From 2/8:
The badge came out perfect. The Texas state seal looks fantastic, and everything else lined up perfectly. Thank for meeting my need.

Dean M.

A Happy Customer: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=189451862027...

Thanks Mel, glad to be of service.

I should probably note that this blog space is not monitored, so if you have a question please email to shelleyaduncan@gmail.com or info@tibatactical.com

part 2---

Q: Oregon law allows CHL holders to carry in a public school. Do you support or oppose this law?

A: – I support public school carry. In Utah you can carry in any public school (with a permit), but not in a private school because that is private property and they can make their own rules. Other States have opened up carry to all school where legal aged adults are likely to attend, such as colleges but have kept the restrictions on children's schools.
Once again, a person who intends to do harm in a school by way of a firearm is not going to be deterred by a 'NO GUNS' sign on the front door.

Q: Do you feel this is a reasonable statement: “If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.”

A: – In a word, YES. Firearms, or whatever the weapons of choice for the decade is, will always be available to the criminal element. Take as an example all the weapons the U.S. Government sold or gave to the Mexican Government that are now in the hands of drug cartels. Take as another example the crime rates of cities compared to their gun control laws. Chicago, New York, Los Angeles & Washington D.C. are all prime showcases of governments who tried to control crime by taking away the ability of the citizen to defend themselves. Did the flow of firearms to criminal stop? No. Did it even slow? No.

Q: Can you give advice to gun owners on how to be more responsible owners and users of firearms?

A: – Every owner of a firearm, a car, a knife, a toaster or a gas grill needs to learn the proper use & safety regulations that belong to that item. It would seem that 'any reasonable person' would not use a toaster in the bathtub, but it''s happened so there is a warning against it. It would seem that 'any reasonable person' would not point a firearm at anything they “...are not willing to kill or destroy” but it does happen.
All firearms owners should seek out instruction from properly certified individuals. Doing so helps place you under the legal umbrella of protection that exists with vicarious liability. If they are even involved a self defense shooting they will be able to prove that they acted lawfully, just as they were trained by me & just as I was trained by the NRA, the UBCI, the Police Academy, etc.

Q: What is the current law in Oregon regarding “Castle Doctrine”? If someone is unlawfully present in my home or is otherwise threatening myself or family, am I within my rights to use deadly force to eliminate any perceived threat to the lives of myself or my family, or my property?

A: – I am not familiar with Oregon's 'Castle Doctrine' enough to give an opinion, but in Utah you are specifically allowed by statute to use deadly force to protect any “Person, being or Dwelling” that is in your domicile which includes any temporary residence, trailer, camp, etc. against any person who is attempting to commit a forcible felony.
Idaho goes a step further and has codified a law that states you can not be help criminally liable for any actions you take in defending your life or the life of another person.
These states further allow you to 'stand you ground' in any location that you have 'lawfully entered or remained'. You are not required to retreat from your attacker.

Q: As an Officer of the law, you’ve taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution. Since both the US & Oregon constitutions protect the right to individual ownership of firearms, would you enforce a federal order to seize the weapons of law abiding Americans against their will, if one were to be issued?

A: – Absolutely not. Orders to disarm law abiding citizens will be disregarded.

Here is a transcript of a Question & Answer session I did for an interview today (7-14-2010):

Q: The US Supreme Court has recently held in Heller vs DC & McDonald V Chicago that the right to bear arms as stated in the 2nd Amendment is an Individual Right. Do you support this finding?

A: - I absolutely support the courts on this. The two things that trouble me a bit are the closeness of the votes (5/4) and the fact that we had to take it to court to decide.
The 2A is an absolute right that should not be removed or regulated unless a person has done something to lose their rights.

Q: Many authors have stated their position that having more guns in the hands of law abiding citizens in a community tends to make a community safer. Do you support or oppose that idea?

A: - Fully support. Reasonable heads will agree that we shouldn't be handing out weapons to people who don't want them or know how to use them, but every law abiding citizen should have access to them.

Q: Should governments support policies encouraging or discouraging increased firearms ownership by responsible adults?

A: - Governments should support the ownership of firearms by the public. Every time they post a position in opposition to these rights they, in effect, set themselves above the citizen because the Government is always exempted from the laws. The Gov is here to serve & protect, not restrict & enslave.

Q: In Oregon, localities like Salem & Portland have passed ordinances banning the carrying of loaded weapons in public places. Do you feel that these restrictions infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens to defend themselves, as protected in the US & Oregon Constitutions? Would you say that these laws make those public spaces more or less safe?

A: - Local preemption laws in some states allow towns to make laws that are more restrictive than state statutes. Most states have done away with this because of the confusion it causes. Another issue is private property rights. Most will argue that is 'XYZ' Company wants to ban firearms from their property that they have the right to do so, but if they are engaged in business that is open to the public it may have a negative effect on their business.
In Utah they have tried to lessen these effects with some statutes that state:
Any place that is 'generally accessible to the public' can not restrict firearms unless they provide a secure lockup area similar to a jail.
A business can not be held liable for the actions of an armed person on there property. Most restaurants, etc. that ban carry do so for liability reasons only. This makes it a moot point.
An employer can not restrict an employee from keeping a firearm in their vehicle on company property.

Q: The second amendment doesn’t reference needing a permit, and accordingly the states of Alaska, Arizona, and Vermont have what’s known as “Constitutional Carry”, where any person not otherwise prohibited from owning a firearm may carry it openly or concealed without a permit. What is your position on whether or not this would be a good system for Oregon to adopt?

A: – Somewhere along the way we got it into our heads that rights needed to be given to us my the government. You don't need a license to speak under the 1st Amendment, right?
Constitutional Carry should be adopted by all States as an example of solidarity & affirmation of its citizens rights.
I make a substantial amount of money instructing people so that they can obtain CCW permits. I would gladly give it up in exchange for freedom.

Q: Have your interactions with other gun owners have been mostly positive, mostly negative, or somewhere in between?

A: – By far the people I meet as a citizen, an instructor & those I met as a law enforcement officer, who were armed have been upstanding citizens and overall good people. The few who were unstable or involved in some criminal element without fail had obtained their firearms by theft or deception.

Judge dismisses all charges in Blackwater shooting
December 31st, 2009 @ 2:13pm

By MATT APUZZO
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - A federal judge dismissed all charges Thursday against five Blackwater Worldwide security guards accused of killing unarmed Iraqi civilians on a crowded Baghdad street in 2007.

U.S. District Judge Ricardo Urbina said Justice Department prosecutors improperly built their case on sworn statements that had been given under a promise of immunity. Urbina said the government's explanations were "contradictory, unbelievable and lacking in credibility."

The decision throws out a case steeped in international politics. The September 2007 shooting in busy Nisoor Square left 17 Iraqis dead and inflamed anti-American sentiment abroad. The Iraqi government wanted the guards to face trial in Iraq and officials there said they would closely watch how the U.S. judicial system handled the case.

"We're obviously disappointed by the decision," Justice Department spokesman Dean Boyd said in an e-mail. "We're still in the process of reviewing the opinion and considering our options."

Blackwater contractors had been hired to guard U.S. diplomats in Iraq. The shooting led to the unraveling of the N North Carolina-based company, which has since changed its management and changed its name to Xe Services.

Urbina's ruling does not say whether the shooting was proper, only that the government improperly used evidence to build the case. After the shooting, the State Department ordered the guards to explain what happened.

Investigators promised the men that their statements were to be used only for the internal inquiry and would not be introduced in a criminal case. Such limited immunity deals are common in police departments so officers involved in shootings cannot hold up internal investigations by refusing to cooperate.

The deal meant that prosecutors had to build their case without using those statements. Urbina said the Justice Department failed to do so. Prosecutors read those statements, reviewed them in the investigation and used them to get search warrants, Urbina said.

The five guards had been charged with manslaughter and weapons charges. The charges carried mandatory 30-year prison terms.

It is unclear what the ruling means for a sixth Blackwater guard who turned on his former colleagues and pleaded guilty to killing one Iraqi and wounding another.

(Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.)

Why am I not surprised by this? Maybe that is the saddest thing of all, that we are no longer shocked by this crap.

We at TIBA & BPDS are seriously concearned about the Executive Order signed today. In short it makes INTERPOL 'untouchable' in the USA. They can operate as they have before, but now they have no oversight or accountability. Where is our soverienty?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/execut...

If the FBI asked to be protected from the courts, subpoenas, arrest, search, FOIA, etc, etc the people and the ACLU would pitch a holy fit.

Now we just need to get CIFTA passed and then INTERPOL can enforce it within our borders.