Well Known Instructor in hot water...... [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Well Known Instructor in hot water......


Fire_Medic
08-05-2011, 22:02
How's it going fellas, I don't normally post in here, but I was asked to post this link in here:

http://www.9wsyr.com/news/local/story/Former-Sheriff-s-Office-firearms-instructor/DGDlwAOfyk2JUkEDbrkqJg.cspx

opelwasp
08-05-2011, 23:02
That's what happens when you want to have good equipment. The gubment gets jealous.

Who was the tool that turned him in and what was their motive?

Morris
08-05-2011, 23:45
This guy was a Glock USA instructor? Hard to tell from the article.

If true, major unhappiness.

Sam Spade
08-06-2011, 07:08
"Defaced weapons"? That makes absolutely no sense.

Hack
08-06-2011, 08:09
"Defaced weapons"? That makes absolutely no sense.

It does seem odd.

4949shooter
08-06-2011, 08:14
"Defaced weapons"? That makes absolutely no sense.

It makes you wonder.

Though, if he did indeed remove or alter the weapons serial numbers he should have known better.

GPalmer
08-06-2011, 10:36
It makes you wonder.

Though, if he did indeed remove or alter the weapons serial numbers he should have known better.

And they'll have a field day with that and suppressors, though it doesn't say they were illegal...

ucop27
08-06-2011, 10:52
[QUOTE=Morris;17735775]This guy was a Glock USA instructor? Hard to tell from the article.

QUOTE]

He was my armorer instructor for 2 classes, I believe that he was retired and just worked for Glock doing training and so on.

smokeross
08-06-2011, 10:58
Yeah, well they could make up stuff like that for just about anyone. Incendiary devices? What's that, a book of matches? Defaced guns? Could it have been disassembled guns instead? Damaged guns? I'm not ready to convict the guy yet. I am actually more suspicious of that reporter, Christie whatever....and the horse she rode in on too.

smokeross
08-06-2011, 11:04
I don't normally post in here, but I have 7056 posts........
Sorry, Fire_Medic, I couldn't help myself.:supergrin: Beat me with a wet noodle if you must. And thanks for the work you do.

jdh31313
08-06-2011, 16:25
The video of him running the range & interview was less then flattering. It goes to show that the media will dig up stuff which shows even the best people in a negative light. I was thinking, could the defaced guns be the G.17 "cut away" which shows the internal components of the pistol which he travels with and uses to show classes? As far as the Incendiary devices...smoke and flash bangs come to mind.

Fiery Red XIII
08-06-2011, 18:31
The video of him running the range & interview was less then flattering. It goes to show that the media will dig up stuff which shows even the best people in a negative light. I was thinking, could the defaced guns be the G.17 "cut away" which shows the internal components of the pistol which he travels with and uses to show classes? As far as the Incendiary devices...smoke and flash bangs come to mind.

My 1st thought on the incindiery devices was flashbangs too. As far as the other stuff, I am not in the know enough on the training/armorer stuff.

Red

Fire_Medic
08-06-2011, 19:07
Sorry, Fire_Medic, I couldn't help myself.:supergrin: Beat me with a wet noodle if you must. And thanks for the work you do.

LOL :rofl:

Good one!! But you're on pave to beat my post count :tongueout:

scottydl
08-06-2011, 23:07
"Well Known Instructor" but I'm betting most people here have never heard of the guy. I'm also betting it's a smear campaign (for reasons unknown) and the charges will go nowhere, as incredibly vague as that stellar news report is being. He was a gun instructor and he had gun parts laying around? NO WAY!!!!

countsk
08-06-2011, 23:36
That's what happens when you want to have good equipment. The gubment gets jealous.

Who was the tool that turned him in and what was their motive?

Probably an ex or soon to be ex.

Morris
08-07-2011, 01:13
The "HE GOT WEED!!!!" factor?

leeward419
08-07-2011, 07:07
This guy was a Glock USA instructor? Hard to tell from the article.


He is the head of all GLOCK training.

Im not buying any of the BS on the news.
From my experience he is truly a standup guy and My first reaction is that someone is out to screw him.
My dad called me and told me this was on the news the other day, Mark D said when they inteviewed Mark, that although he could not comment on the specifics, there is another side to this story. My first reaction was that someone is out for him. I am generally very cynical when I see something like this but not here.

He lives in the same neighborhood as my Dad.
I have run into Mark at the local club a few times, he taught the armorers course I took, and he has been at the local GSSF match. He has always gone out of his way to help anyone who has needed it. He is the kind of guy that commands a tremendous amount respect from his students, fellow PO's and PO/Mil Vets and anyone who would meet him. This also fosters up a lot of resentment in some of the weasels out there.

Based on the character of the man, the snarkiness of the local politics etc this looks like a smear campaign to me.
CNY, Onondaga County and the local legal establishment in particular has a history of being VERY anti gun, they may be going after GLOCK, you know new national extreme anti gun BATF guy and all, maybe the locals feel empowered and this is how they do it. Hope its not the shape of things to come

Arc Angel
08-07-2011, 07:21
It's glaringly obvious that there is a whole lot more to this story than the news media is willing to portray.

Garden, 'gopher bombs' are incendiary devices. So are many different sorts of ordinary fireworks. Technically, the grip tape on my Glocks, 'defaces' them.

It's impossible NOT to smell the odiferous aroma of cow poop on this one. Somebody in the local government, obviously, hates this guy. :rollingeyes:

OLY-M4gery
08-07-2011, 08:03
I think "defacing a firearm" is legalese for destroying the serial number(s).

Not putting tape on it.

Arc Angel
08-07-2011, 08:09
:upeyes: Oh, yeah! Then, 'Why' don't the charges simply say, 'Destroying the serial numbers'? Things would be so much more understandable if they did.

Deployment Solu
08-07-2011, 08:16
Yeah, you remember the big to do about nothing that was the big FBI Sting at the SHOT Show in 09?? Headlines....nothing ever came of it.

OLY-M4gery
08-07-2011, 08:25
:upeyes: Oh, yeah! Then, 'Why' don't the charges simply say, 'Destroying the serial numbers'? Things would be so much more understandable if they did.

If you type in "defacing a firearm" into an internet search engine, it will return multiple hits with different state statutes. Because "defacing a firearm" is the title of the law making it a crime to alter/destroy a firearm's serial number.

Peace Frog
08-07-2011, 08:36
If I remember correctly silencers are not legal in NY state...

http://law.onecle.com/new-york/penal/PEN0265.02_265.02.html

Here's how the state of NY describes "deface" in reference to a firearm...


http://law.onecle.com/new-york/penal/PEN0265.00_265.00.html

7. "Deface" means to remove, deface, cover, alter or destroy the
manufacturer's serial number or any other distinguishing number or
identification mark.

redbrd
08-07-2011, 08:52
NY is not a gun friendly State or for that a responsible adult state. It is my home State and one of the most beautiful but being but owning NYC has come at a very high price to the rest of the state.
I rarely claim it.

jdh31313
08-07-2011, 08:56
He is the head of all GLOCK training.
Is Alan Ramsey not the head of Glock Training or has a change been made in Smyrna?

Arc Angel
08-07-2011, 09:30
If I remember correctly silencers are not legal in NY state...

http://law.onecle.com/new-york/penal/PEN0265.02_265.02.html

Here's how the state of NY describes "deface" in reference to a firearm...


http://law.onecle.com/new-york/penal/PEN0265.00_265.00.html

7. "Deface" means to remove, deface, cover, alter or destroy the
manufacturer's serial number or any other distinguishing number or
identification mark.

Exactly! ('The devil' is in the details.)

Peace Frog
08-07-2011, 10:54
Something about this just isn't right...I found another article on this and man are they vague

http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2011/08/firearms_instructor_accused_of.html


Sounds like he has somebody out to get him...This all sounds personal to me but what do I know?:dunno:


Yes I know silencers are not legal in NY but does that apply if you are a certified instructor?:dunno:

buddah
08-07-2011, 11:38
Mark was my Instructor a few years ago for my Glock armorers certification. He was a very nice guy and it was one of the best armorer schools I attended. The Instructors' personality and experience makes the class. Any jerk can read off a powerpoint. I don't believe the media when it comes to gun headlines, especially New York media. The thing that stinks about this is the ole "You can beat the rap but you can't beat the ride". Even if Mark is innocent (which he probably is) it will cost him thousands in legal fees to fight the charges and sadly Glock will probably fire him.:crying:

captcurly
08-07-2011, 12:04
Holy Crap! I took the Glock Armorer's Course in NJ in late June. Mark conducted a great class and IMHO was a great instructor. It was a large class and he did an outstanding job. The man seems to be a standup guy and I hope it works our for him. There are some hidden under tones on this story. As we know you cannot believe all the things one reads in a newspaper or what is reported on radio and TV. As we know it is possible that someone is out to get him. As an employee of Glock I just hope they support him. Please keep us informed to any new bits of info on this story. Good Luck to you Mark and I really enjoyed your class. To the member that has connection to that part of NJS please keep this forum advised of any new bits of info.

leeward419
08-07-2011, 12:21
Is Alan Ramsey not the head of Glock Training or has a change been made in Smyrna?
I beleive his business cards reads" Director of Training"
I have his card around somewhere, I will have to dig it up

GPalmer
08-07-2011, 12:58
Something about this just isn't right...I found another article on this and man are they vague

http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2011/08/firearms_instructor_accused_of.html


Sounds like he has somebody out to get him...This all sounds personal to me but what do I know?:dunno:


Yes I know silencers are not legal in NY but does that apply if you are a certified instructor?:dunno:
I wouldn't agree that it sounds like someone is out to get him. Actually it sounds more like he's getting the light end of the stick. He only had 3 felony counts lodged for possession of four suppressors, four defaced hand guns and all the incendiary devices. The DA went light on him, at least for the moment.

Of course, we don't have his side of the story and the news accounts are hopelessly vague at best so this is all speculation. I am wondering if the firearms/suppressors were some sort of Glock manufacturing prototype though. Glock might have the ability to manufacture and test suppressors in New York as a Class 3 manufacturer. If this was Glock sponsored, it would make sense to have your chief firearms instructor test them. I don't believe that anything they let out of the factory wouldn't have a serial number on it. I don't have experience in the day to day of hand gun manufacturing so I could be wrong there.

In the end, I don't think that law enforcement would have played it the way they did if there was any chance of the seized items being legal though. Not in light of his past history with law enforcement.

Peace Frog
08-07-2011, 13:05
I wouldn't agree that it sounds like someone is out to get him. Actually it sounds more like he's getting the light end of the stick. He only had 3 felony counts lodged for possession of four suppressors, four defaced hand guns and all the incendiary devices. The DA went light on him, at least for the moment.

Of course, we don't have his side of the story and the news accounts are hopelessly vague at best so this is all speculation. I am wondering if the firearms/suppressors were some sort of Glock manufacturing prototype though. Glock might have the ability to manufacture and test suppressors in New York as a Class 3 manufacturer. If this was Glock sponsored, it would make sense to have your chief firearms instructor test them. I don't believe that anything they let out of the factory wouldn't have a serial number on it. I don't have experience in the day to day of hand gun manufacturing so I could be wrong there.

In the end, I don't think that law enforcement would have played it the way they did if there was any chance of the seized items being legal though. Not in light of his past history with law enforcement.

Somebody had to spill the beans to get the ball rolling.That's what I should have said.I didn't mean to imply the DA was out to get him...my bad.


Also I know for a fact silencers are not legal to possess by civilians in NY but I was thinking maybe he had paperwork from a State Agency stating he had permission to use them as a training tool?

All in all I pray it goes well for him because from posts here from people that had dealings with him he seems to be a stand-up guy.Would suck to have felonies on your record after serving your community for a couple decades.


:wavey:

scottydl
08-07-2011, 16:02
The items seized from his home he probably had SOME permission to possess for training purposes, in a classroom/armory setting... but I'm betting not at his house (i.e. private residence). Perhaps he mentioned to someone in passing that he had some work stuff at home, and the wrong person found out and decided to screw him.

Bullseye300
08-07-2011, 20:33
He also gave me my armorer cert a few years back in south eastern PA. He is also a helicopter pilot. He mentioned in our class about the "tests" done to the Glocks to include dropping them from helicopters. We have all heard about them. He claimed to have been piloting the craft. He seemed like a great guy. I wish him well.
Bullseye

Roadkill_751
08-08-2011, 03:21
I beleive his business cards reads" Director of Training"
I have his card around somewhere, I will have to dig it up

Yes, Alan is the Director of Training.

Magicmanmb
08-08-2011, 06:44
Who is up for reelection this year??

ray9898
08-08-2011, 10:01
:upeyes: Oh, yeah! Then, 'Why' don't the charges simply say, 'Destroying the serial numbers'? Things would be so much more understandable if they did.


Because charges are listed under the legal title.

Arc Angel
08-08-2011, 10:24
Because charges are listed under the legal title.

Sure, that's the point! The legal title covers a, 'laundry list' of ambiguous definitions that might even include refinishing the frame or slide. Exactly what it is that the defendant must refute isn't clearly spelled out. Personally, I continue to think the guy is getting technically, 'railroaded'.

I am nowhere near ready to accept these charges at face value. (Hell, Casey Anthony was just found to be, 'innocent'; and we, all, know what actually happened there!) Hey, 'If it waddles like a duck, quacks like a duck, and smells fowl then it's probably a ...... ' ;)

jdh31313
08-08-2011, 10:32
Yes, Alan is the Director of Training.

Thanks...that is what I thought

Cruiser1
08-08-2011, 11:51
So basically no one here has a clue about what really is going on. Yet, some have convicted him and others claim that it must be some sort of conspiracy. I have an idea, why don’t we allow the investigators to do their job and determine what the facts of the case are. I have known too many fine upstanding citizens and well respected LE that turned out to have a very dark side. Most people are very good at hiding that side of themselves when necessary.

GPalmer
08-08-2011, 22:49
Sure, that's the point! The legal title covers a, 'laundry list' of ambiguous definitions that might even include refinishing the frame or slide.
That isn't a correct statement, at least if I'm understanding your statement correctly. A short barrel rifle can mean many things to many people, but the legal definition is clear, a barrel under 16." The definition is part of the legislation when it's enacted and is further defined by case law. That's what makes reading law a trick, You have to know what the piece of legislation defines to be a defaced firearm, what other folks might consider it to be is immaterial.

for instance at this link which has the NY law (http://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article265.htm) we have a definition:
7. "Deface" means to remove, deface, cover, alter or destroy the manufacturer`s serial number or any other distinguishing number or identification mark.

That is exactly what is meant by a defaced firearm for that section of the legal code, even if in informal use, you could say someone who scratched their name into one of their firearms had defaced it and been entirely correct.

GPalmer
08-08-2011, 23:00
So basically no one here has a clue about what really is going on. Yet, some have convicted him and others claim that it must be some sort of conspiracy. I have an idea, why donít we allow the investigators to do their job and determine what the facts of the case are. I have known too many fine upstanding citizens and well respected LE that turned out to have a very dark side. Most people are very good at hiding that side of themselves when necessary.

Particularly in this case, given the unusually vague reporting.

Arc Angel
08-09-2011, 06:25
...... for instance at this link which has the NY law (http://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article265.htm) we have a definition:
7. "Deface" means to remove, deface, cover, alter or destroy the manufacturer`s serial number or any other distinguishing number or identification mark.

That is exactly what is meant by a defaced firearm for that section of the legal code, even if in informal use, you could say someone who scratched their name into one of their firearms had defaced it and been entirely correct.

If you compare what you wrote in PP1 with what you're saying in PP2 then we're, pretty much, saying the same thing. It's going to be interesting to see exactly how this case unfolds.

leeward419
08-09-2011, 16:27
[QUOTE][Originally Posted by Roadkill_751 http://glocktalk.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=17745743#post17745743)
Yes, Alan is the Director of Training.

Originally Posted by leeward419 http://glocktalk.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=17742559#post17742559)
I beleive his business cards reads" Director of Training"
I have his card around somewhere, I will have to dig it up


I found Marks business card, it reads "Deputy Director of Training"
Not claiming conspiracy, just familiar with the local Pols, Ive seen terrible distortions in "reporting" over the course of my life.

The Character of the guy+1 He is (was-recently retired?) sheriff. Im not buying the story. I think everyone owes him the benefit of the doubt.

Straight Pipe
08-10-2011, 11:47
If I remember correctly silencers are not legal in NY state...

http://law.onecle.com/new-york/penal/PEN0265.02_265.02.html

Here's how the state of NY describes "deface" in reference to a firearm...


http://law.onecle.com/new-york/penal/PEN0265.00_265.00.html

7. "Deface" means to remove, deface, cover, alter or destroy the
manufacturer's serial number or any other distinguishing number or
identification mark.

So adding a rail mounted light/lazer would be illeagal in NY?

1 old 0311
08-10-2011, 13:40
I think "defacing a firearm" is legalese for destroying the serial number(s).

Not putting tape on it.

The responders know that they just don't want to think that.

Peace Frog
08-10-2011, 15:44
So adding a rail mounted light/lazer would be illeagal in NY?

Couldn't tell ya' Sir...I'm just the messenger.



:wavey: