Did I hear that right?

[AAllen]

Previously when recommending the NFOA, I would describe it as an excellent forum to go to for general firearms advice, reasonable, sometimes spirited discussion and a great way to become politically active. I'm not so sure now. This was an ugly, knee jerk reaction, fully supported by the moderators. If this is the direction the NFOA is headed I can no longer, in good conscience, endorse it. 

- Shawn

Shawn, First I would like to thank you for your post as an 88 Tactical instructor, and for the clarification you have given as such.  There have been several people who since last Friday have been seeking clarification from the management of 88 Tactical and the only responses we have received if the facebook postings of Mr. Thrasher.  It seemed as though he was speaking for 88 Tactical not himself, if that is incorrect he just compounded the problem that was created by your representative.

If people here and else where are misinterpreting the official position of 88 Tactical I would encourage the management to try to get ahead of this issue.  I know several of the instructors and have met with the management in the past, they are all good people.  In fact I encouraged the creation of the free intro/firearms safety instruction that 88 Tactical does.  We may disagree about some small things but in general we are not very far apart.  The unfortunate matter in this is now Senator Ashford has ammunition to use to try and push unreasonable bills, and that hurts all of us no matter where we fall in the spectrum of firearms owners.

I understand that much of 88 Tactical's Management is at Shot show, but if there is a way to get in touch with them to ask them to get in front of this issue I would encourage it.  As several posters here have said, people have been very happy with the quality of instruction 88 Tactical has delivered, they have also taken a strong position of supporting our community and I applaud that.  I am hopefull that this small misstep can be cleared up and the support that we as an organization and the public as a whole can be restored.

[CitizenClark]

Trevor Thrasher expressed his personal opinion about required training on our Facebook page, a subject that has been discussed civilly on this forum in the past. He isn't the first or only supporter of the 2nd Amendment who believes that the phrase "well regulated" means well trained. Many believe that the Forefathers knew that an untrained Citizen with a gun was dangerous and ineffective, so they added a training mandate. Whether you agree or not, nothing he said deserved the response it received.

The first clause of the Second Amendment doesn't place any restrictions on the right enunciated in the operative clause, about training or anything else. It is a prefatory clause that simply explains a reason for the operative clause. It is similar to if I said in a will, "because I want little Johnny to go to college, I hereby leave $100,000 to him." This is not a restriction or condition on the gift; it is just a statement of the purpose of the gift and an insight into the thoughts of the testator.

[JTH]

Ive been waiting to see how this played out before replying. Frankly this post is rhetorical, I'm not interested in a back and forth, this will be one and done. This is for the benefit of those who haven't posted or new members wondering what the heck this is about.

I did not hear the radio program or see the televised debate. After speaking to other Instructors at 88 tactical it seems that those who were listening issued a simultaneous groan at how we were represented. And once the ball started rolling it seemed impossible to get ahead of it.

Lessons learned; (1) It was a terrible idea to have our attorney represent us to the media, his personal opinions didn't represent us as a group, or a company, at all. (2) Once the SHTF you might as well be attempting to reason with a pre menstrual teenage girl. Nothing, and I mean nothing you say will be met with anything less than irrational anger.

Trevor Thrasher expressed his personal opinion about required training on our Facebook page, a subject that has been discussed civilly on this forum in the past. He isn't the first or only supporter of the 2nd Amendment who believes that the phrase "well regulated" means well trained. Many believe that the Forefathers knew that an untrained Citizen with a gun was dangerous and ineffective, so they added a training mandate. Whether you agree or not, nothing he said deserved the response it received.

[snip]

Previously when recommending the NFOA, I would describe it as an excellent forum to go to for general firearms advice, reasonable, sometimes spirited discussion and a great way to become politically active. I'm not so sure now. This was an ugly, knee jerk reaction, fully supported by the moderators. If this is the direction the NFOA is headed I can no longer, in good conscience, endorse it. 

- Shawn

I think one of the main problems that occurred showed up on Facebook.  As you mentioned, Trevor said a number of things that go directly against what the NFOA stands for when he talked about requiring training, and the use of a test.  However, that was of course his personal opinion--and as you said, not necessarily the opinion of the other 88 Tactical instructors, nor necessarily of 88 Tactical as an entity.

The real problem came with the 88 Tactical response (from its Facebook page), after all of Trevor's comments, in answer to what Toby Aspin asked: "So, is this the official 88 Tactical position?" which included the comments about training and registration from the radio show, and Trevor's comments about training and testing.

88 Tactical said:  "We're pretty comfortable with this stance, Toby. You know us pretty well."

In addition, 88 Tactical said that they and Ashford didn't have much to argue regarding gun control---and Ashford is known to be one of the most active (and vocal) proponents for gun control in our current state government.  (As someone else pointed out, he has already submitted several gun control bills this year.)

I agree with Andy---it would be helpful if the people who speak officially for 88 Tactical could weigh in on this and make their position clear.   

In the past, when people asked me about classes, if I thought they were a good fit for 88 Tactical, I'd send them over.  When people asked me about carbine classes and such, I'd send them over.

If the official position of 88 Tactical (or even a majority of its instructors, because no matter what the company says, if a majority of its instructors believe something, that's the attitude that is going to prevail) is that the government should be able to have control of access to firearms via any sort of testing, training requirement, or any other such thing---not only will I never send people to them again, but I'll be sure to tell folks exactly why.

Note to readers:  I also teach shooting classes.  Technically, 88 Tactical is one of my competitors.  So, take my comments as you will. 

As I said earlier, while I REALLY wish every shooter would get training (in safety, if nothing else), I do not in any way support government regulation (read: control) of it.  And I won't support anyone who does.

Hopefully, 88 Tactical will officially let us know their position on this, and clarify everything.

[dcjulie]

Lessons learned; (1) It was a terrible idea to have our attorney represent us to the media, his personal opinions didn't represent us as a group, or a company, at all. (2) Once the SHTF you might as well be attempting to reason with a pre menstrual teenage girl. Nothing, and I mean nothing you say will be met with anything less than irrational anger.

One poster stated, more or less, that we are "all about training, and no wonder we would try to mandate it" We aren't lobbying for mandated training. But we are a training business, and unless we make money, we wont be in business much longer. Every 88 Tactical Instructor teaches, number one, because we love it. Number two, because we can make a little money doing something we love. Show me an Instructor on here that instructs for free......wait for it..........it just so happens 88 Tactical gives free training. Free 3.5hr basic handgun courses (yesterday we went 4 hours cause everyone was having so much fun) I would bet that 88 Tactical has given away more free training this year than all of the other Instructors on this forum have done for profit, combined.

Previously when recommending the NFOA, I would describe it as an excellent forum to go to for general firearms advice, reasonable, sometimes spirited discussion and a great way to become politically active. I'm not so sure now. This was an ugly, knee jerk reaction, fully supported by the moderators. If this is the direction the NFOA is headed I can no longer, in good conscience, endorse it. 

- Shawn

I am posting this as my personal opinion, not that of an NFOA representative.

I understand that the representative did not have the collective interest of your business in mind when he spoke.  However, anyone representing your business should know what the business interest is, and whether or not their personal opinion is in line with that, they speak with the business in mind - or they shouldn't be representing the business. 

I have not responded to many of your posts in the past due to my position on the NFOA board, but since I'm making a personal post here, I'm responding to your post.  Your analogy of reasoning with a premenstrual teenage girl is ludicrous and idiotic.   I realize you probably meant it in jest, but it is a stupid statement.  Females need to be encouraged into the firearms and self-defense world, and I would not encourage one to take your classes because of this attitude.

You have also made several pretty inflammatory comments elsewhere on this forum that have been somewhat detrimental and simply rude.  Just because you have a differing opinion about different types of training and/or practice, does not mean that your way is the only way. 

As a supporter of the 2A and gun rights, I do hope your business comes through this issue and does not suffer due to the interview, facebook posts, etc.  However, as a business owner, I'd suggest you have a long discussion with anyone who could possibly represent your business and make sure you are all on the same page.

[bullit]

Your analogy of reasoning with a premenstrual teenage girl is ludicrous and idiotic.

Fear the wrath of the peri-menstrual female.....especially one who can shoot the lights out.....

[Chris C]

It was a terrible idea to have our attorney represent us to the media, his personal opinions didn't represent us as a group, or a company, at all.

Trevor Thrasher expressed his personal opinion about required training on our Facebook page, a subject that has been discussed civilly on this forum in the past.

I would also agree having the lawyer speak on the radio show and tv show was a horrible idea and what was posted on FB by Trevor was like drinking a gallon of gasoline and pissing on the fire at that point in time. 

With that said I will be back to 88 Tactical for training.  What was said doesn't change the level and quality of training I will receive. 

[FarmerRick]

I posted on that Facebook thread asking for an official clarification from someone, anyone(preferably Shea)  who wants to make an official statement on this subject.

We'll see what happens. 

[bkoenig]

It seems to me that if you can't trust your attorney to speak for you then you probably need a new attorney.

I was withholding judgement until I heard an official response from 88's management, but after reading their Facebook posts it seems like they have no issue with the statement that was made.  That's unfortunate and I hope they will disavow it.

I do not need permission to exercise my rights, whether that right is to bear arms or free speech.  No government may deny me that right without due process of law.  If Signal 88 does not disavow this statement then they have no more business being in the firearms training industry than a journalist who advocates for government censorship does working at a newspaper.

[dcjulie]

It seems to me that if you can't trust your attorney to speak for you then you probably need a new attorney.

  If Signal 88 does not disavow this statement then they have no more business being in the firearms training industry than a journalist who advocates for government censorship does working at a newspaper.

Well said!

[Husker_Fan]

I don't think any of the views expressed in this thread were overboard, though some of the rhetoric was a bit strong. I withdraw my comment about finding another place to train, for now. I'll be interested to see what Shea's response is.

[Jeepguy]

I think I am with Shawn on this. Once things go wrong in the social media they can get out of hand pretty quickly. I will give 88 a chance to confirm their company ideals and either way I understand that a corporate view point is not always the viewpoint of the majority of employees. I will personally still support them. All views should be heard, even the lawyer who I think was a bad pick for this.

[Mudinyeri]

I'll let Shea (owner of 88 Tactical) speak for himself, but I've corresponded with him and I know he does not personally support the intrusion of the government into individuals' rights.  I suspect 88 Tactical, as an organization, is closely aligned with Shea's personal views.

I think the jump to remove 88 Tactical as an affiliate of the NFOA, and to publicly "broadcast" the removal, was a knee-jerk reaction.  Without speaking to the owner(s) of the company and clarifying the corporation's stance (not employees of or attorneys for the corporation) we have rushed to judgment lacking all the facts.

I know Shea is very busy right now but I have suggested that he clarify his company's position - especially for the members of this forum who have not rushed to judgment in the absence of an official statement/clarification. 

[FarmerRick]

From 88Tactical's Facebook page as of a few minutes ago...   



Trevor Thrasher88 Tactical
5 hours ago ·
I have talked to Shea and he has given me permission to speak for the company. Here are our key principles:

1. Every law abiding, able bodied, citizen should be able to own a gun. We think an armed citizen is a free citizen and that there is peace through strength. We are pro-2nd Amendment and believe that it is our final protection against tyranny, and the first protection against others who would threaten us.
2. Every person should be educated in basic gun safety, general rules of self-defense, the 2nd Amendment as well as the constitution as a whole. This should include limitations (actual, historical, theoretical) and responsibilities of good citizenship. We would like to see this as part of the public education system.
3. Every person who owns a weapon should be trained in how to carry, store, use that weapon for hunting and self-defense. Again we would like to see this done as part of the public education system which includes home schooling or other forms of private teaching.

As far as an official test requirement is concerned, we do not have a locked in official stance. Reference my below post: "88 tactical is a group of individuals with different opinions. If you are looking for some type of 'official position' beyond our core principles, I think you will be out of luck. It would only serve to upset one group or another. We would rather unite around our general principles then divide ourselves with more minor disagreement."
Like ·
3 people like this.

Jason Wright Can't agree more. It's a honor to work with you and to be able to call you my friend.-Jason
51 minutes ago · Like

Rick Mangold You have not addressed the question.

Does 88 Tactical feel that there should be a test OF ANY KIND in order for a person to exercise their God-given right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution?

A simple yes or no will suffice.
21 minutes ago · Edited · Like

88 Tactical Rick, our position is clear. Your mental state is not. You apparently didn't read anything we posted. Please go harass someone else.-! Trevor
5 minutes ago · Like

Rick Mangold WOW, glad to know you think so much of your customers(Yes, I've taken a class there). Your use of insults makes this all the more telling. I'm very disappointed in your response and I'm sure everyone else that sees it (including the nearly 6000 members of the NFOA) will feel the same way. Good day.


      I'm done with them. 

[bkoenig]

They pretty much skated around the question.  I would have liked to see them state they do NOT agree with testing/licensing requirements.  I will not patronize 88 Tactical.

[Mudinyeri]

So, principle #1 doesn't answer the question?  It says every law abiding, able bodied citizen should be able to own a gun.  There's  nothing there about taking a class or passing a test. 

Are those of you who are upset at 88 Tactical also upset at hunter education instructors like me who support the requirement for education before one can hunt? How about the other trainers amongst us who support the requirement for training before one can carry a concealed weapon?

[RedDot]

Gotta agree w/ bkoenig... I have been looking around for ccw training for the wife and myself, but will now cross Tac88 off that list.  By their own admission having the "mouthpiece" speak for them was a bad idea and implies a fear on their part of giving a "wrong" answer.  If you believe in your company then stand up and say how you feel...it's another of those guaranteed rights we're all trying to protect.

Earlier the question of ethics was brought up and I feel it is applicable here.  A firearm training facility advocating for mandatory training requirements is not only self-serving but starts a slippery slope down the ethics question. Who decides what type and how much training is required? How much additional expense will be required for an individual to qualify for their 2nd amend. right to defend themselves? Be assured that lawmakers will look to those same facilities for that answer.  Encouraging training is one thing, advocating compulsory limitations on your rights is quite another.

[Mudinyeri]

Still don't see any compulsory limitations on anyone's rights in the 88Tactical response.  They're also not advocating for private organizations, like them, to do the training.  They're advocating that it be done in the school system.

[Lorimor]

Fortunately we have many choices for training opportunities in Nebraska and elsewhere.

[FarmerRick]

So, principle #1 doesn't answer the question?  It says every law abiding, able bodied citizen should be able to own a gun.  There's  nothing there about taking a class or passing a test. 

Are those of you who are upset at 88 Tactical also upset at hunter education instructors like me who support the requirement for education before one can hunt? How about the other trainers amongst us who support the requirement for training before one can carry a concealed weapon?

Hunting isn't a right guaranteed by the Constitution. 



Trevor decided to delete the comments I copied here and went on a rant against anyone who would dare argue with him(me, the NFOA, etc.).

All because he couldn't answer a simple yes or no question.   

[Mudinyeri]

Hunting isn't a right guaranteed by the Constitution. 

Did you vote in the last state election?