Modern Warfare Week

A Statement from TacticalGear.com’s CEO Regarding the Colorado Shooting

TacticalGear.com posted this statement from their CEO, Chad Weinman, in response to the perception that statements from their company in the media might be construed as anti-Second Amendment. We are publishing this statement in its entirety in the hope that it reaches widest dissemination.

A STATEMENT REGARDING THE COLORADO SHOOTINGNews July 23 2012
— By Staff

A post from our CEO regarding the tragic shooting at an Aurora, Colorado movie theater.

On July 2, 2012 TacticalGear.com received an order from James Holmes, the alleged shooter in the Colorado theater massacre. His order included an urban assault vest, two magazine pouches and a tactical knife spending a total of $306.79. Mr. Holmes elected to pay an additional $15.63 for UPS 2nd Day Air to expedite his order. We processed this order as any other, and Mr. Holmes signed for the associated package on July 5 at 2:21 p.m. local time.

In the wake of the tragedy, we have done our best to cooperate with the media and law enforcement agencies by passing on any relevant information. We have since been inundated with countless phone calls, emails and interview requests. Much of this communication has been quite hostile and threatening in nature. We have been falsely accused of selling Mr. Holmes firearms and ammunition over the Internet illegally without conducting the mandated background checks. Some members of our customer relations team have been brought to tears by people insisting that we have “blood on our hands.”

In an effort to combat this falsehood, myself and our Chief Operating Officer conducted a series of interviews in an attempt to clear up any misconceptions. We reiterated that TacticalGear.com primarily serves the law enforcement community and that we are proud to supply these heroes with the tools they need to keep our communities safe. During the course of these interviews, we were repeatedly questioned about what steps we were taking to prevent the general public from acquiring tactical gear in the future. In response to this line of questioning, statements were made that some have perceived as anti-gun and anti-2nd amendment.

We want to set the record straight and publically state that we fully support the 2nd amendment. The spirit of what we were trying to communicate was that tactical clothing and equipment should not be put in the same category as firearms and ammunition. Firearms and ammunition are subject to considerable regulation, and the notion that tactical gear should be as well is outrageous. Unfortunately, in some instances our choice of words were poor and misguided. For this, we accept full responsibility and sincerely apologize to anyone that took offense to these comments.

I am very proud of TacticalGear.com. It is a great company with a great staff. Each day we wake up thinking about how we can better serve our customers the gear they need when they need it. We work tirelessly to achieve these goals, and we are passionate about what we do. Many of us are avid gun owners and enthusiasts. We frequently visit the local shooting range and keep firearms in the office. We wholeheartedly support the freedom Americans enjoy to legally purchase guns and ammunition. I personally believe that if some members of the audience had concealed carry weapons at hand that night perhaps less blood would have been shed. No amount of gun control is going to prevent a sociopath hell-bent on terrorism from hurting a large group of people.

Our thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their families of this horrific event. If you have any questions or comments about this issue please direct them to us via email at [email protected].

-Chad Weinman
CEO, TacticalGear.com

Tags:

42 Responses to “A Statement from TacticalGear.com’s CEO Regarding the Colorado Shooting”

  1. Well said Chad.
    Our thoughts are with you and your team at this difficult time. It cannot be easy being drawn into such an event. Sadly being in this industry sometimes items (Armour & tactical gear) that are sold are used by members of the public who cause others such harm and distress and there is little that can be done to combat that.

    It would be a worse nightmare for any company; this fact is not lost on us nor other retailers around the world.

    Reaching out from the UK.

    Alex & Team at IA.

  2. You had no idea what this guy was going to do. Keep your heads up and carry on.

  3. Mitchell says:

    Concealed carry weapons would have caused even more bloodshed. 1. How many civilians are trained up to address this type of scenario and more importantly experienced any situation like this? 2. Shooter had element of surprise on his side, the key element in any ambush. Could any civilian shooter have reacted to threat before it was all over? Plus, identified friend from foe, remember there may be other concealed carry’s shooting in darkened theater also………

    • Zach says:

      Civilian, civilian, civilian. You have got to be a police officer. Im glad you think you are qualified to make decisions on where and how I can defend myself.

      • Jack says:

        As an aside, I just get a kick out of how civilians get wound up about being referred to as civilians. Friend, if you’re not in the military or police forces, if you don’t serve in some uniformed capacity, then by common definition, you are a civilian. It’s not a slur.

        • Jeff says:

          Jack, Zach is simply saying that even a civilian has the right to defend his or herself. Just because we are civilian doesn’t mean we have to be sheep waiting for the slaughter.

        • Zach says:

          Its not the definition of the word I mind. Its the mindset that a number of police officers (in my expierence) have that gets on my nerves. Just because you climbed over some fences at the academy, shoot 2 boxes of ammo a year, and stand in-line at mcdonalds in full battle rattle, doesn’t make you a tier one door kicker.

        • Crate Kicker says:

          @ Jack

          It’s not the word, or the definition but that some LE and Mil use it like a slur…
          And some days the tone coming across can be rather demeaning.

          We get that we may not have the level of training as the LE or Mil community, but by shear numbers we are going to be the one’s “there” when TSHTF.

          • Survivor says:

            From another blog but informative to this OT run.

            “I am weary of hearing police officers now referring to the general populace as “civilians.” I’ve noticed that this misnomer has become commonplace in the new century. Even some journalists are parroting this condescension without any comment or correction, sometimes egregiously. I’ll present the facts here as clearly and concisely: The police and sheriff’s deputies are our employees and they are civilians, too. The police are civil servants that help protect our property rights and civil rights, under civil law. (And hopefully with civility.) In contrast, military or “martial” law is the task of the Military Police and they are the only police who can call us civilians. It is noteworthy that under the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, Federal military personnel (with the exception of the Coast Guard) are prohibited from policing the citizenry. Please immediately correct any civilian law enforcement officers that mischaracterize their relationship with us. Continued misuse of such terms can gradually shift perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors. Be vigilant of encroachments on our liberty!”

          • Jack says:

            I’m not really sure where this “Don’t you dare call me a civilian” thing comes from. I have heard (read on blogs) other guys saying basically the same thing you two, Zach and Crate Kicker, and Survivor below have said…that you guys bristle at the term because it’s some sort of put down by arrogant military and cops.

            Well, if that’s your perception…yeah okay, whatever. I won’t try and convince you that you’re being a little sensitive, but to me it smacks of mountains and molehills.

            It’s a common term. It means someone who isn’t a cop or in the military. But I guess it means to you whatever you decide you want it to mean. If you are predisposed to decide it’s a put down, then I suppose it really doesn’t matter what the original intent was…you have decided it’s some sort of slight, and that’s that. You have decided to be insulted.

            Tell me, gents, what term would please you? Citizens? Populace? Grey Man Sheepdogs?

            I mean no offense when I say some of you civilians should lighten up.

            If being a civilian bothers you, then join the military. Go climb over some fences at the academy and be a cop. When I retire from the military (about a year off) and from law enforcement (about ten years out) I will be proud to be a civilian again.

        • Matty says:

          The police are still civilians. Unless they’re a Fed they’re a civilian.

          • Jack says:

            While that might be true by the strictest definition, civilian is a generally accepted, commonly informal used term referring to people who aren’t military or law enforcement. You can nitpick it all day long.

            Like I said earlier, some people choose to be offended where no offense is intended.

            I try to stay out of these internet slap fights, but some of this hyper PC crap just rankles me.

        • Chuck says:

          I prefer the term “citizen.” I’m an American first, Soldier second. And sorry, as a Soldier, I look at a cop, I see a civilian.

    • Sheepdog says:

      Even if 1 single person had it in them to stand and take a shot at that man, and even just 1 life was saved it would have been worth it. And identify friend from foe…? Foe is the guy killing people with a rifle and flashes of gun fire coming from him. Im not trying to start a fire, its personal choice, but personally Im trained and responsible enough to identify whats going on(granted i dont get shot first), process that information and front site post. If your ok stepping out into your day not being a responsible carrying citizen then by all means, thats your right. Me carrying doesnt harm anyone, 99% of the time people are completely unaware. But may be a time in your life where you will have to defend your own. Is carrying a burden? Yes, but its a worth while battle fought with a smile on my face. Saving just one life would have changed many peoples worlds. God Bless

    • Jack says:

      To answer your silly questions:

      1. Not many people are trained for this type of scenario, and of much less importance, very few (thankfully) have experienced a situation like this.

      2. Yes, a civilian shooter could have reacted. How effective that reaction would have been is debatable.

      I know the internet tends to bring out the arm chair experts and the blowhards, but really, what’s your point? If there had been an armed civilian in the theater maybe that body count would have been 3 instead of 12. Or 5. Or 8. Or 11. We just don’t know.

      What we do know, without a doubt, is that absent an armed response from someone in the crowd, the toll was 12 dead, and dozens wounded.

    • Nick says:

      Why does everyone assume that a ccw would cause more bloodshed. When was the last time you ever heard a story of a mass shooting where a ccw intervened and caused more bloodshed. The whole point of carrying a weapon is to protect yourself, not police crimes. If I’m in the back row and this guy is coming towards me, If I’m carrying I would engage him to protect myself and at least give myself a chance, if he kills me then fine, but I’m not making it easier. I’m not going to stand up and start firing rounds in a dark, smoke filled theater, but I tell you what, you take your chances lying on the ground hoping he doesn’t kill you, Ill take my chances lying on the ground with my gun. There could have been an armed man in every row of that theater and he still is gonna kill some people because he has the element of surprise, but if he points a gun at a guy in the 2nd row and that guy returns fire, maybe all 12 don’t die.

    • Crate Kicker says:

      @Mitchell –
      How many “professionals” are trained to address this type of scenario?
      Do they have a training scenario where it is a dark theater packed with people with an active shooter? Do they train with people running through their line of sight?
      How many of those “professionals” go out into public equipped to deal with it.
      What would have happened if the shooter had spotted a few “professionals” going into that same theater?

      How many times has this happened where multiple concealed carriers where able to act that you draw this conclusion from?

      Woulda, coulda, shoulda – it’s all assumption until it happens.

      The only thing us lowly civilians can do is train, train, and train. We may never be LE or Mil, but we will most likely be the ones present the moment the shooter makes his presence known.
      Might I be shot from another CCW holder, I hope not. I hope that they had the presence of mind to get the correct training and to make a quick scene size-up before pulling their firearm.

    • ed says:

      It always amazes how much faith people put in the police to be able to do something a situation like this while at the same time firmly holding on to the belief that a civilian couldn’t stop such an act. Armed civilians hold a major advantage over the police, they are more likely to be present at the scene. How often do police actually arrive on scene fast enough to stop this type of stuff? Rarely, usually when they do it is because an off duty officer was already there. This is because they are limited in man power and how fast they can respond. Most of these incidents are over by the time the 911 calls are made. How often do armed civilians manage to behave rationally and effectively to defuse such situations. Far more often than most are willing to give them credit for. Numbers vary wildly depending on who you are talking to and what side of the gun control argument they are on. Even on the low side the numbers given are well above the number of murders committed with guns. Of course we rarely hear about these cases, especially in the main stream media because “gunman kills 12 injures 58 makes for a much better story than “gunman kills one before being killed/chased off by armed civilian”. The “friend from foe” argument is weak and overplayed. The greatest danger when it exists, that is created by friend vs foe confusion is to those who are carrying and choose to use their weapon, not to the other civilians who’s only defense is hoping they can run away or hide. In choosing to use his weapon in self defense a civilian is already taking a risk that he will be killed because he is making himself a target for the bad guy. Worst case scenario the good guy gets accidentally wasted by another good guy instead of by the bad guy and the casualty count rises by one. best case scenario the good guys realize that the guy doing all of the shooting is the one they need to shoot and the casualty count falls by dozens. I’m sure there probably have been cases in which this worst case scenario has played out but I’m going to guess they are few and far between since the gun grabbers aren’t throwing any out there as evidence. What they do often throw out is “almosts”. Armed civilian almost shoots wrong guy, or almost hits innocent bystander, ignoring the fact that he actually hit the bad guy. Take this video
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AA_dgRdDhk
      hotel clerk acts calmly, gets off three well aimed shots, all three hitting the bad guy. What do the gun control crowds say? “he almost hit that child! he should have waited for a better opportunity, blah blah blah”
      and then there is this story where an armed good guy much to the dismay of the anti-gunners didn’t shoot the wrong guy, “but he nearly did!”, but he didn’t 🙁 http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2011/01/friendly_firearms.html

    • Stefan S. says:

      “Concealed carry weapons would have caused even more bloodshed” Ummm nope! Your memebership card at the grownup table revoked. Sit at the kiddie table till you’ve learned your lesson. Obviously you haven’t been shot at.

    • majrod says:

      Folks that definitively say a CW would have caused more injuries are just as wrong as the other side. No one knows. There’s a tremendous amount of variables. Given a choice I’d rather have someone with a CCW there vs relying on the gunman’s aim and copious amounts of time to commit a massacre before the cops get there or he runs out of people to shoot.

  4. Jeff says:

    Mitchell, I don’t think a CCW holder would have hurt the situation, if anything they could have drawn the shooter’s attention and allowed others to escape. Best case they could have brought him down but I don’t see how they would have hurt anything. I don’t think your average CCW holder would have stopped it from happening but they definitely could have helped lessen the slaughter.

  5. Johnny says:

    Back on the topic of the original post… Since Mexican cartel goons are often seen wearing BLACKHAWK! tactical vests, should the companies that sell nylon tactical apparel to them get publicly crusified as well?

  6. Tim Worpell says:

    Mr. Weinman,

    It’s sad that you and your employees have to go through all of this in the wake of this tragegic event. But if all companies went with the recommendations of the media interviewing you, I guess all the journalists that want to report the news overseas have no problem not wearing body armor and Kevlar helmets, because after all they are not military or law enforcement they are civilians just like the D-Bag that thought he was the Joker.

  7. Riceball says:

    An article I read elsewhere had mentioned that one news piece on the tragedy actually said that the tac vest this nut job was wearing was a bullet proof vest; gotta love that, goes to show how ignorant the press can be. Sadly, given the hysteria over this tragedy it wouldn’t surprise me one bit to see some states try to start regulating the sale of tac gear, esp. in liberal, anti-gun strongholds like CA & NY. After the N Hollywood bank shootout body armor is illegal in CA and after what just happened in CO I can equally see the geniuses in the CA legislature try outlaw tac gear because, you know, it’s like bullet proof, and it allows you to hold an unlimited amount of ammo, and gives you the shooting skills of a Costa or a Vickers; oh wait, tac gear does none of this.

    • dan says:

      Body armor is legal in california

      • Matt says:

        I’m pretty sure body armor is illegal to own anywhere unless you are Mil or LE. One of my first questions when I heard the reports were, “How the hell did this guy get body armor?” Little did I know that all he was wearing was a tactical vest. Way to get the news accurate.

  8. J says:

    Why did you decide it was a good idea to interview with the MSM/anti-gun media regarding the purchases and customer history and offer your personal thoughts and feelings on the matter?

    We all understand complying with police (who have his credit card history & a warrant), but providing intel to the media just screams that this was a PR decision. Based on 30 years of anti-gun work by the MSM, how did you think anything other than a written response was a good idea?

    You did more damage to yourselves and the 2A/gun owning/gear buying community than you would have if you just kept your mouths shut.

    As “Rob” mentioned in the prior thread (in response to you, Chad)- https://soldiersystems.net/2012/07/23/im-not-sure-whats-going-chesterfield-but-this-far-im-not-impressed/comment-page-1/#comment-150596

    “Unsolicited PR advice: In a breaking news situation tell all employees to respond as follows: “Thanks for calling, [reporter’s first name]. Our hearts go out to the victims of [event]. We are preparing a written statement now and will get it to you as soon as it’s ready. What is your deadline and email address?””

    My two cents, change your PR policy to the one outlined above, fire the knuckle head that opened his mouth and make a big donation to a pro-2A organization. Maybe that will help undo some of the damage you guys made with your bone headed moves.

  9. Having read this Statement thoroughly several times, I stand with this Company as a customer and as a past vendor. I believe I was the second vendor to contact Chad when he stared this and other Companies. He bought from my Company and sold our gear with integrity. He is absolutely a buyers advocate and listens to his customers. As his Companies grew, he hired a like minded Team. They work hard for the reputation of being a Law Enforcement / Military trusted supplier. This was a completely unpredictable tragic event and this Company are no more to blame for the murders than the automobile manufacturer that built the murderers car.

    I have served over 20 years in the US Army and retired a Master Sergeant, investigating Fraud, Waste and Abuse and I know a solid, dependable and honest business when I meet them. I do not currently
    sell any items to his business and I have no agenda other than supporting a friend of over 5 years,

    V/r

    Grady Burrell

  10. American Pride says:

    Many horrible situations happen throughout the world while utilizing legally purchased items. One would be completely illogical to constitute an outcry toward said companies that create (and/or sell) those legal items.

    Chad Weinman, may you and your team stay strong and thank you for your dedication to fine products.

  11. John says:

    Jack the ripper didn’t have a gun or tactical gear and he killed people with precision. Why should honest consumers of tactical gear have to suffer for the folly of one man?

  12. John says:

    Jack the ripper didn’t have a gun or tactical gear and he killed people with precision. Why should consumers of tactical gear have to suffer for the folly of one man?

  13. Stefan S. says:

    My gripe is the coverage. Now every libtard is calling for more asinine gun laws. Where were they when Hassan killed at Fort Hood? Mohammed Reza Taheri-Azar‘s attempted mass-murder of students at the University of North Carolina. Naveed Afzal Haq opened fire with two semiautomatic pistols. One woman, Pam Waechter, 58, of Seattle was killed at the scene. Five more women were wounded at a Seattle Jewish Center.
    Where is the left when these vermin killed or tried to kill innocent people. Don’t reply, it is a rhetorical question!

    • Chuck says:

      Not to mention, Hassan killed more people with one FN 5.7 pistol than this jackass did with a Remington 870, AR and a Glock.

      Although, at least there is some justice in this world: Hassan is a paraplegic because the Army Civilian Police Officer’s gunshots paralyzed him from the chest down. That’s almost better than if he had been killed. Now he gets to spend the rest of his pathetic life behind bars AND in a wheelchair.

  14. MacK says:

    I feel like telling this guy that maybe next time you will keep your mouth shut? What good did it do for your business or your image to offer up this information? What possible information can you hold that the police could use?

    You bought your devil by speaking up on a subject that didnt need your input.

  15. Ty Redden says:

    I think Chad did an excellent job of clearing up the situation while still staying professional. He is right about how average consumers don’t seem to see the difference between tactical gear and actually firearms and in no way should they even think about regulating tactical equipment. Where exactly would you even draw the line. Overall I support Chad and everything his company does for the community.

  16. Greg Papadatos says:

    I have no problem or complaint with anything done by TacticalGear.com in relation to this insane incident. Selling things like vests and magazine pouches is completely and entirely different from selling firearms or ammunition; I understand that. You guys did nothing illegal or immoral.

    I am sorry that you got drawn into the s**tstorm that followed this mess, and I’m sorry that people accused you of having “blood on your hands.” That was inappropriate and uncalled for.

  17. Desert Lizard says:

    A very important point that I don’t see being talked about is that in Aurora gun-control was already in effect. The city of Aurora has a law that the public is not allowed to carry concealed, only police are allowed. That is the reason this evil maniac was able to have his way for so long in the theater. The public was already under the effects of gun-control.

    More to the argument, all of the massacres I can recall happened under gun-control: Aurora, Columbine (no weapons allowed on campus), Virginia Tech (no weapons allowed on campus), DC sniper (no weapons allowed in DC), 9/11 (no weapons allowed on planes), bank robberies (no weapons allowed in banks), Gabrielle Giffords (no weapons allowed near US representatives), …

    If the gun-control crowd was being objective, they would be on the defensive side of the argument.

  18. Desert Lizard says:

    Here’s another: Fort Hood (service members are not allowed to carry their weapons).