Firearms instructor Joe Drammissi is a member of the Board of Directors of San Diego County Gun Owners PAC, a writer, and Second Amendment activist. Drammissi has been navigating California’s gun laws for years, and we had a chat about some of the post-Bruen challenges that gun owners face in the Golden State.
Drammissi breaks down some of the issues with the new training programs, how this has driven up costs for students, and the overall chaos that’s been proliferating on the left coast. (Portions of this interview have been edited for clarity and readability.)
Petrolino: Today I’m speaking with a great activist, advocate and educator, Joe Drammissi, and he’s out there in California. Joe, you’re a trainer. You’re a board member for San Diego County Gun Owners. You also used to do some radio, and you’re a writer as well. Joe, how are you doing today?
Drammissi: I’m doing great. John, it’s good to be here with you. So thanks for the invitation and the opportunity to talk.
Petrolino: Well, Joe, you and I have talked about this off and on over the last couple of years, really, and a lot of it has to do with Bruen response. But before we start talking about what we’re going to talk about. Give me your 30 seconds elevator pitch. What did I leave out about Joe Drammisi, and what you do and what you’re all about? So we can let everybody know.
Drammissi: Yeah, that’s a long elevator pitch. I’m a board member with San Diego County Gun Owners, which is a political action committee out here in San Diego County, and we work throughout the county to get Second Amendment friendly politicians elected through all the offices. We have 18 cities in the county. So that’s 18 mayors, 18 city councils, all those folks. I’m a firearms instructor. I’m certified to teach the concealed carry qualification classes out here in San Diego County, which we do about every weekend now. I started the blog site on the San Diego County Gun Owners website about five or six or seven years ago. It’s been longer than that, maybe…and that’s how I started writing about the Second Amendment. I’d written other [content]; I published a book and written other stuff earlier, but I started getting into [the Second Amendment] there. I publish on that website and write at my own Substack on GetAGrip.Substack.com. I do a lot of writing, a lot of teaching, and competitive shooting.
Petrolino: Perfect. And…
Drammissi: That’s the 30 seconds on firearms.
Petrolino: That’s great, Joe, and I appreciate your time and San Diego County Gun Owners.
This is a question that I would usually hit Michael Schwartz with, who is the founder of and the brains of the operation…San Diego County Gun Owners, you guys have done a lot of tremendous things. What would you say is one of the largest accomplishments that you guys have, just to let people listening in know what you guys are all about, what you’ve done?
Drammissi: Oh, by far the biggest thing is the San Diego County Gun Owners is responsible for us getting our concealed carry rights back here in San Diego County. For decades, the sheriff would not issue to average citizens and people. And when Michael Schwartz, who’s the person that founded our group, when he first founded the group in I believe in November of 2015, his first goal was to get our concealed carry rights back. And everybody told him, “You’re crazy. Won’t happen. The sheriff does not issue.” And we worked on it.
And like I tell students, because I make this pitch in every class, to get students to join and support us…we don’t do rallies, we don’t do protests, we don’t do that kind of stuff. We work within the system, and the way we accomplished that was when Sheriff Gore, at the time, was running for reelection, we got a lot of the Republican groups and the local Republican politicians to withhold their endorsements until the sheriff changed his policy.
And I think the last straw, we got the whole city council in Santee and the mayor to write him a letter urging him to do that. And he called Michael about a week after that and said, “Alright, let’s talk about it.” And he changed his policy, and he was fine until he retired, and the sheriffs have been great ever since.
They’re a bit slow, but they’re enthusiastic and they’re friendly and helpful. That’s probably the biggest thing we’ve done. When we first started, there were 1,100 I think, concealed carry licenses in the county of 3.4 million people. And now we just went over 23,000 licenses here, and I hear there’s about 7,000 in the pipeline–so they’re backlogged over a year. That’s probably the biggest thing we’ve accomplished, I think.
Petrolino: And the enormity of that, and I just want to dig a little bit deeper into the history is this was coming on the heels of what there was a denial of certiorari from the Supreme Court, which was the Peruta case, which specifically dealt with carry in San Diego County. Isn’t that correct?
Drammissi: It’s really surprising. We were, well, I don’t know if surprising is the right word, but I wrote an article about this. Stole it from, actually, from the old “Shawshank Redemption.” There’s a line Morgan Freeman uses where he talks about the prisoners becoming institutionalized. And what he’s referring to is prisoners that have been in prison most of their lives, and they get out they don’t know what to do or how to act because they’ve had their rights just crushed and destroyed all that time, and they end up back in there, and I use the analogy of that out here with gun owners in California, because we become institutionalized. Because people, they pass these laws out here, and similar to what you see in New Jersey, and they pass these laws out here, and people just say, “Okay, I can’t do that.” And that’s it.
There’s no response. And it’s, it’s challenging as an activist. Because, like I said, I talk about this stuff in class because I try to get people to emphasize that the other side is not going to stop, and the courts are okay. But that’s not a good approach or strategy, because you never know how they’re going to rule and even when they do rule correctly, it takes years and years to get to that point, usually. So the better strategy is to get the right people in office in the first place, so you don’t have those problems.
But it’s hard because, I talked to probably 20 students at a class, and a lot of the reaction is, it’s sort of, “Oh, I just want to shoot my gun, you know?” And it’s frustrating, I guess is a good word, as an activist, because the other side is not–they’re not going to stop at all until you have nothing, basically. And the way to stop them, as gun owners, [we] have to get up and have to take an active approach.
You gotta support groups like San Diego County Gun Owners, California Rifle and Pistol Association, Gun Owners of California…There’s a number of groups out here that do the lawsuits and do the fighting, and people need to get involved and support them. That’s the kind of thing that’s a little bit frustrating sometimes, to see that.
Petrolino: What brought us today was us talking about the onslaught of change. We did have the 2022 Bruen decision, which you know, it affected California in a very meaningful way. And other states, like New Jersey, Maryland, and Hawaii in particular–really affected these states, because they had zero functional carry. What did you just say–you guys started getting carry maybe 2015? 2016? New Jersey was one of the, “Hey, we started getting carry in 2022” states. But what we noticed was, what an onslaught of change. Now, I think some of the change in California had several–a couple–false starts, we could say. Now you guys are dealing with significant Bruen response laws, right?
Drammissi: Yeah, that’s similar. And you know, people get a skewed impression of how it is, because most of the country is pretty pro Second Amendment and understands that, and understands guns and everything. There’s only, out of 50 states, there’s what, maybe seven states that are kind of bad? Unfortunately, we live at the tip of the spear, both [of us], with these laws and the response to the Bruen [decision].
Bruen said basically that the Second Amendment does indeed cover concealed carry, and you have to let people carry a firearm for protection in public. California and some of these other states, the response was, “Okay, fine, we’ll issue concealed carry licenses and we’ll say it’s legal to carry any place it’s legal to carry, we’ll just make it illegal to carry everyplace.” And that’s what out here it was SB2.
That was Senate Bill 2, the law that tried to make everywhere a sensitive area. And it’s been going through the courts for a couple of years. It got up to the Ninth Circuit, and a three-judge panel ruled on this a month or so ago, and they–it’s screwy–I was just looking at the opinion here, and they’ve upheld part of it, and they struck down part of it. But the logic is just goofy. I’m confident all this stuff’s going to get overturned at some point. But again, it may take years to do that.
You know what these activist judges do in the Ninth Circuit. It used to be the most overturned appeals court in the country. I wrote about this last year, the year before, and at the time it was, I think it was something like 80.3% of the cases that went through the Ninth Circuit and made it to the Supreme Court got overturned. Now somebody just beat us out by two tenths of a point or something. So the Ninth Circuit is the second most overturned court now.
Still, you get these activist judges on there, and they twist the wording and Bruen to support their anti-gun thing. Basically, because if you look at what she wrote on here, the judge that actually wrote this, she’s looking at Bruen saying, “Okay, well, we have to go by history and tradition.” What she’s saying was, “Places that existed back in the Founders’ day, if they banned guns there, we could ban guns there. But if they didn’t exist back then. It’s not reasonable to say that the Founders were banning guns there.”
From that goofy logic, they said, “Well, you can’t ban guns in banks or in hospitals or in places like that, because those places existed back then and they weren’t banned then.” But then they turn around, they say, “Well, you can ban them in parks.” And do we lose parks?
The biggest thing that’s goofy is the alcohol thing. Because what they did was they said, you know, it’s always been out here it’s always been illegal to carry in a bar. If you were carrying, you couldn’t go into a bar. And they defined a bar as any place that generates over half of their income or revenue by selling alcohol to be consumed on premises. So what SB2 did is they said, “Well, now we’re going to include restaurants that serve alcohol.” So apparently Ben Franklin could walk into his bank with his firearm and he was okay, but he couldn’t walk into a pub and get a cheeseburger? That was not okay. You know, it’s just goofy. The logic is just twisted here. But they struck down about half of it, and they left about half of it in place.
The restaurant thing is what really affects most people. But the problem is, there’s so many goofy, convoluted rules that, I mean, it’s impossible–I tell my students in class, I’m talking to them around lunchtime, and I say, “Most of you probably broken at least one law since you got up this morning to come here, because there’s just so many.” It’s hard for people to know all this stuff.
I read a lot of stuff, I do this kind of thing, and it’s hard for me to keep up on it, even teaching it. The average person–it’s just tough, and it’s scary, it’s a shame, because it endangers people.
Hear a quick story with this, with SB 2, right? I’m not supposed to carry in a restaurant. And now there’s some arguing, because if you read the actual wording, it says in a place that sells liquor or “intoxicating something.” It doesn’t actually say alcohol. Now people are saying, “Well, wait a minute, maybe that’s just liquor. Hard liquor. Distilled liquor.” I don’t know if I want to go out on that branch and take a chance, but being an instructor, I’m thinking, Okay, this is a goofy law. It’s dangerous, But alright, I’ll abide by it.
And then I was coming home with my wife the other night, we’re thinking, hey, Wooly’s has some really good calamari and onion soup. We’ll swing by there. I pull into the parking lot. Now, I’m in my truck, so I have to take my gun out while I’m sitting in my confined space, in the truck. I’ve gotta take my loaded firearm out of the holster, and try not to let anybody be able to see it through the windows, put it in the other holster I keep [in the truck] and lock it up in the console vault, and then go in. Then walk through the parking lot to the restaurant, where nobody is ever assaulted or attacked in a parking lot, that just never happens. Then, I come back out, and I either go through the same ritual or I leave it locked up till I get home, which, you know it’s dangerous.”
You make me handle a loaded firearm in a confined space for no reason at all. There’s no reason for me to have to do that. So it endangers people. And it was funny.
You’re probably familiar with the Luby’s Diner shooting years and years ago. It was one of the first mass kind of shootings. Luby’s Diner is in Texas, or was in Texas, and a guy drove his truck through the plate glass windows right into the dining room, got out and started shooting. There was a good book about it.
The woman who wrote the book lost her parents in that shooting. She went on to be a congresswoman, and there’s some really good clips there, testifying in Congress about concealed carry, because they didn’t have concealed carry back then, and she had a gun, but she was a chiropractor. She didn’t want to take a chance on getting caught. She left it in the car. The guy that was shooting that killed her parents was a dozen feet in front of her, and she couldn’t do anything. But I had a guy in class last month who was there. He was 18 years old when it happened. The truck drove right behind him.
You know, when they make these laws, it just endangers the public in a number of different ways. It’s unfortunate, but that’s what we have right now.
Petrolino: There’s a lot to unpack there. The sensitive locations, if you look at the different jurisdictions and how they’re ruling on some of these things, strangely enough, like the park prohibitions are what’s sticking, which really doesn’t make sense, if you drill down, because, here [I am] in Monmouth County, New Jersey, where the battle of Monmouth took place during the Revolutionary War, which is a park. So the actual Monmouth Park, you know, battlegrounds is a, now, a sensitive location, but the Revolutionary War was fought there. I’ve also heard the arguments going around when they talk about the North Hampton law and going affray [of the peace] into the festivals to terrorize people armed and it’s a whole bunch of silly nonsense.
One of the other things that you and I had kind of ping ponged back and forth is this has affected training. As an educator, because you keep going back to the training, how has this affected the education in California and the training, and what has that kind of done to it? Practically and also as an industry? What’s going on there?
Drammissi: A couple of different things there.
From the student point of view, they doubled the training requirement for an initial concealed carry from eight hours to 16 hours. And then the renewals went from four hours to eight hours. And again it’s hard to argue against training. I mean that that’s probably going to be there forever. The problem is, because I used to have this issue as an instructor thinking about–I still get a lot of students and will ask them, “Hey, when’s the last time you shot?” Students will actually admit, “I haven’t shot since I saw you two years ago.” And it used to bug me sometimes with the training thing. Then somebody pointed out to me that all you can do is offer it. You can’t make irresponsible people responsible.
They can double the training because, you know, it’s like I said, it’s hard to argue against training. Have more training. That should be great. But the reality is, if you could make that training requirement five days, and you’ll get people that say, “Okay, I’ll do that five days because you’re requiring me to do that.” [They] won’t do anything else until you require it again.
I think the bigger effect of that kind of stuff is, I think it has the effect of more pricing people out, because now the cost doubles. As an instructor, I’m spending two days here, now I gotta charge for two days. I think the the bigger harmful effect is pricing people out. If you think about people that for whatever reason, or maybe at the lower end of the socio-economic scale, where maybe they’re stuck in places that are actually really dangerous, and they really could use a gun to protect themselves, and now they can’t, it’s all they can do to put food on the table and, acquire a decent gun.
Now you’re gonna force them to spend almost $1,000 just for the privilege of doing it. I think that was a bad thing that happened. I think, just doubling that kind of stuff, I don’t know that it improved anything,
The other thing that they change now is renewals. Renewals, you’ll have to get fingerprints every year now, or every two years when you renew your license, which is, is just completely–I mean, it’s idiotic. They have my fingerprints. Why do they need my fingerprints again, every two years? It’s not that [they] change.
If you look at it from their point of view, because I used to be a little more naive about this…I used to think that, oh, that doesn’t make any sense. They must just not know. No, they know exactly what they’re doing. If you come at it from the direction that the purpose of this thing is to do anything they can do to impede your ability to exercise your Second Amendment rights, I mean, that’s all these laws are based on that. If you look at that, [lawmakers saying] well, gee, we’ll make this one more step that they have to do.
Something I discovered, I think when I went–because the other thing for us instructors, you have to have a certificate of eligibility. Which you have to renew every year for, I think it’s like 25 bucks or something. The first time you do it, you’ve gotta go get a live scan for fingerprints. So more fingerprints for them. And what, I went to the live scan place, and [they said], “Oh yeah, it’s $30 for live scan.” And she looked on the form. [She said,] ”Oh, wait, this is firearms. That’s $110.” That’s nice. That’s the kind of effect it has.
I mean these things hurt, and they just endanger the public, and they hurt students. From the instructor training thing, they went through and they changed the requirements. For civilian instructors before, if you were an NRA Pistol Instructor, you were okay. Then you had to go through some other things, but that was a reasonable enough certification for you to be able to get approved by the sheriffs and go through and be a concealed carry instructor.
Petrolino: Right. Because you have a list. It’s like a registry, right? People can go and look at that registry. Who’s an approved instructor? Is that right?
Drammissi: Yeah, they call us vendors nowadays, on the San Diego County Sheriff’s site, and you can see the list of approved vendors. And it’s interesting, because, you know, on the one hand, I was concerned, I was curious to see if we would lose a bunch of vendors. But I just looked. I just pulled the list up from 2022, there were 35 approved vendors on there, and there may be several instructors under each vendor heading. But now actually there’s 64 on there. So it did increase. But, I mean, we have a huge increase in demand out here now.
Petrolino: Sure.
Drammissi: What they essentially did, or tried to do, was eliminate civilian instructors, basically, because what they did was they said, “Well, the NRA pistol thing is not acceptable anymore.” What is acceptable? But the BSIS instructor [is], so that’s the guard card people for armed security guards. If you’re an instructor there, if you’re a POST certified, which I went through and got that, that’s the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training. So, people that train police officers are POST certified.
It’s funny, one of the inadvertent things, I think, of this ruling, it kind of opened up some POST classes to some civilians. I was able to go through and do that because everybody in the class was pretty much law enforcement, except for me and maybe two or three other people. But they have that–if you’re a military instructor, a range master, if you’re an instructor for highway patrol.
The other way that civilians get in there and I was fortunate on it, because I teach with somebody that knew about the POST cert, so I was able to do that most people probably wouldn’t know how to do it or understand how to get in there. But the only other thing they’ll accept the NRA cert, but you have to be an NRA Pistol Instructor, and you have to be a Personal Protection Inside the Home Instructor or Personal Protection Outside the Home Instructor. You can’t just be a Pistol Instructor.
And NRA has their own CCW instructor cert. But apparently that’s not good enough. And I talked to an instructor who talked–he knows some of the people from the NRA that actually talked to DOJ when they were trying to work this out–and they were trying to get DOJ to accept the the NRA CCW instructor class to be okay, to be certified. And, they were saying they’re feeling–off the record [with Drammissi]–their feeling was, DOJ was more concerned with how long the classes went, because they kept asking them, “Well, how long is the class for the CCW instructor?” It’s like a two day class or something. But the Inside the Home, Outside the Home class, you’ve got to do Inside the Home, the student version first, that’s two days…
Petrolino: Yeah.
Drammissi: Plus one more day for an instructor. And you have to do that before you do the Outside the Home, which I think is another two days plus the instructor. So you guys have six days.
Petrolino: On top of Basic Pistol, on top of Basic Instructor Training, BIT?
Drammissi: Yeah so, it seemed that it sounded to these people that were talking to DOJ that they were more concerned with the length of time, and they went with the one that was the greater length of time. Because if you look at the Inside of the Home, Outside the Home classes, they’re not bad classes, but they don’t really talk about concealed carry. They don’t do anything like that.
I haven’t gone through their concealed carry class yet. I may do that, because there’s one coming up this month that I might be able to sneak into. But again, the stuff that they do is just like there intentionally to impede people and make it difficult. And it’s hard not to think that way, because look at some of this stuff. Like the guy we’re talking about, 1333, the duty to retreat bill, right?
It was a fairly new Assemblyman from the LA area. I think he got elected in 2022. If you look at his website, he describes himself as a “social justice warrior and an environmental warrior, environmental justice warrior,” right? So he writes this thing saying that you have to retreat even in your own home. And I guess he got a big response or an uproar, because, a day or two later, he posts on, on X, he’s saying, “Well, you know, I didn’t mean to tell people they couldn’t defend themselves. I’m just trying to stop vigilantes like Kyle Rittenhouse” from, you know…
Petrolino: Right.
Drammissi: Right? That’s, that’s what this guy thinks.
Petrolino: Kyle Rittenhouse retreated how many times? And you know, if you look at the details of the case…
Drammissi: Yeah, you couldn’t. I wrote about it. Kyle Rittenhouse is a hero, and I care what these idiots want to say about it. I know adults–I don’t know if I would have responded as perfectly as he responded to that situation. And he was, what, 17 or 18?
It shows the level of ignorance there. Because this guy could have found out about it…and he withdrew this bill within a couple of days. It was three or four days later, I think he withdrew this bill. I mean, these people know they could find out. That’s a couple of phone calls. They can find out all they need to know about concealed carry and stuff like that, if they’re crafting these kinds of laws. What do people actually do, really?
One of the things I think it’s our fault as gun owners, is we’ve let this misinformation percolate and develop over the last 50 years or so. Now, like this idea that, well, you can’t, can’t have a concealed carrier in a park. Well, why? It’s like there’s no danger. Because it even says it in SB 2, I was reading that text this morning, again…and it even says it’s known that the presence of a firearm someplace makes that place more dangerous. Well, no, it doesn’t. It’s just a concealed carrier, obviously, has been vetted [through] a background check. Concealed carriers don’t hurt people. Criminals don’t care about these laws. They want to carry in the park, they’re carrying in the park. I mean, it’s just…
Petrolino: That was my argument for years, is the criminal element has the best permitting system there is. They grant themselves their permit and they carry on.
Drammissi: Yeah, you know, real freedom.
Petrolino: I mean, if you think about it–and I’m not advocating for that, it’s just a fact, you know?
Drammissi: It’s a shame, because these laws, what they do is they force law-abiding citizens to make a decision, right? Gee, am I going to the park with my wife and kids? Do I go there knowing I can’t protect them now, knowing stuff happens in parks? I’ve got my concealed carry, I’ve got my training, I’ve got my skills, my tools, but I have to leave them home because of this ridiculous law.
That’s the position you’re putting people in. You’re putting law-abiding people in that position. Do I choose the safety of my family? Or do I choose obeying this law by some goofy politician? And it’s unfortunate that they do that.
The thing that’s really a shame, I think, too, is these are not stupid people. I mean, there are some stupid people. There’s people like Maxine Waters and AOC and stuff. I don’t even know how these people feed themselves, but most of them are not like that. Most of them are just, they know what they’re doing and they’re doing it, and it’s a matter of power and control, and they don’t care that they’re hurting people or they’re endangering people. And it’s unfortunate. I tell people, “You gotta not put these people in office.” I mean that’s the only real thing to do to stop this.
Petrolino: For sure. Now, what do you think going forward, the fate might be of some of this? Maybe do some forecasting. What do you think? How is California’s law going to flush out? Do you see it leaning?
Drammissi: I think I have to be an optimist. I think it’s eventually all going to get overturned, because it’s blatantly unconstitutional. It’s obvious what they’re doing.
And I have to have faith in the Supreme Court at some point is going to–they’re waiting for just the right case to hear, so they can make a ruling that has the most impact. I think you’re going to see that over the next probably year or two or three. They’re going to rule on some of these.
What these people are doing, they’re just blatantly defying the Supreme Court. Now, having said that, though, again, why I say that the courts are not a good strategy, because just look on how they ruled on the ghost gun thing, right? Seven to two upholding the ATF’s rule saying what? A piece of a gun is now a gun.
Petrolino: Not a Second Amendment case, though. It wasn’t a Second Amendment ground. I think that’s an important thing to put out there. I’m not disagreeing with what you’re saying, but the minutiae of this and the details, I think once all the legal eagles sift through this, we’re not going to be left with just straight up lemons. There might be some lemonade, I don’t know. But you’re correct.
Drammissi: And that’s true, though. It depends on the argument they made before the court as to why this thing is–but the remedy to that which I’m waiting to see, because that is not law, that’s a an ATF ruling. Okay, Kash Patel is [at the time of this interview] in charge of the ATF. Just rescind your ruling. “Okay, hey, you know we’re not going to say that anymore.” That would be the simple remedy, because this doesn’t require the court, really, it’s not, it’s not a law. It doesn’t require Congress. It just requires them to rescind their ruling on it.
Petrolino: Rescind the ruling and establish solid precedent in the country. And then, if possible, yes, bring legislation to the table. I mean, that’s the most powerful thing that I think…
Drammissi: We can get too. So we’ll see. We’ll see what happens there.
Petrolino: So Joe, I think we’re going to wrap up here in a little bit. Is there anything that I left on the table that you want to talk about that we didn’t cover, that is important, about the changes in California, what’s going on, how you see things?
Drammissi: Yeah…What the real message to get out here, which I try to get out to all the students that I talk to, is you just you need to be informed, and you need to be up on what’s happening, and you need to know what these politicians are doing, and you need to get involved and get these people out of office and elect the right people.
I’ll hear gun owners will say–because I always, I’m pretty harsh in class, it’s a “Hey, you guys are unhappy. It’s your fault.” And people will respond, “I didn’t vote for Newsom.” And my response to that is, “Okay, well, what did you do to get other people not to vote for Newsom? Did you do anything? Did ya just support groups that are fighting for these other people? Did you just support the other candidates?” And nobody does anything. They just say, “I didn’t vote for him.” Well, no, but you didn’t do anything else. And you have to do that stuff. And to do that, you have to be informed.
That’s the big reason why I write these articles and things every week. If you look at my Substack, GetAGrip.Substack.com, The Weekly Round Up articles, a collection of articles by people like you and Lee Williams and, Ayoob and all these other people. And every Saturday morning, five or six articles I’ll throw out there that are Second Amendment gun or, you know, political culture related things…Just to expose people and get them to think about looking at some of this stuff, to expose them to some other writers, some other information.
If you’re not informed, you really can’t do anything about that. It’s surprising how many students that I have, concealed carry students that aren’t aware of SB 2. There’s probably a third of each class, and this includes renewals. You’re carrying out there? How could you not know this? I mean, there’s a lot of them like that, and people just aren’t informed. Hopefully they’ll read my Substack. That’s a way. It’s an easy, painless way to do it. I read a lot more and view a lot more than the average person does on this stuff. So a good way for the average person is to subscribe to my Substack, and every Saturday you’ll get something and, that’ll put you on the road.
Petrolino: And that’s free, right? I think we need to get that out of the way so that’s not going to cost you anything. So if you check it out, GetAGrip.Substack.com, and then you could get Joe’s aggregate on the Roundup as well as his articles.
And you push out fairly regularly, we’ll say articles. And I know we joke about the wax and wane, because you’ve been training so much so you’ve been spending so much time in the classroom, I get it.
That’s where people could find you. GetAGrip.Substack.com. Where else could they find you? Or where would you want to direct people to? I know you talked about for training purposes, there’s some places people can find you as well.
Drammissi: Yeah, those are mostly, again, that’s where I do most of my writing. I still publish a little bit on the San Diego County Gun Owners site.
The teaching I do for people that are in San Diego County…Find me on the USCCA. I always have to stop and think, because everybody uses the same five letters, and they scramble them around the USCCA site is where I post all my classes. So the United States Concealed Carry Association. If you click on there for live training, and then this area here [San Diego], you’ll see my classes come up. I teach with Bill Desy, one of the greatest instructors in all the land out here in San Diego. His company is CCW USA. So Bill and I teach classes every weekend out there as well. So that’s where you can find me.
Petrolino: Alright, well, Joe, thank you so much. Everybody. Check out the San Diego County Gun Owners PAC. They’ve got some tremendous resources over there. They’re also in need of support. And check out Joe’s work on GetAGrip.Substack.com. And thank you for chatting with me today, Joe.
Drammissi: Okay, well, thank you, John.