Taran Butler is a monster on the 3-gun course and makes gear that has lightened to many of our collective wallets—yet we run back for more. He turned his love for the shooting sports and experience into Taran Tactical specializing in Glock conversions. He also trained Keanu Reeves for the movie John Wick.
Butler’s participation in the shooting sports and successful firearms business are both dependent on a healthy respect for the Second Amendment, which Taran Butler has, but one of his sponsored shooters went rogue during an interview.
Rochelle Hathaway ‘was’ one of Taran Tactical’s sponsored shooters was working his booth during SHOT 2018. Later that day she gave a Glamour magazine reporters an interview. The reporter, Laurel Pinson was interviewing women during the SHOT show for the article, “We Asked Real Women at the World’s Biggest Gun Show: Why Do You Own a Gun?” Shockingly, here were Hathaway’s answers:
Why do you have a gun?
I was originally given a gun as a gift. I went out shooting once, and I happened to be naturally good at it. I was 20 at the time. I’ve done sporadic competitive shooting. I have a lot more fun with it—I’m in it more for fun than competing.
What do you say to people who question the value of a private citizen owning a gun?
I think that if there were less guns, there would be less shootings, period. If the government came in and decided to take the guns away, I wouldn’t be mad about it. I think it’s important to be able to feel safe in your home, but you don’t need more than three guns. You don’t need to own a semiautomatic weapon or a silencer.
When mass shootings or school shootings happen—like the one this week—does it ever make you rethink your position?
Going to the Second Amendment, I don’t think they had AK-47s and everything else in mind [when they imagined] the right to bear arms and protecting yourself. At SHOT show, you can kind of see how much it’s evolved into thousands and thousands of people dumping millions and millions of dollars into the industry…. I guess I’d say it’s almost unfortunate people think that they need so much.
It’s not much of a surprise, but upon learning of Hathaway’s response, Taran Tactical severed any ties between the two. However, the damage was already done. The Glamour article is already making the rounds with gun control advocates and the picture of Hathaway wearing a Taran Tactical shooter’s shirt is not helping.
To Taran Tactical’s credit, it immediately took to social media with a sincere response to the controversy:
We were surprised to see an article recently published in a beauty magazine quoting a promotional model and friend of our company, Rochelle Hathaway, who made certain impromptu statements to a reporter during Shot Show.
We were unaware of the interview, and we did not condone the interview or the statements made by Rochelle. Rochelle has never been authorized to speak on behalf of our company or its founder, Taran Butler. As of today, we have cut all professional ties with Rochelle.
While we respect everyone’s right to free speech, Rochelle’s statements were inappropriate and do not represent our company’s vision and beliefs. We have and will always support Second Amendment rights, and we will continue to educate and promote the safe, legal ownership, and handling of firearms.
Glad to hear she was fired. She belongs in Everytown for Gun Safety, not Taran Tactical.
Whoa ! Tactical Model ?
Sitting in my VFW post with some buddies. We where talking firearms and optics.I got on line to do some firearm shopping. We were all sitting there when I clicked your site and this story. We have never heard of you and wish we never have. If you run your business the way you vet your employees, well, I hope you can see where this is going. We were wondering if you might have some ISIS sympathizers employed by your company. I belong to a very large VFW Post and every one was passing their cell phones around with this story on them. We all agree you need to find other employment or get hit by a Train. From this time forward you will be known as that guy who made everything more difficult for the rest of us.
I didn’t mean to shoot everyone ! I didn’t know the ,”Tactical Model”, was loaded. Duh !
Every person has the right to their own opion, but to do the interview while wearing the uniform of the company she works for and expressing ideas she knows are directly against the company’s ideas is just not right, the company was right to fire her
Maybe you should get the position of the people they hire, or allow to endorse their products before they embarrass the company. Find out if the individual supports the 2nd Amendment and the company’s position first, before they are embarrassed by a situation like this, and cause issues with the firearms community as a whole.
I think the b*tch should be banned from any and all further competition.
Hey Rochelle Hathaway, the founders never saw radio, TV, or the internet you spew your ignorance on either. Should we suppress your right to have a voice because the founders never envisioned the technology used 230 years ago?
The Brown Bess was the AK47 of its time and the founders explicitly protected its possession and ability to use should the lawful and moral need arise. Perhaps spend a little less time doing your hair and some time taking a class or two on the Constitution… maybe then you would be something other than a “sexy sheep” complying with the big-government scheme to disarm “we the people”.
It’s shameful really, here you are, a celebrity because of shooting sports yet you are so ignorant of the facts and history that allowed you to do the very thing that brought you fame and notoriety! Amazing, the ignorance in this once-great nation!
Well, you are certainly a sexy sheep… not really sure what good you will be if the government actually decides to disarm the people because of the ignorant, emotional and irrational fears you so described in your ignorant reply to the questions.
There are tens of millions of others who own guns… hundreds of thousands who compete in shooting sports, thousands better than you.. a few better “appealing” or “charismatic”… you are replaceable… you are obsolete… what will you do when you are disarmed and faced with a rapist? I seriously doubt you could defend yourself from a 250lb rapist on meth or other drugs… so what will you defend yourself with should that unfortunate event happen? Use a bat? Lock yourself is some supposed “safe room” (if you can make it there in time)? Call 911 (yea, that can take a while)? What will you defend yourself with? Oh wait, you have guns… but because of some leftist, liberal idiot ideology, you are unarmed… or one of the many “do as I say, not as I do” hypocrites. So what will you use to defend yourself… 18th century technology? Good luck with that sweetheart, I really hate it for you if it’s one of the increasingly common “gang invasions” or “gang rapes” where simply displaying a gun with one shot is insufficient, and sad.
There’s a reality in this world and you are not acknowledging it… EVIL EXISTS… and unless you are prepared to confront and overcome that evil, you will be a VICTIM!
So think about what you said in this interview and the ramifications it has. Do you REALLY think you would be better off or safer DISARMED? This is the “golden question” and determines whether you are incorrect, misunderstood, misinformed, ignorant or just plain stupid.
Choice is yours…
You could have called this “from hot to not in three questions”.
Don’t these sponsorship contracts include some sort of clause if you insult the company or the industry that they can get damages from you? She certinly in a way is breaking her contract.
The name of Taran Tactical may have been on her jersey but I’ll bet dollars to donuts that a letter from Taran’s lawyers are already in her greasy, back-stabbing fingers saying that she will not do so in the future. For those who bring up the first amendment, it would have been to her favor to make the announcement to Taran that, 1). she was going to do an interview (she should have asked!) 2) and, did they have any objections which probably would have opened a discussion of future employment! It is disingenuous of her to know what her employer’s stand is on the second amendment – thoroughly – and to be accepting a paycheck. There is no lower being than this!