Tactical Tailor

BE Meyers & Co, Inc Issues Statement In Support Of Chuck Pressburg

Recently, a news release came to light identifying one of our contracted employees and brand ambassador, Mr. Charles “Chuck” Pressburg of Presscheck Consulting, in an unfortunate firearms incident. The media coverage of this incident is vague and allows for misperception. In addition to this limited reporting by the press, malicious speculation online is fueling and in some way exacerbating many inaccuracies in the story.

This incident is by no means indicative of the performance or standards that we know Chuck to uphold, and in no way impacts his credentials as a Subject Matter Expert on the topic of low-light operations as well as night vision and laser combat employment. He represents our brand, and we support him as strongly today as we ever have.

While this was an obviously unfortunate incident involving our brand ambassador, the details of the situation will come out at a time and in a method that are legally appropriate. While it would not be appropriate for our brand ambassador to make a statement himself at this time, B.E. Meyers & Co. Inc. and industry entities cited in this message stand in his support to speak for him.

I encourage the community to take a pause, know that all the details cannot be currently released, and to question the narrative provided to them by the Oregon media that has spread to the national press level. Stop breaking out the Jump-to-Conclusions Mat, stop trying to fill in the blanks erroneously, and start letting the facts develop. Let the legal system work, and come to your own conclusions in due time.

I personally stand with Chuck.
B.E. Meyers & Co. Inc. stands with Chuck.
Those of character in this industry stand with Chuck.

We are ALL, all in for Chuck.



Matthew Meyers
President and Co-Owner
B.E. Meyers & Co. Inc.

All In:
Weapon Outfitters
Hodge Defense Systems
Primary & Secondary, LLC.
Raven Concealment Systems
Operational Detachment Source, LLC
Sentinel Concepts
AT Armor
Blue Force Gear
Tap-Rack Tactical
Victory First
Z3ro Solutions, LLC.
Magpul Industries Corp.
Centrifuge Training LLC
Dark Angel Medical, LLC
Warrior Industries, LLC


72 Responses to “BE Meyers & Co, Inc Issues Statement In Support Of Chuck Pressburg”

  1. Matthew Levi says:

    The list of names adding public support on the facebook post of this are telling. A list of who is who in the industry.

    • Robby D says:

      EUGENE, Ore. (AP) — A reserve police officer from southeastern New Mexico has pleaded not guilty to charges he shot his brother-in-law in the leg while in Oregon.

      The Register-Guard newspaper reports (http://bit.ly/2lfr0Mk ) 44-year-old Charles Pressburg entered the pleas Friday in Eugene. He’s charged with misdemeanor assault and negligently wounding another.

      Police wrote in court documents that Pressburg’s blood-alcohol level was 0.25 percent about an hour after last week’s shooting — more than three times the legal limit for a driver.

      According to investigators, the victim said the men were drinking when Pressburg pulled out the gun. He said he didn’t know why he was shot. Pressburg and his wife allegedly told police the shooting was accidental.

      The court filing says the victim suffered broken bones in one of his legs.

      Pressburg has been released on bail. He’s a reserve officer in Lake Arthur, New Mexico.

  2. Mac says:

    The list of those that are “All In” continues to grow…

  3. Jeff says:

    My hat is off to Matthew Meyers!!! I also stand with Chuck and the businesses listed above will get my continued support!

  4. Bob says:

    I’m a noone, but I’m #ALLINFORCHUCK

  5. Ken Rull says:


  6. Lee Gullett says:

    Chuck has been nothing but a mentor and a friend to me and countless others, giving away knowledge likes it’s going out of style. This is an upstanding move from B.E. Meyers.

  7. mudd says:

    Hmnn, never would have known except for this….. brilliant

  8. Chaz "Zoolander" Bowser says:

    Known Chuck since after Chaka Khan (intentionally misspelled you douche) and seen him in the darker side of Hell in harrowing situations waching in the shadows while I was on staff at USAOC. It sucked like ramming ones own face into a trailer hitch & I got watch a master of his craft show the most courage displayed in “patience with silent suffering” – which up till then had elluded display amongst my Officer peers through ample opportunity though a pattern of ineptitude when which ruled the day normally. Trust in the way of believing in being placed at the right place at the right time by the Coach paid off and it was done. If I had to place a bet, I’d align myself with a known winner. Chuck (TBERY) P.

  9. Patrick Aherne says:

    Interesting, the show of support by industry folks before any court proceedings. Chuck seemed like a good dude, the times I’ve met him. I hope this ends well.

  10. Robby D says:

    Hey, he’s former Tier One so I’m all in too without a single fact –

    (well, there’s the fact that the police have charged him with negligent wounding, assault, misuse of a firearm, and reckless endangerment)

    So IF it turns out he ND’d into someone leg after a few wobbly pops, are we still going to support him? Tell me why again? Oh, that’s right. Because he was former Tier 1.

    • Spoken like someone who wasn’t man enough to be Tier One- sounds about right. Why don’t you go change your diapers now.

      • Robby D says:

        You know I’m right. If this was Pvt Joe Snuffy from the 82nd no one would be giving him the benefit of the doubt. But he’s getting the benefit of the doubt here, and you know why.

        • SSD says:

          I’d say it’s because a lot of people know him. That kid you know over at Division? Not so much.

          • Robby D says:

            I’m not talking about the companies, who presumably know him. Some certainly do.

            I’m talking about the folks the in this thread doing the “hashtag all in for chuck” Don’t tell me they all know him. But they know where he served, and that’s all it takes.

            • Anthony says:

              I know him very well and never served a day with him. This is about his heart and his willingness to help those of us who could benefit from his knowledge, skills, and abilities.

              I am going to stop short of saying much more and keep it professional. MOST of thise who are supporting him are doing so because of who he is, not who he worked for. To assume that is to assume a posture of emotionally based ignorance.

            • SSD says:

              No, i literally mean everybody. I’ve known Chuck for pushing 20 years. Many others have as well.

        • CWG says:

          Because he just wrapped up a career as a professional warrior and is not a 19 year old idiot fresh out of jump school who hasn’t done shit and doesn’t know shit?

          Does your list of trustworthy trigger pullers start with James Yeager and end with Sonni Pizukas?

          • Nate Perry says:

            So you have to have a lot of years of service in high places before doing some lance corporal shit is ok and the industry stands behind you?

            • joe_momma says:

              If you mess up and people don’t like you then it’s fair game.
              If you mess up and people do like you, then you get a pass

        • Jester says:

          Ahh the old “guilty until proven innocent” approach. You’re an idiot Robby. And it looks like most everyone agrees with me.

    • @RobbyD – it takes some us longer than others in life to realize there is a time to speak and a time to simply STFU. You apparently have not yet figured this out.

      • Ivan V says:

        @Paul T. McCain – Oh boy you sure told him!!! He also doesn’t have to, and his points are valid.

        So if you are helpful and former Tier 1…and drunk, then it’s cool if you cook a round off into your kinfolk? .25 B.A.C!!? JEEZUS! Getting your B.A.C to .25 then handling a firearm does not sound like responsible gun handling.

        On another note…


        Put that on a T-Shirt!

  11. WarDog says:


  12. Brian Harris says:

    Let the dust settle and get a clear picture. It is what we all deserve.

  13. Heal, learn, and grow from this. We stand with him. I’m sure no one is more aware of what needs to be done to get past this than he does, any help he needs getting there, we are with him.

    He isn’t some Joe, he’s a seasoned veteran who mentored generations of Rangers, GP Forces, and SOF personnel as well as numerous LE and Armed Professionals to survive in the line of duty. I don’t endorse his mistake any more than he does; but I know he was, is, and will continue to be an asset to the community and profession he has dedicated decades of his life to. I also know he will leave the blame-thrower in the arms room, and will own up to his mistakes, learn from them, and move on.

    Best wishes to him and his family, and good on you Matt Meyers for standing by your representatives.

  14. David Reeder says:

    As I posted in a conversation on Facebook, a lot of people seem to be forgetting or disregarding due process. Even if he had done nothing of note, never served, and did not have the background he does, he would still deserve the benefit of unbiased review. “Charged with” does not mean “guilty of”, and initial reports are ALWAYS wrong. While I laud his service, the fact that he’s “former Tier 1” is simply icing on the cake, to be taken into consideration when appropriate (and rightly so).

    The fact is, if it was Joe Snuffy who had cracked off a round (if that is indeed what happened), we would still know no more than we know now, and he’d still be entitled to “innocent until proven guilty.” Just like anyone else. Speculation is just speculation, levied as innuendo largely because sensationalism (like sex) sells.

    The same career of service and valor that leads people and industry entities who know him to support him is likely also fueling this interest from persons who don’t, or who love a good drama. People look for a reason to be outraged, or at least something to exploit in feigned indignation; they relish the opportunity to get worked up over (and spread the news of) something titillating. The wait for objective analysis and and unbiased recounting of the facts is set aside because it isn’t speedy and thus is inconvenient.

    This response probably started because his status as a reserve LEO made it noteworthy long before his military career was known. It went cyclic from there because of who he is and what he has done. Or, perhaps not. Doesn’t matter. Brian Harris said it best. Let’s show some restraint, let the dust settle, and get a clear picture.

    I’m pretty sure he’s earned it.

  15. Brian says:

    Is Chuck Pressburg = Roland? or is he a partner|employee of Roland? Forgive my ignorance.

  16. Joe_momma says:

    Booze and guns…..

  17. Common says:

    Its nice to see industry partners stand by their employees/associates for a change and wait for the full verdict to emerge before kicking the guy when he’s down.

    Also refreshing is that friends stand behind their brother when he is in a tough spot. No one is claiming Chuck was squeaky clean here. But you are a true friend when the chips are down and stand next to the man that needs your support, regardless if he is right or wrong.

  18. PB says:

    Someone can correct me if I’m wrong in this but I believe that in addition to close business ties to B.E. (1 of only 2 outfits teaching the MAWL), there may be a B. E. Meyers employee that is likely privy to Chuck’s side of the story.

    That said, since I am not privy to that info I will wait until the legal process to conclude and facts to surface before damning anybody. If it turns out he made a mistake, he should be accountable for those actions.

  19. Drunken ND says:

    What I’m seeing is a list of companies who support drunks and unsafe gun handling.

    This guy claims to be a veteran, a cop, and a firearms trainer, yet he accidentally shoots someone. Who is going to seek out this clown for training? I hope his department realizes what a threat he is to others and fires him.

    Mediocrity abounds! If you’re a firearms professional, how can you support any of them?

    • d says:

      “Who is going to seek out this clown for training?”


      Some guys are that good. He’s that good. “Above reproach” is the phrase I would use.

      • SAN says:

        Reproach? You mean this?

        “to find fault with”

        The standards of the profession of arms call for the following of the four rules of safe firearms handling. Ethical conduct also separates alcohol and firearms. Finally, standup police don’t ask for “professional courtesy” when they shoot their relative while enebriated.

        There’s lots of fault there.

        That guy is the furthest thing from above reproach.

        From what I’m seeing, he’s the greatest example of everything wrong with this business.

  20. Former Dude says:

    I served with Chuck and put him thru selection. When his mugshot and news release started to get passed around the inner circle yesterday, I read the story for what it is- a police statement that he was arrested and a weapon and possibly alcohol was involved. Chuck was arrested and charged with 2 felonies and 2 misdemeanors. The facts are just that. A weapon was fired and he was arrested.

    Chuck will have his day in court and will ultimately be found innocent or guilty and sentenced accordingly. I won’t judge him at all until the court makes their decision.

    This has zero to do with Chuck being a great guy or Chuck being a huge turd. People make mistakes, that’s life. I’ve seen many great men and great heroes lose their jobs because of mistakes they’ve made. Usually they get fired for really bad decision making. Allow me to elaborate.

    People forget that mistakes aren’t just one single event but rather a series of poor choices and decisions that lead to the greater event happening. If any one of the smaller decisions in the chain of events had been different, the greater situation would not have occurred. That said, I wasn’t there when the gun went off (into another human) so I won’t judge the situation. I can only say that the gun just didn’t go off by itself and likely there is a chain of events that lead to the gun firing.

    Where I come from, if you’re involved in an accidental discharge, the chain of events is what is examined to determine whether or not your decision making process was flawed and if you’ll be fired. On a very RARE occasion, the individual involved will be allowed to continue to serve. That’s fact. In those cases (generally speaking) the individual involved took all of the right precautions and the AD happened when the weapon was intentionally pointed downrange or in a safe direction. I repeat, when the weapon was intentionally pointed in a SAFE DIRECTION. There are of course, other examples and circumstances as I’ve seen many. In one case, during CQB training, the individual involved had his glove snag on the trigger and the weapon fired accidentally. He was in the process of moving his selector switch to safe and what spared him his career, was that regardless of the glove snagging and the weapon firing, his weapon was aimed on target. If he’d been aiming indiscriminately, or flagging someone, the situation could have been catastrophic.

    I applaud the companies that have chosen to support Chuck. It speaks volumes to their convictions and loyalty. Regardless of the circumstances and chain of events that lead to a weapon firing itself into another human, they stand behind Chuck. I’m assuming that those companies must have information that this was all a huge error on behalf of the police and the news and that Chuck will be cleared of all criminal wrongdoing. Their support for a guy in a difficult and unresolved situation is impressive.

    I wish Chuck well in this difficult time.

    • JB says:

      This should be mandatory reading before commenting.

    • Arrow 4 says:

      Well stated

    • Mr.E.G. says:

      I’m not sure I follow you. It sounds like you illustrate numerous occasions where people screw up and are held accountable for it, which you seem to view as normal and appropriate, but in Chuck’s case you won’t even consider that he did something wrong unless he’s proven guilty in court?

      All due respect, but it sounds like you’re going beyond giving the guy the benefit of the doubt. Whatever happened to saying, “Even if my friend did something horrible, I still love him and support him”?

      Of course we should be open minded to the possibility that the police got it wrong. And if there’s anyone who should deserve a little extra support or benefit of the doubt, it’s someone like you friend Chuck. But that’s not what it sounds like you’re advocating for.

      • Former Dude says:

        Quite the contrary. I’m pointing out in a very non judgmental way, that Chuck is in a very precarious position and the companies that have elected to back him are potentially supporting a guy who had a .25 BAC and accidentally fired a weapon into a family member breaking leg bones. The chain of events and decision making process that lead to the weapon firing, is likely very flawed (based on BAC .25 alone if in fact that is factually correct).

        Of course, we don’t yet know all of the facts and I will withhold any judgement until all of the facts become public (doubt this ever happens). I admire the companies that stand behind anyone in Chuck’s situation because it’s very difficult to break the stigma associated with a .25 BAC AD into a family member, unless there is a really rational, logical, and compelling reason the event transpired the way that it did.

        Or, these companies are just saying “we’re standing by our friend during his very challenging time”.

        • Mr.E.G. says:

          I understand a little better where you’re coming from. Thanks for clarifying. But are you not essentially refusing to contemplate his bad actions if you are saying that you won’t do so until all of the facts are made public, yet you acknowledge they likely won’t be? Again, I’m really not trying to be a jerk, but what does someone have to do before they warrant judgment in your eyes. And, to be clear, I’m talking about moral judgment (for lack of a better term), not judgment resulting in legal punishment, for which we must obviously demand compliance with a rigorous set of fairness rules.

          • Former Dude says:

            To be fair, I wasn’t there when the gun went off so maybe there are some unforeseen circumstances that will come to light (dog pulled the trigger, gun fell and discharged, intruder stole gun off lap and fired it and placed back on lap etc).

            Morally, how can one plead “not guilty” if one is in fact guilty? In this situation, the gun either went off by itself (impossible) or someone (maybe not Chuck) is guilty.

          • Former Dude says:

            In my mind, the BAC .25 and firearm in the same sentence makes me believe that the chain of events and Chuck’s decision making process was flawed. But I have to reserve judgement until all of the facts are clear because of the unknown (dog pulling trigger etc).

            I’d be the ass if I passed judgement only to later find out that the dog is guilty… or, the weapon fired itself off and is guilty.

            This is truly unprecedented. Wherein, a defense industry employee has an AD into another human while highly intoxicated. I’m curious to see how this plays out.

      • SSD says:

        For the record, that’s not me, but rather, another guy with the initials E.G.
        -Eric Graves

    • Leon Vickers says:

      Well stated. Not sure about the term AD, as I prefer ND. Have seen people lose 6 figures careers several times over NDs and you are spot on about the chain of events; making own holsters, changing out triggers, etc.

      Time for him to go to the Q Course for a year and think about it.

  21. SPQR476 says:

    What you should be seeing is that the man in question has been there for a lot of people, shared a lot of experience with the world that’s hard to hear from first-hand, has been through a lot, and people that know him simply urge waiting for the actual facts to come out before casting judgment. None of that excuses incorrect behavior, and when the facts are out, the chips will fall where they may. It’s just worth waiting for those actual facts to be released, not jumping to speculative conclusions, and then characterizing the incident appropriately based on those actual facts–positive or negative. I doubt you’ll see anyone give a “pass” if the facts of the incident don’t warrant it, and you won’t likely see anyone making excuses–least likely would be the man himself. He will own up to his actions, whatever they happened to actually be. That much I know. He just rates the benefit of the doubt to wait for the full story to be releasable.

  22. Joe_momma says:


  23. Keld says:

    Never met him.
    Learned a lot from him over the years though.
    Wish all the best for both of them.

  24. kev says:

    What a terrible way to take the mask off Batman. Telling that every article latches on to him being a reserve cop..Can’t miss an opportunity to put down that profession.

    Hope things get figured out Ro. Just one more piece of adversity to smash thru.

    • Jimmy S says:

      They referred to him as a cop because that’s how he identified himself to the arresting officers. He tried to use his badge to get out of it.

      • AttackBlue1 says:

        Really Jimmy S? They would never have searched him and found his badge before sending him to jail and no one would have ever been the wiser? Let’s do some critical thinking here.

      • JB says:


    • Robby D says:

      It’s understandable that a LEO (reserve or not) should be held to a higher standard than the average person. I believe that it’s newsworthy when a LEO shoots someone unintentionally, so I’m not blaming the press.

      I’m curious about the reserve police status. Lake Arthur NM is a one horse town in the middle of nowhere. Population 436 according to the last census.

      How did he end up a reserve cop there? Doing it for HR218/LEOSA status?

  25. Kinetic Development Group says:

    KDG stands With Chuck, a man who we regard as a friend, a mentor, a brother and overall amazing person. You can add us to the list, we don’t bail on people we respect when the chips are down.

  26. My 2 cents says:

    One thing I can be sure about is this. The media will put the worst spin possible on it that they can. Thats how they make money. They will creatively phrase things to give doubt on the real meaning on intention.

    I really hope this pans out for the guy but its just hard to qualify the booze and gun part. Thats a bit sticky to answer…good guy or not.

    And its gonna be really hard to put an Intoxilyzer 2000 on a Roland special, it will throw the balance right off.

  27. JoshZ says:

    I really think the companies and everyone else should wait and see what really happened before we go all in or against Chuck. That being said, even “Tier One” guys have NDs if you live and work around guns eventually you are going to have one. You just hope no one gets hurt. If you don’t want it to happen don’t be around guns.

    Unfortunately someone did get hurt. So let the cops do their job and lets see what really happened. I don’t care how great of a guy Chuck is. Really great people sometimes do really dumb shit. I hope this didn’t happen to Chuck.

    • Joe_momma says:

      ND’s will happen. I’ve always been told it’s not a matter of if but when; if you are around guns enough that is. I also understand the support of a fellow colleague, a business partner, a brand ambassador, etc. This would make a lot more sense if this was an incident like Travis Haley’s #NDgate. But it seems like many supporters are glancing over the reported fact that he shot a dude! And then the implication of being intoxicated. It’s not simply the ND, it’s the totality that seems to be being glanced over. HE SHOT SOMEONE!

    • Robby D says:

      The cliche “if you are around guns long enough you’ll have a ND” needs to die. It’s BS.

  28. Bill Baxter says:

    This guy’s a god! Shoots his brother in law and gets only a misdemeanor!!! I have two ex brothers in law…hmmm.

  29. Nate says:

    Chuck is a good friend, a true patriot and a loyal servant to the Rebublic.

    He may or may not have f—ed up. We all make mistakes. I f—ed before. Still got a job. If he is in the wrong, it does not diminish his accomplishments or dedication to this country. He has made valuable contributions to the community, his nation and to freedom.

    I stand with Chuck. Haters can eat a bag of dicks. You disagree, you know where to find me.

  30. Hush says:

    Seems like a lot of the people quick to tear down a respected member of a small community (that doesn’t include them) are the type to have III% tattoos and open carry Springfield XD’S in SERPA holsters. Luckily, the opinions of people who’s only exposure to firearms training comes from YouTube and instagram don’t carry much weight. A lot has been inferred from a one paragraph press release. Maybe wait till the actual report comes out before passing judgements.

  31. Sean says:

    Even IF he’s guilty , he is still a dude who has spent decades serving his country while mentoring warriors in and out of the service as well as in and out of the shaddows.
    I am a career civilian who takes his family’s safety seriously and I’ve learned volumes from him over the years….FOR FREE because he believed certain lessons should be shared.
    Yeah turd., I and my family are also #allinforchuck and applaud the companies here with the moral courage to give him the benifit of the doubt.
    And If he’s guilty , I’ll still have more respect for him than I have for most men .
    You negative nancys seem convinced that he is a lesser person, unworthy of our respect because he messed up.
    How sad.

    • joe_momma says:

      That’s where the problem seems to lie in many social media and forum environments; condemning his actions that led to the ND is not the same as condemning him as a human being. At least that’s my stance. Don’t condemn what he’s done because of what he did, but also can’t ignore what he did cause if what he’s done.

  32. Mr.E.G. says:

    Let me throw out a crazy idea. Maybe someone can be an awesome person AND do something horrible. And we should celebrate their awesomeness while still expecting them to accept responsibility for their misconduct.

    Also, if I ever did something horrible to someone else, caused only by my own carelessness, wherein I violated some of the most obvious safety tenets, I would hope to have a ton of great people come forward to tell the world what a good person I am. And then I would promptly tell them to save their breath. I believe that a man owns up for his mistakes. I also believe in redemption, but think it only comes from owning up to one’s mistakes.

    This guy can have all the supporters in the world, and they can be the best people in the world, but the only testament to his character that matters will be whether he mans up or not.

  33. Rick Bachman says:

    You have to wonder if the trigger job on that fancy pistol Roland carries didn’t contribute to the shooting. It would be a shame if the trigger were at fault because the whole incident could have been avoided. Maybe there’s something to the New York trigger, particularly when there’s liquor involved.

    • joe_momma says:

      Drunk brain: “Two pounds…three pounds…..ffffour pounds….ffffffiiivv….ahh fuck it I give up”