I recently discovered that Gabe Suarez, the firearms instructor, is a convicted felon. Now leaving aside whether the charge was justified, etc. the bottom line is that he cannot purchase, own or posess firearms. Now he could have had his rights restored, but since he lives in and was convicted in California, that is highly unlikely. So I guess I'm wondering how he can travel the country handling firearms? Nothing against the guy, I'm genuinely curious. Anyone know?
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
How does Gabe Suarez teach firearms classes?
- Thread starter TheFaz
- Start date
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2005
- Messages
- 57,021
- Likes
- 21,147
What you "discovered" isn't the truth, but does have some elements of truth in it. Gabe is controversial and has made lots of enemies. Try working for a PD and trying to do the right thing and you'll understand what I'm saying a lot better than anything any of us could tell you.
Gabe does NOT live in CA, he lives in AZ and I believe that he told us that he has another place in Costa Rica (and gun permits and lots of toys there). He does a lot of teaching in South America, as well as other places in the world. When he taught our classes here in MA, he did NOT bring any guns with him, Jim Conway loaned him a gun on the range at Tyngsboro.
If you want the straight scoop on Gabe, his conviction and jail time you can read it all here as a first-hand story from Gabe himself:
http://www.warriortalk.com/showthread.php?t=5797 [I suspect that some online research of CA's court records should corroborate Gabe's story.]
I can tell you that Gabe is absolutely one of the best defensive tactics trainers still breathing air and teaching on this planet! He teaches you what you need to know in order to survive and he has no place for "PC" stuff that PDs demand, and most other instructors teach.
ETA - I knew nothing about Gabe until early this year, did some reading of his and about him, took some of it on blind faith from my buddy Jim Conway and attended two of Gabe's classes this Summer. The Intro class was eye-opening and great and the more advanced class was way above my abilities at this time and I shouldn't have been there (I still learned a lot however). I highly recommend him and his classes.
Gabe does NOT live in CA, he lives in AZ and I believe that he told us that he has another place in Costa Rica (and gun permits and lots of toys there). He does a lot of teaching in South America, as well as other places in the world. When he taught our classes here in MA, he did NOT bring any guns with him, Jim Conway loaned him a gun on the range at Tyngsboro.
If you want the straight scoop on Gabe, his conviction and jail time you can read it all here as a first-hand story from Gabe himself:
http://www.warriortalk.com/showthread.php?t=5797 [I suspect that some online research of CA's court records should corroborate Gabe's story.]
I can tell you that Gabe is absolutely one of the best defensive tactics trainers still breathing air and teaching on this planet! He teaches you what you need to know in order to survive and he has no place for "PC" stuff that PDs demand, and most other instructors teach.
ETA - I knew nothing about Gabe until early this year, did some reading of his and about him, took some of it on blind faith from my buddy Jim Conway and attended two of Gabe's classes this Summer. The Intro class was eye-opening and great and the more advanced class was way above my abilities at this time and I shouldn't have been there (I still learned a lot however). I highly recommend him and his classes.
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2005
- Messages
- 57,021
- Likes
- 21,147
I didn't realize, as I've been a member there for a little over a year.
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2005
- Messages
- 57,021
- Likes
- 21,147
TonyD said:
Tony, too lazy to register?
It really is a good site and worth joining for some really good high level information on training, what works and what doesn't.Briefly:
- Gabe spent 15 years in LE in CA, he was a SWAT (or similar member) and was involved in at least 4 shootouts (yes, he terminated some perps).
- He also suffered numerous on-the-job injuries and had to leave the force due to serious back injuries (quote below).
"I awoke one morning in such pain I had to go to the doctor. My low back felt as if there was a knife in it. X-rays, and MRIs showed a compression fracture of vertebrae as well as two bulged discs, one with a tear, all in the lumbar region. Bad JuJu. The doc said surgery for the back and retirement or end up in a wheelchair. I chose the retirement option, without surgery if possible. The injury was work-related and I was entitled to benefits."
"I was officially off duty and on worker’s comp benefits for almost a year, while the docs tried to fix me, and the lawyers worked to retire me. I realized I would need an income after it was all said and done. I’d already been teaching for several years, first at Front Sight and then at a couple of other places. It was a lucrative and viable way to make a living. Not being particularly patient, I asked the doctor if teaching firearms classes was OK. He said, “As long as you are not out doing a police job or working as a bouncer, its just fine”. I checked with the WC attorney. He said the same."
Thus, he started building his training business.
"Another issue is that you cannot build a business in secret. I was quite clear and up front about what I was doing and advertised classes on the internet and by mail. When my adversaries in power learned what I was doing, they saw an opening to do me harm and spared no expense to accomplish their goals. They put together a case against me in size and scope rivaling cases I’d seen for multiple murders."
"To make a long story short, my agency had put together a case charging me with worker’s comp fraud, along with a litany of other high crimes ranging from money laundering to just about everything except maybe piracy on the high seas and shooting JFK himself. It’s a common tactic to stack charge upon charge so that at least something will stick."
After a lot of being jerked around, Gabe could see that he'd probably end up in bankruptcy as he fought the charges for years. They offered Gabe a "deal" and he took it:
"I plead guilty to a misdemeanor, paid fines, and did seven months in a small room by myself. It was the hardest thing I’ve ever done. While “inside” I spent my days exercising, reading the Bible straight through three times, and devised business plans."
That's it in a nutshell. I'll post my comments next.
I don't know anything of the validity of this, nor the outcome, but this dates back to 2001, and is suppossedly what he got nailed with.
http://forum.m1911.org/showthread.php?t=5389&page=3
And here's the source referenced to in the above. Smells rotten to me. Looks like he did a plea to get away from it. And the plea was to a misdemeanor.
http://www.smmirror.com/volume2/issue39/smpd_officers_charged.asp
SMPD Officers Charged With Fraud
Clara Sturak
Associate editor
On Friday, March 2, two Santa Monica Police Officers were arrested in connection with conspiracy to defraud the City of Santa Monica through Workers Compensation fraud. Officers Jason Comer and Gabriel Suarez were arrested along with Suarez' wife Cheryl Suarez.
According to a press release issued by the Public Information Office of the Santa Monica Police Department, the three were charged after a "long term and intensive investigation" on the part of the Department's Internal Criminal Unit, the Los Angeles District Attorney's Office, and the California State Department of Insurance.
Comer, 32, a six-year veteran, and Suarez 40, a twelve year veteran, along with Mrs. Suarez, are charged with four criminal counts, explains Deputy District Attorney Craig Omura, who led the DA's portion of the investigation. "Count one is conspiracy to commit workers compensation fraud, count two is workers compensation fraud, count three is money laundering, and count six is grand theft, because the money they obtained was over $400." Counts four and five, both for perjury, apply only to Officer Suarez, in regards to false depositions he gave in March and June of 2000. Details of the case have not yet been released.
The investigation, says Omura, has been going on since October of 2000, when the SMPD became aware of possible criminal activity. "They brought the information to [the District Attorney's office] in November of 2000. At that time we began a three-pronged investigation with the Santa Monica Police and the State Department of Insurance." SMPD did the most of the investigative footwork, according to Omura, consulting with the other two departments as to "what elements [they] needed to prove."
The charges and subsequent arrests were not made public until March 7, with an interdepartmental memo sent by SMPD Chief James T. Butts. Although there has been concern that some City officials were not made aware of the situation until several days following the arrests, Judy Rambeau, Assistant to the City Manager states that the City Manger's office was aware of the investigation from its beginnings. "The City Manager is always alerted when something like this is going on," said Rambeau in an interview on Monday. "That doesn't mean we have all of the details as the investigation proceeds. The police need to keep tight control over who knows what's happening at any given time."
In fact, that's exactly why City officials were not informed. Chief Butts' memo states that "there are other long-term investigations concerning potential fraudulent application for Workers Compensation benefits by other members of the department that continue." SMPD Public Information Officer Captain Gary Gallinot confirmed in a telephone interview with the Mirror that, "it was our intent that the investigations be entirely wrapped up before we went public." But, says Gallinot, the District Attorney's office felt they had enough information to go forward, and "since they are the prosecuting authority, it was up to them."
Once any arrest is made it becomes a matter of public record. However, the SMPD did not issue a statement on the day of the arrests. According to Gallinot, "the reason [the arrests weren't] made public [by the police department] is because we did not want to jeopardize the ongoing investigations. Once we realized it was going to be made public [in the media], our strategy had to change, and notifications were made."
Gallinot could not comment on the ongoing investigations, except to say that they are "specific" in nature, and that the DA's office is involved.
"It's important to note," he said, "that this investigation was started by our police department. We are vigorously involved in the discipline and prosecution of misconduct [on the part] of our employees. If you don't look for misconduct or criminal activity, you seldom find it. The fact that we do so shines a positive light on our institutional integrity."
Jason Comer, Gabriel Suarez and Cheryl Suarez are scheduled to be arraigned on Wednesday, March 14. If convicted, Jason Comer and Cheryl Suarez could serve maximum prison sentences of 5 years, 8 months, and Gabriel Suarez could serve a maximum of 7 years, 8 months.
http://forum.m1911.org/showthread.php?t=5389&page=3
And here's the source referenced to in the above. Smells rotten to me. Looks like he did a plea to get away from it. And the plea was to a misdemeanor.
http://www.smmirror.com/volume2/issue39/smpd_officers_charged.asp
SMPD Officers Charged With Fraud
Clara Sturak
Associate editor
On Friday, March 2, two Santa Monica Police Officers were arrested in connection with conspiracy to defraud the City of Santa Monica through Workers Compensation fraud. Officers Jason Comer and Gabriel Suarez were arrested along with Suarez' wife Cheryl Suarez.
According to a press release issued by the Public Information Office of the Santa Monica Police Department, the three were charged after a "long term and intensive investigation" on the part of the Department's Internal Criminal Unit, the Los Angeles District Attorney's Office, and the California State Department of Insurance.
Comer, 32, a six-year veteran, and Suarez 40, a twelve year veteran, along with Mrs. Suarez, are charged with four criminal counts, explains Deputy District Attorney Craig Omura, who led the DA's portion of the investigation. "Count one is conspiracy to commit workers compensation fraud, count two is workers compensation fraud, count three is money laundering, and count six is grand theft, because the money they obtained was over $400." Counts four and five, both for perjury, apply only to Officer Suarez, in regards to false depositions he gave in March and June of 2000. Details of the case have not yet been released.
The investigation, says Omura, has been going on since October of 2000, when the SMPD became aware of possible criminal activity. "They brought the information to [the District Attorney's office] in November of 2000. At that time we began a three-pronged investigation with the Santa Monica Police and the State Department of Insurance." SMPD did the most of the investigative footwork, according to Omura, consulting with the other two departments as to "what elements [they] needed to prove."
The charges and subsequent arrests were not made public until March 7, with an interdepartmental memo sent by SMPD Chief James T. Butts. Although there has been concern that some City officials were not made aware of the situation until several days following the arrests, Judy Rambeau, Assistant to the City Manager states that the City Manger's office was aware of the investigation from its beginnings. "The City Manager is always alerted when something like this is going on," said Rambeau in an interview on Monday. "That doesn't mean we have all of the details as the investigation proceeds. The police need to keep tight control over who knows what's happening at any given time."
In fact, that's exactly why City officials were not informed. Chief Butts' memo states that "there are other long-term investigations concerning potential fraudulent application for Workers Compensation benefits by other members of the department that continue." SMPD Public Information Officer Captain Gary Gallinot confirmed in a telephone interview with the Mirror that, "it was our intent that the investigations be entirely wrapped up before we went public." But, says Gallinot, the District Attorney's office felt they had enough information to go forward, and "since they are the prosecuting authority, it was up to them."
Once any arrest is made it becomes a matter of public record. However, the SMPD did not issue a statement on the day of the arrests. According to Gallinot, "the reason [the arrests weren't] made public [by the police department] is because we did not want to jeopardize the ongoing investigations. Once we realized it was going to be made public [in the media], our strategy had to change, and notifications were made."
Gallinot could not comment on the ongoing investigations, except to say that they are "specific" in nature, and that the DA's office is involved.
"It's important to note," he said, "that this investigation was started by our police department. We are vigorously involved in the discipline and prosecution of misconduct [on the part] of our employees. If you don't look for misconduct or criminal activity, you seldom find it. The fact that we do so shines a positive light on our institutional integrity."
Jason Comer, Gabriel Suarez and Cheryl Suarez are scheduled to be arraigned on Wednesday, March 14. If convicted, Jason Comer and Cheryl Suarez could serve maximum prison sentences of 5 years, 8 months, and Gabriel Suarez could serve a maximum of 7 years, 8 months.
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2005
- Messages
- 57,021
- Likes
- 21,147
I can relate to Gabe from personal experience!
DEC had a "conflict of interest policy" that was massively broad. It actually was rarely enforced (selectively against people they wanted to nail), but stated that an employee COULD NOT do business with a supplier or a customer of DEC's. Taken literally, you couldn't buy an Rx in MA in those days (the pharmacies mostly used DEC HW/SW to process Rxs)!
I ended up involved in testing and then selling some word-processing SW for DEC Rainbows and Robins for a small company in CA (DEC had no word-processing SW for these machines). I ran this by the Software Acquisition Services folks (they inked contracts with suppliers), my management and my own HR person to make sure there was no conflict of interest. My VP and another VP were on my Email list. Suddenly one day the head of Corp. Investigations comes over and meets with my managers. I'm called in and told that I am in violation of the conflict of interest rule and subject to termination for surreptitiously selling software "in competition with DEC". I show them that I've run this by many that were aware of what I was doing and told me that it was AOK.
I got out of this mess by accepting a "verbal warning" and agreeing to dispose of my stock to another reseller and never doing it again. My HR person initially told me that I shouldn't have agreed to stop selling the SW (as she still saw no conflict) then she called me back up and said that I should "scratch what she said", that she had "mis-spoken" . I met with the DEC lawyer who was involved and she told me that HR wanted to make an example of me and fire me, but the documentation that I gave the investigators proved that I tried to do nothing wrong and the list they demanded of customers and those on my Email list went almost from the top of the company down. She also told me that my direct manager tried to claim that he knew nothing about what I was doing (an outright lie - I even used a copy in the office to do my reports as part of my job and at one time he "demanded" that I supply free copies to everyone in the group - I threatened him with turning him in for Copyright violation if he tried it).The HR person and lawyer told him that he was a terrible manager (true) if he didn't know what his employees were doing! ![[wink]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/002.gif "Wink [wink]")
So, I've BTDT and it is damn uncomfortable to be in that seat! The ONLY thing that saved my ass was my Email documentation that meant that if they fired me they'd be looking at a lawsuit that they couldn't win. Smart people "tell you verbally" things that they don't put on paper, thus they can lie later and nail you with impunity.
DEC had a "conflict of interest policy" that was massively broad. It actually was rarely enforced (selectively against people they wanted to nail), but stated that an employee COULD NOT do business with a supplier or a customer of DEC's. Taken literally, you couldn't buy an Rx in MA in those days (the pharmacies mostly used DEC HW/SW to process Rxs)!
I ended up involved in testing and then selling some word-processing SW for DEC Rainbows and Robins for a small company in CA (DEC had no word-processing SW for these machines). I ran this by the Software Acquisition Services folks (they inked contracts with suppliers), my management and my own HR person to make sure there was no conflict of interest. My VP and another VP were on my Email list. Suddenly one day the head of Corp. Investigations comes over and meets with my managers. I'm called in and told that I am in violation of the conflict of interest rule and subject to termination for surreptitiously selling software "in competition with DEC". I show them that I've run this by many that were aware of what I was doing and told me that it was AOK.
I got out of this mess by accepting a "verbal warning" and agreeing to dispose of my stock to another reseller and never doing it again. My HR person initially told me that I shouldn't have agreed to stop selling the SW (as she still saw no conflict) then she called me back up and said that I should "scratch what she said", that she had "mis-spoken"
. I met with the DEC lawyer who was involved and she told me that HR wanted to make an example of me and fire me, but the documentation that I gave the investigators proved that I tried to do nothing wrong and the list they demanded of customers and those on my Email list went almost from the top of the company down. She also told me that my direct manager tried to claim that he knew nothing about what I was doing (an outright lie - I even used a copy in the office to do my reports as part of my job and at one time he "demanded" that I supply free copies to everyone in the group - I threatened him with turning him in for Copyright violation if he tried it).The HR person and lawyer told him that he was a terrible manager (true) if he didn't know what his employees were doing! So, I've BTDT and it is damn uncomfortable to be in that seat! The ONLY thing that saved my ass was my Email documentation that meant that if they fired me they'd be looking at a lawsuit that they couldn't win. Smart people "tell you verbally" things that they don't put on paper, thus they can lie later and nail you with impunity.
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2005
- Messages
- 57,021
- Likes
- 21,147
Nickle,
Thanks for posting that! What I posted was Gabe's own words. For the doubting Thomases (and there are many of them), words from an independent source that corroborate Gabe's story is very valuable.
More on my personal thoughts will follow.
Thanks for posting that! What I posted was Gabe's own words. For the doubting Thomases (and there are many of them), words from an independent source that corroborate Gabe's story is very valuable.
More on my personal thoughts will follow.
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2005
- Messages
- 57,021
- Likes
- 21,147
From my 18 years as a Special PO and my personal knowledge of other events since that time:
PDs aren't vindictive! They'd never go out of their way to try to unjustly nail one of their own, right?
Right, and I can hardly wait for the good tooth fairy to leave some money under my pillow for last week's tooth extraction! [roll]
Facts:
- One of our past police chiefs used to send officers out-of-town to spy on other officers who were out sick/disability. They weren't supposed to even leave their home to buy groceries or go to the doctor without first calling the PD and advising them of the details in advance. I think this is still done to this day! [I do think that these restrictions were written either in the Police Policies Manual or in the union contract.]
- When our town was picking a chief, there were three finalists. One was a "favorite son" that the selectmen knew they couldn't control (he wouldn't be a "yes man"), so they appointed a well known local hatchetman to the investigating committee. The one "offense" they came up with against this candidate (who had been a chief in a North Shore town, had formerly been a Sgt in our town) was two or three "absences" from his job over the time he had been chief. Turns out that the "absences" were with permission from the North Shore town's selectmen and were to attend to his son who had a few serious operations to a very shattered leg (to mend an earlier skiing accident as he grew up, to lengthen the damaged leg to match his other leg) at a Boston hospital. Nobody was interested in his side of the story and he was passed over.
- One of the previous selectmen had people spying on a past chief, watching his every move to see if they could get something on him. This chief was a friend of mine and knew what was going on and told me about it.
- One Sgt was fired for "sexual harassment" under conditions that seem very suspicious (allegedly he made a comment to another officer). If one hangs around a PD, nothing he was accused of (it was all verbal, no physical acts) would be unusual behavior amongst officers.
- The chief was trying to get some dirt on one of our best officers. Net result was he found nothing but that officer retired early, as soon as he was eligible!
- A long time officer was injured on the job and forcibly retired. They allegedly sent a Lt to his house to confiscate his badge, uniforms (officers buy their own and are given an annual allowance for uniforms/cleaning, so it was legally his property), equipment, his LTC, etc. He was a police firearms instructor . . . oddly enough they left him with his "green card" (MG License). The town allegedly took $100/wk out of his paycheck (before he was retired) "to pay the town back for expenses related to his accident and the OT to replace him". He stopped to let a lady cross the street and was rear-ended by someone "who never saw him" (and never touched his brakes). The town only has $30K insurance for employee injury (that is all that MGLs requires from a town), they allegedly sued the driver and apparently pocketed the money. They allegedly left the officer with >$100K in medical bills and a bad taste in his mouth. There is a lot more to this, but this should give you a flavor that if they are out to get you, they will get you!
PDs aren't vindictive! They'd never go out of their way to try to unjustly nail one of their own, right?
Right, and I can hardly wait for the good tooth fairy to leave some money under my pillow for last week's tooth extraction! [roll]
Facts:
- One of our past police chiefs used to send officers out-of-town to spy on other officers who were out sick/disability. They weren't supposed to even leave their home to buy groceries or go to the doctor without first calling the PD and advising them of the details in advance. I think this is still done to this day! [I do think that these restrictions were written either in the Police Policies Manual or in the union contract.]
- When our town was picking a chief, there were three finalists. One was a "favorite son" that the selectmen knew they couldn't control (he wouldn't be a "yes man"), so they appointed a well known local hatchetman to the investigating committee. The one "offense" they came up with against this candidate (who had been a chief in a North Shore town, had formerly been a Sgt in our town) was two or three "absences" from his job over the time he had been chief. Turns out that the "absences" were with permission from the North Shore town's selectmen and were to attend to his son who had a few serious operations to a very shattered leg (to mend an earlier skiing accident as he grew up, to lengthen the damaged leg to match his other leg) at a Boston hospital. Nobody was interested in his side of the story and he was passed over.
- One of the previous selectmen had people spying on a past chief, watching his every move to see if they could get something on him. This chief was a friend of mine and knew what was going on and told me about it.
- One Sgt was fired for "sexual harassment" under conditions that seem very suspicious (allegedly he made a comment to another officer). If one hangs around a PD, nothing he was accused of (it was all verbal, no physical acts) would be unusual behavior amongst officers.
- The chief was trying to get some dirt on one of our best officers. Net result was he found nothing but that officer retired early, as soon as he was eligible!
- A long time officer was injured on the job and forcibly retired. They allegedly sent a Lt to his house to confiscate his badge, uniforms (officers buy their own and are given an annual allowance for uniforms/cleaning, so it was legally his property), equipment, his LTC, etc. He was a police firearms instructor . . . oddly enough they left him with his "green card" (MG License). The town allegedly took $100/wk out of his paycheck (before he was retired) "to pay the town back for expenses related to his accident and the OT to replace him". He stopped to let a lady cross the street and was rear-ended by someone "who never saw him" (and never touched his brakes). The town only has $30K insurance for employee injury (that is all that MGLs requires from a town), they allegedly sued the driver and apparently pocketed the money. They allegedly left the officer with >$100K in medical bills and a bad taste in his mouth. There is a lot more to this, but this should give you a flavor that if they are out to get you, they will get you!
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2005
- Messages
- 57,021
- Likes
- 21,147
TonyD said:
OK Tony, we've given you what we have. If you want evidence do a search of the court records for the case and have a blast!
To me it is simple . . . they accused him of earning money (training) while on Worker's Comp. He probably didn't get their "OK" in writing and so they charged him with insurance fraud.
As for proof to levy charges, it is simple!
- They could get his tax records for earnings teaching.
- They had proof that they were paying him something while out on disability.
Trying the case in court is another story:
- I left out the part where Gabe stated that the DA initially stated that the case was a civil matter not criminal and refused to prosecute it. The DA was also offered another job and resigned, a new DA came in and had the same "read" on it. The PD wanted to go forward so the new DA offered a deal that everyone could live with and then they could all move on.
- If Gabe had proof that he was told "AOK" (I have no knowledge if this was true or not) and it went forward to trial, it would likely get thrown out.
- However, it had dragged on for many months and he was still in limbo. Sometimes you just have to cut your losses (financial and emotional) and move on. This sounds like one of those times.
TonyD said:
They claimed he committed Workman's Compensation Fraud, by starting his training business, while on WC, pending medical retirement.
The tacked on additional charges (like that's never happened before), including the catch all, conspiracy to commit a crime.
Well, he probably could've beat the charges, but when they offered him a chance to plead out to a misdemeanor, and serve 7 months, he took it. Otherwise, they would've bankrupted him.
If I didn't know better, I would've figured he was been persecuted by the BATFE. Sure sounds like their tactics.
JimConway
Instructor
Len has done a great job covering this sorry matter. I have spent a lot of time talking with Gabe Suarez and respect him highly. My memory of his comments on this matter are the following:
His police department was trying to get rid of him before this matter came up.
He finally settled the litigation when it became apparant that he would go bankrupt if he did not reach some agreement.
He pled guilty to a misdemeanor and served, I think, about 6 months.
Len said that he used my Glock. That is true. The reason was simply to make flying easier. He does own firearms in Arizona.
His police department was trying to get rid of him before this matter came up.
He finally settled the litigation when it became apparant that he would go bankrupt if he did not reach some agreement.
He pled guilty to a misdemeanor and served, I think, about 6 months.
Len said that he used my Glock. That is true. The reason was simply to make flying easier. He does own firearms in Arizona.
TonyD
One Shot One Maggie's Drawers
And, a misdemeanor of a non-violent nature does not take away your gun rights. That was the original question, I believe.
I just got side-tracked wanting the details as I hadn't heard of the matter.
I'll reserve my opinions as to not piss anyone off.
As an aside, everything I've read or heard about Mr. Suarez is that he's an outstanding instructor.
I just got side-tracked wanting the details as I hadn't heard of the matter.
I'll reserve my opinions as to not piss anyone off.
As an aside, everything I've read or heard about Mr. Suarez is that he's an outstanding instructor.
A not so minor thing to consider is the choices he was given.
Do you accept the misdemeanor that you're not guilty of, and keep your civil rights (Gun Ownership), or do you try to prove your innocence, against people that will spare no expense to get you (and have more assets than you do)?
He did the same thing I likely would've done. They would've loved to hang a felony on him, and put him out of the training business, I'm sure.
Do you accept the misdemeanor that you're not guilty of, and keep your civil rights (Gun Ownership), or do you try to prove your innocence, against people that will spare no expense to get you (and have more assets than you do)?
He did the same thing I likely would've done. They would've loved to hang a felony on him, and put him out of the training business, I'm sure.
Well I certainly didn't mean to stir up this controversy on his trial. Like I said in my original post, I wasn't concerned with the validity of the charges, just how he managed to keep teaching. As I did more research last night, I found the same thing everyone else did - that the original charges were felonies but he plea bargained down to misdemeanor-level offenses, thus his ability to own firearms wasn't affected. That's all I wanted to know, but in checking out the internet it's apparent that there is quite a battle over him. Knowing nothing of the man or his actions, I'm staying out of that firestorm!