimmerman was political.

It is not the way it should be, but it is reality. Accept this reality and take legitimate steps to counter it. “What steps,” you ask? Well, first we can live our lives squeaky clean, free of any hint of racism, gender bashing, or any other type of activity that could be brought up in court to show hatred against any group of persons. Face it, if you are a white male and in self defense kill someone who is a member of a minority class typically protected by the liberal left, AND you live in a jurisdiction that has an anti-gun prosecutor, your case of self defense will very likely become headline news, if not nationally, at least locally. It is my understanding that early on in the Zimmerman case, the Martin family hired a public relations firm to bombard the news media with pro-Trayvon information and anti-Zimmerman information. Once Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and others got involved, the script had been written. If YOU are the next George Zimmerman, and there are hints of racism or other prejudice in your history, then you might not come out of the trial as well as Zimmerman did. Besides, clearing your head of prejudicial thoughts is good for the soul. Secondly, you need to make sure your training resumé is current and up to date. When was the last time you took a class from a well-respected firearms instructor, one who understands the legal system and who would be an asset to you in court? First, we go to class to learn how to shoot and to learn the legal issues surrounding use of deadly force in self defense. But, are we going back to train once a year or so? If you don’t keep training, you will lose a step or two. Plus, it would be handy to have your latest instructor on the witness stand to explain how your actions were consistent with the information he taught you in that class last year. Zimmerman could have used that kind of material witness. Having had recent and current training in deadly force law might just keep you out of court. It did just that for a student of mine several years ago. The quick story is that a student had pulled a gun and threated a couple others who were threatening him with pool cues. Later, when the student was charged with assault, his training records from my shooting school went a long way towards convincing the prosecutor that a plea bargain was a better option than prosecution. I was prepared to testify on his behalf and the prosecutor knew this. I saw the same outcome for another student of mine a couple years later. Of course, the Network DVDs are a big help, but there is nothing like a local, upstanding citizen on the stand looking their neighbors (the jury) in the eye and telling them what they need to hear. Third, inspect your hardware, and make sure it doesn’t offend. Would a 75-year-old great grandmother who has never touched a gun in her life be offended by the appearance of your gun? I once testified in a case in which the defendant had nickel plated his Taurus PT-40, gold plated the trigger and had his name inscribed on the side of the gun.   [Continued...]

Articles from the Journal

Perhaps that was not the best move. Now, it is all the rage to have cutesy little designs inscribed on the back plate of your carry Glock. I have also seen the skull and cross bones depicted more than once, and the small inscription “smile and wait for the flash” engraved on the exposed barrel crown of your pistol is an invitation to be prosecuted. Next comes the decades-old advice to never alter your carry gun to reduce trigger pull weight below five pounds or deactivate a safety on the gun. In the 1980s and 1990s, a lot of people pinned the grip safeties on 1911s because their shooting grip would not depress it. Browning put a magazine disconnect safety in the Hi-Power pistol design, but many people remove it. A long time ago, I bought a Walther PPK from a student who received a gun collection in a divorce. On the Walter’s right side grip panel was glued a CIA logo. I have long since parted with the Walther, but kept the “strange ranger” grip as a curiosity, though I would never use it. No wonder my student divorced the guy! Just last night I reviewed a trial transcript where a state crime lab firearms examiner spent a good 15 minutes on the stand discussing the safety features and trigger weight of a Glock pistol. If she had found any anomalies, then these would have become a large part of the case. As the gun was stock, she was not able to raise any issues. If George Zimmerman’s Kel-Tec 9mm had been somehow modified, I can only imagine what would have been said in trial! Keep your guns stock, and if you do modify a gun, do it for the right reasons, like a grip reduction to make the gun fit your hand better or install better sights. These upgrades can be explained easily enough, but that is not true for some of the others previously mentioned. The fourth lesson to be learned also has to do with hardware, but the expendable kind. Ammunition selection is important in a self-defense case. By the close of the year, I will have testified in four cases where the specific ammunition brand was a talking point of the case. These inquiries delved primarily into gunshot residue and powder stippling (for close range gun shots) and recoil dynamics in two of the four. Without being able to obtain the same type of ammunition for the testing procedures (done by myself in three of the four cases, and done by the crime lab in the fourth case), the facts would not have been as clear for the juries. In the Zimmerman case, two forensic pathologists opined on gunshot residue and stippling. Much can be determined about distance and orientation by the stippling pattern. That is why the ammunition you use should be easy to obtain, either over the counter or from the manufacturer. [Continued...]

It should NOT be a rare, exotic design, but instead a traditional hollow point. And, the icing on the cake would be if it was the same caliber and type as your local police officers carry.

Point number five has to do with choosing attorneys and being able to pay for them. Zimmerman ended up with two fine defense attorneys, both who outclassed the prosecution in a big way. I liked watching O’Mara and West because they complemented each other. While I don’t know their background in self-defense law, they seemed pretty up to speed on what they needed to accomplish. Perhaps the seven educational DVDs from the Network that I sent them early on helped in some small way. I was also very interested in watching the fund-raising efforts, as seen athttp://www.gzdefensefund.com/donate/index.php/how-has-money-been-spent.

If you don’t want to take the time to read through that link’s online reporting, understand that according to the Zimmerman fund website, he has raised and spent over $400,000 for his defense, which includes $95,000 for the bail bondsman, money he will not get back.

That is likely a record for a self-defense case, and one that I sincerely hope we never try to break. But, the expenses are now fact, so let’s address the issue of legal costs and the Network Legal Defense Fund.

The Network is now closing in on having $300,000 in the fund, and we should be there in another month or two. Obviously, a case like George Zimmerman’s would hit our fund hard. Recognizing this, while we watched the fund grow over the past several years, we have put into place procedures to administer the money. The first check point is the Advisory Board, consisting of Massad Ayoob, Dennis Tueller, Tom Givens, John Farnam, James Fleming and Manny Kapelsohn, along with Vincent Shuck and me as ex-officio members. The advisory board will ultimately decide how the fund is disbursed, but having said that, as President of the Network, I would scream very loudly and stomp my feet if they decided to spend over half the fund on any single case.

If Zimmerman had been a Network member, he would likely have received $125,000 at the most. This would have given him a pretty good start, but obviously additional fundraising would have still been needed. That is where the power of the Network could and likely would come into play. There is nothing stopping each and every member of the Armed Citizens’ Legal Defense Network (all 7,500 of you, at this writing) from kicking in money for defense of any individual member.

If George had been a member, and we needed to raise additional money, I would have asked the membership to kick in another $50 or so per member.
 

Assuming we all participated, thinking, “There but for the grace of God, go I,” we could have raised an additional $350,000 pretty darn quickly. Plus, we would have likely raised additional money from outside Network membership using publicity as the Zimmerman defense team successfully did with www.gzdefensefund.com. So, please understand, folks, that the likelihood of a member needing serious financial assistance and not having it available is fairly remote. The power of the Network first and foremost lies in the strength of our members and the ability for us to go directly to the membership for more help, if needed. Occasionally we receive emails questioning the ethics of our Legal Defense Fund disbursement oversight, implying that it is set up as a means for the advisory board to simply refuse to help any member. It is insulting, but apparently these folks think we intend to keep the money for ourselves. It pains me to even address this issue, as the people we have recruited for the board are the highest caliber of people I know. When they are called to make Legal Defense Fund decisions, I have full trust that they will do their job correctly and efficiently and with the utmost integrity. Since up to now, members have only needed us to pay deposits against attorney fees, we have yet to need to go to the Advisory Board with a funding request, but I suspect that day is coming. Finally, although the Legal Defense Fund is technically a financial asset of the Network (since it allows us to provide the financial assistance part of the member benefits), we view the fund as a separate asset kept in separate bank accounts, not a cash cow for the Network. Watching the Zimmerman case has brought up a plethora of attorney selection questions and requests for related advice. Please do not fret that you do not have Mark O’Mara’s card in your wallet. Remember that for the first couple of months after the shooting, Zimmerman either had no attorney or had another attorney involved in the case. It is perfectly acceptable and commonplace to switch attorneys early in a case as Zimmerman did. If a member ended up embroiled in such a high profile case, the Network would likely take the steps to recruit a “dream team” including lawyers who’ve successfully defended similar cases, even if it means bringing them in from out of state, if necessary. Conclusion The astute reader will have, by now, realized that the lessons we took away from the Zimmerman case by and large centered on the normal issues in any self-defense case. We have discussed most of these issues before and it is not lost on me, that despite the extreme notoriety and public discussion about race and self defense, when it all came down to it, George Zimmerman’s case was just another self-defense case. Except for the publicity, it was no different than most any other self-defense case out there.   [End of Article.

Interesting!

I always said, "THEY DON'T HAVE TO TAKE THE GUNS, JUST TAKE WHAT GOES IN THEM"!

DHS Ammo Grab: No Longer “Conspiracy” But Plain Reality

It now seems clear that the Department of Homeland Security’s stockpiling of ammunition and other warfare supplies can no longer be dismissed as “conspiracy theory,” but is a very real development in the actions of an overreaching federal government.

Many have suggested and assumed that the ammo and gun shortage experienced across the country is the result of private citizens’ unprecedented purchases, in recent years, in preparation for impending gun control measures. While this is true in part, it is only half of the logical explanation that can be assessed based upon available facts.

This phenomenon has been described as creating a perfect storm for private gun owners when paired with the reality that the DHS and other federal agencies are buying up once-available guns and ammunition like never before. Mainstream news sources such as Rawstory and Media Matters have attacked Fox News’ Lou Dobbs and others for their statements affirming that the government has indeed purchased at least 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition (especially including hollow points), 7000 fully automatic assault rifles, and 2700 new light armored vehicles, as well as riot gear including body armor. DHS has also invested $2 million with a contractor that recently apologized for its production of shooting targets depicting elderly gun owners and even pregnant women and children in residential settings, after photos and publicity of the targets recently gained widespread exposure.

As it turned out, these claims have proven to be very accurate, as even Media Matters admitted that DHS officials made the 1.6 billion rounds purchase as they were also busy denying it. The organization also insisted that “the order for 2717 new light armored vehicles [came] from the United States Marine Corps – not the Department of Homeland Security.” This claim seems baseless, as all photos have clearly shown the DHS emblem emblazoned on the tanks in question.

All these dismissive reports against the supposedly “misleading” claim of the DHS stockpiling effort can be traced back to a February 14 Associated Press report, lacking any investigative basis, that simply repeated the statement from DHS official Peggy Dixon, who claimed the bulk ammo purchases to have been made in order to save money, and that the bullets were solely intended for military and federal law enforcement training purposes. This claim becomes weaker upon consideration that hollow-point ammunition is significantly more expensive than standard rounds, and military spokesmen and ammunition experts contend that such bullets are unsuitable for training purposes and have never been used for such a purpose.

Seemingly, at the very least, even if the government isn’t preparing to make war against its own people, they are preparing for civil unrest, which is suspect enough for the warranted concern of the American people. The government may well be, however, deliberately attempting to restrict the supply of ammunition, thus the functionality of firearms, from the American people. It has never been a well-kept secret that the Obama administration is no big fan of the Second Amendment. The longstanding fears of many have begun to be shared by several of our elected officials who are increasingly becoming more vocal in their concerns about the government’s attempt to strip citizens of their right to keep and bear arms. Recently, as a guest on Aaron Klein’s radio show, Oklahoma Republican Sen. James Inholfe accused the Obama administration of buying up unprecedented levels of ammunitions as a means to intentionally bypass the Second Amendment until law-abiding citizens “can’t even buy ammunition because government is purchasing so much.” Inholfe cited last month’s testimony from DHS Chief Procurement Officer Nick Nayak who said DHS has the right to buy up as much ammunition as it deems necessary. He mentioned that the ammo grab is an ongoing concern, as even still “they’re planning to buy 750 million rounds. Well, that is more than three times the amount that our soldiers are using for training to defend our nation. So, it’s just another effort to restrict gun activity and ownership.” The senator is in the process of introducing the Ammunition Management for More Obtainability (AMMO) bill that will limit “non-defense, armed federal agencies to pre-Obama levels of ammunition.”

There now seems to be ample evidence that our federal government, namely the Obama administration, is up to no good when it comes to the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding American citizens. Historically speaking, this is a very alarming cause for concern. Hopefully, this concern then will continue to be shared by more elected officials in our local, state, and federal governments, as well as among our military and law enforcement communities. Lou Dobbs likely said it best with the following statement: “It’s like I tell anyone who brushes off what I try to tell them as simple ‘conspiracy theory.’ At some point it stops being a theory, and is in fact a conspiracy. I also remind them that we’re not talking about science fiction or aliens here. We’re talking about the very REAL potential of government misconduct towards its own people; something that has happened time and time again in history.”

That's me!!!

Interesting article

Written by; Todd Green

A friend of mine emailed last week to say that his small police department in Ohio was switching from the .40-cal pistols they’ve been carrying for years to a new 9mm. Just yesterday, local papers in South Dakota announced that the Sioux Falls PD was also switching from .40 to 9mm.

Quieter and still happening behind the scenes, two major federal agencies are both considering a move from their current sidearms to 9mm. Between the two they represent almost 20,000 armed personnel.

It’s a growing trend and, in my opinion, one that is long overdue.

Look at the photo (left). Even from just arm’s length away it’s hard to discern any real difference between the huge .45 Auto on the left and the tiny9×19 on the right compared to something like a Surefire 6Z flashlight. (kids, that’s a flashlight the dinosaurs used to hunt cavemen during the Cantakerous Era)

The huge shift in American law enforcement to the .40 S&W in the mid-90s is often seen as proof that it’s more effective at stopping bad people from doing bad things. But that’s not how the .40 proliferated so quickly among LE agencies. The .40 S&W’s popularity is owed almost completely to the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and its limitation on magazine capacity.

<Archer voice> Gasp you should! </voice>

The AWB allowed gun manufacturers to buy back previously issued LE magazines and resell them on the commercial market. That made all those used, abused, high capacity magazines worth their weight in gold. So manufacturers went to agencies and offered to trade them, at no cost, new & improved big-caliber guns for their wimpy little 9mms. The agency got a new gun that fit in its current holsters, replacing old and sometimes completely worn out guns. The administrators and union leaders got to parade the new guns in front of the troops as proof that they were Doing Something Important. And the gun companies got a bunch of guns that they could refurbish for a few dollars and then sell for a small mint simply by supplying one of those pre-ban high capacity magazines in the box.

That’s not idle speculation. I worked for two different major handgun manufacturers during the AWB. That’s how business was done. It made the companies a lot of money and made the LE customers very happy. And in the process it brainwashed many people into thinking that somehow the 9mm was a spitball while the .40 was a cannonball.

Now, decades of experience have proven that no common law enforcement handgun round, whether it’s 9mm, .40, 357, or .45 rises to the mythical “one shot stop” level. With current technology, the hollowpoints being designed and manufactured by the major ammunition companies are all comparable to one another regardless of caliber. Heck, it’s a very poorly kept secret that the FBI considers its current 9mm duty ammo — issued primarily to shooters who cannot handle the .40 during qualification – more effective than the .45 ammo it issues its own SWAT personnel. Why? The 9mm round was developed just a couple years ago. The .45 round is from the mid-90′s. That’s how much JHP design has advanced in 20 years!

The move to 9mm does many things for an agency. First, as alluded to above, it is easier for many marginal shooters to qualify with the lighter recoiling 9mm. That means a lot to law enforcement agency administrators and legal counsel: fewer reshoots (costly in terms of ammo and manpower) and fewer failures (costly in terms of retraining and, all too often, lawsuits). Second, for a given gun the officers have more rounds on board while actually reducing weight.

Third and perhaps most importantly in an age of tax shortfalls and budget cuts, 9mm ammo is just plain cheap. I just got a quote on some .45 ammunition — straight from the same company and at the same price most LE agencies would pay — and compared to the same exact brand in 9mm it was sixty percent more expensive.

9mm: easy to shoot, effective, economical. And it even works in 1911′s.

Train hard & stay safe! ToddG