Bad News for Gun Owners


PDA






usmarine0352_2005
April 5, 2007, 11:53 AM
Hmmm.....I wonder why they call them "Gun Enthusiasts" instead of what they really are, "CRIMINALS".

They give us all a bad name.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17964382/


Idaho gun enthusiasts target Natl. Guard tanks
Sport shooters’ actions in state’s high desert lead to calls for wider gun ban

Updated: 32 minutes ago

BOISE, Idaho - For years, ATV-riding, gun-toting sport shooters have flouted gun laws in part of Idaho’s high desert by taking pot shots at ground squirrels and other animals.

Now, officials say, they’re also setting their sights on National Guard tanks that train in the area.

Rifles and pistols have been banned in a 68,000-acre area of the Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area since 1996.

But the federal Bureau of Land Management is considering expanding the gun-restricted area by 41,000 acres to try to limit shootings at Idaho Army National Guard troops who report slugs bouncing off their tanks on a regular basis.

“There’s a segment of the shooting community that will shoot at anything that moves,” said John Sullivan, the area’s manager.

National Guard spokeswoman Lt. Col. Stephanie Dowling said she thinks the proposed expansion would help alleviate the problem.

“What’s happened over time, as the population has grown, we get more and more people out there,” said Dowling. “Not everybody uses good safety precautions.”

Idaho is the third-fastest growing state, after only Nevada and Arizona.

Rancher Tom Nicholson sees changes in the range as more people move to Boise 25 miles away, then drive out into this mostly open country looking for fun.

The region is part of a 490,000-acre federal preserve where prairie falcons and eagles soar above, hunting ground squirrels that pop their heads by the thousands above the warming earth.

With just two agents to patrol 4 million acres of desert near Boise, gun enthusiasts regularly defy the ban by shooting squirrels, protected birds and even grazing cattle, park officials say.

Little chance of arrest
Because money is already stretched thin, land management agents generally only cite illegal shooters they catch in the act. A photographer recently captured what looked to be a squirrel gunner in a restricted part of the conservation area, but even in that case, chances of prosecution are slim.

“If that was a photo of sufficient clarity that we could identify him, we would seek to prosecute,” Sullivan said.

Fewer than 10 people per year are ticketed for illegal shooting in the area of the park, said Sullivan. A citation carries a penalty of up to a $1,000 fine and a year in prison.

Mark Fuller, director of the Rapter Research Center at Boise State University, estimates that dozens of protected birds are shot annually in the park, including in the restricted area.

Birds, livestock in cross hairs, too
He said the long-term negative effects on the park’s 24 bird species populations haven’t yet been documented.

Nicholson, who owns thousands of cattle that graze in the park, said shooters kill several each year.

He’s remarkably forgiving, especially for someone who is out more than $1,000 every time a cow dies.

“It’s public land,” Nicholson said. “They have as much right to be on the range as we do.”

Shotguns, which have a shorter range, are still allowed in the area.

The situation was even worse before the rifle-and-pistol ban in 1996, Sullivan said.

Soldiers training for missions in Iraq or other war zones are only looking for simulated battles, he said — not real bullets whizzing their way.

“It was like World War III on the weekends,” he said.

If you enjoyed reading about "Bad News for Gun Owners" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Jorg Nysgerrig
April 5, 2007, 12:34 PM
Nothing represents responsible gun ownership like a "No Shooting" sign riddled with bullet holes. :rolleyes:

People like this disgust me. Again, we are our own worst enemy.

Exmasonite
April 5, 2007, 12:47 PM
honestly, that's just stupid. if i were in charge, i'd tell the tanks to return fire. that'll shut up those morons.

they should get that new bullet vectoring system that was on Future Weapons last week... that'll help to figure out where the shots are coming from.

more fodder for the sheeple... damn.

gripper
April 5, 2007, 12:47 PM
Have they actually CAUGHT any of the idiots that were doing this?? If you,I wonder about their status(both immigration and criminal),and if in fact they were ALREADTY criminals.

PotatoJudge
April 5, 2007, 12:50 PM
Well, people are ignoring the ban in one area and they're planning on fixing that by banning guns in a nearby area. That's about as bright as shooting protected birds and National Guard tanks.

They spelled raptor wrong, too. The world is full of idiots.

mbt2001
April 5, 2007, 12:51 PM
Sorry, but I don't believe the article. This is crap. Perhaps some kids with BB / pellet guns, or even adults with BB guns... I think that there is much more to the story than we are hearing.

Also, there National Guard buddies could be the ones doing it... I don't see the remanants of any kind of investigation here, just speculation.

Colt
April 5, 2007, 12:53 PM
I wonder about their status(both immigration and criminal)

That information wouldn't support their anti-gun legislative attempts. In nearby Philadelphia, each homocide shooting renews the politicians' lament that "we need stricter gun laws." They never tell you that all those involved were already breaking existing laws, and possessed their firearms illegally.

Two years ago when there were like 9 homocides in one week, the moron Mayor, Street, called for legislation prohibiting CCW licenses within city limits. Hello! It wasn't CCW holders that were involved. Those involved had possession of guns illegally. All the CCW restrictions would do is strip the law-abiding residents of the ability to defend themselves.

Geronimo45
April 5, 2007, 12:57 PM
I don't get it. I can see shooting a 'no shooting' sign. I can see blasting away at protected species just 'cause they're a protected species. Those two things make sense - they're pretty dumb, but they do have an understandable warped logic to 'em. I can't see why you'd shoot at a tank, though - I guess it's a few guys chugging beers and shootin' anything that moves.

bogie
April 5, 2007, 01:01 PM
I _could_ see a coupla groups of guardmen "testing" equipment... Sometimes I think that getting more than three people wearing tree suits together in one place without benefit of at least E-7 supervision drops the collective IQ by at least a third (more if a butterbar is involved).

bogie
April 5, 2007, 01:02 PM
If I'm at the driving range making people laugh at my golf swing, I aim for the guy out there in the ball sucking buggy...

tmajors
April 5, 2007, 01:35 PM
Nothing represents responsible gun ownership like a "No Shooting" sign riddled with bullet holes.

Well there isn't a no shooting sign out at the National Guard range. I'd have to drive out there again to find the exact wording, but it's a HUGE sign that says something like

"Shooters: Clean up your brass and your trash, don't shoot the animals, practice safe gun handling. If your found out being stupid we'll turn our tank turrets on your $50,000 SUV and open fire"

Okay well not really about the tanks and the SUV, but clearly states what you can and can't shoot at, and states what the punishment is if your caught. One thing I do agree with though is that they need a few more guys out there patrolling, sometimes (mostly on weekends) it's just downright unsafe to shoot out there.

To further clarify, the area that rifles and handguns are banned is adjacent to the National Guard "shooting area". This article really makes it sound like they are the same area. If I remember part of the sign says "no shooting allowed west of this road" or something like that.

DoubleTapDrew
April 5, 2007, 01:43 PM
Okay well not really about the tanks and the SUV, but clearly states what you can and can't shoot at, and states what the punishment is if your caught.

If the article is true (which considering how blatantly anti-gun it was, I'm skeptical) they should have a sign about that. "Warning: If you fire upon the National Guard, they have been authorized to return fire"

tmajors
April 5, 2007, 01:55 PM
http://www.birdsofprey.blm.gov/img/Shooting-Area-Handout.gif

The green area enclosed by the darker line in the center of the big green area is the National Guard Maneuver area.

The orange area (Snake River Canyon) is where rifle and pistols are restricted.

Notice that if someone is in the non-shooting area, there is no way in HELL they are managing to shoot tanks. This article is simply fraught with misinformation and inaccuracies.

El Tejon
April 5, 2007, 02:13 PM
It truly astounds me that people can use someone's land to go shooting. I've always paid my own way. I find it disgusting that people who are labelled "shooters" act this way.:mad:

Geno
April 5, 2007, 02:23 PM
Here's a thought...catch the criminals and prosecute them to Hades and back. Leave the law-abiding gun owners alone. Why do these fools insist on classifying all gun owners as potential criminals, and punishing us, for their stupidity?!

If this is such a persistent problem, send up some unmanned drones and find these fools. Heck, arm the drones and return fire...case closed, and prosecution money saved. Furthermore, the military has the tools to identify the location from which a shot is launched. Use the equipment.

This is a good example of not being able to "see" the problemís resolution per a failure to extricate their cranium from their orifice.

phoglund
April 5, 2007, 02:26 PM
I don't believe it's the land of an individual rancher being used for shooting. The rancher states it's "open range" meaning it is government (Probably BLM) land he has leased for grazing. These lands are open to the public and should be as that is who owns it. Sometimes ranchers who lease the grazing rights think they can put locks and no trespassing signs on the gates. Since most people don't know it's actually BLM or Forest Service land they stay off. I like to check out the land use maps though and can usually tell when it's really public land and not private. This of course doesn't excuse shooting somebody's stock, signs, and er...tanks!

Titan6
April 5, 2007, 03:06 PM
That is a stunner. What kind of moron goes around shooting at a tank with someone in it? It is a tank but someone could still get hurt or killed if they opened a hatch at the wrong time or were out taking a leak. Shooting could still damage the $40,000,000 tank in any case. I would say it is attempted murder and destruction of government property...

Were it my unit I would have the appropriate authorities out there with helicopters and SUVs out to catch the idiots and put them in prison for just about forever. Then make them pay $ to repair the armored vehicles.

Leanwolf
April 5, 2007, 03:07 PM
EL TEJON - "It truly astounds me that people can use someone's land to go shooting. I've always paid my own way."

El Tejon, you might take another look at the article. The land is BLM land, which means it is owned by you, me, the people. A rancher may purchase a "grazing right" for his cattle or sheep, but that does NOT mean he owns the BLM land. It means merely that he can run his cattle and sheep on that land for a fee. Anyone can still hunt and recreate on that land.

As for the article itself, remember that it is an MSNBC article, and that outfit is well known as an extremely left wing, anti-guns, anti-hunting organization.

I live in Boise and have been on much of that BLM land several times. I've not seen or heard of any of this in the article, although I certainly might have missed an incident or two. Point is, somewhere along the line, some of the gun owners/hunters, etc., I know, would have mentioned that the N.G. is "concerned" about "gun entusiasts" shooting at their poor little tanks down on the remote BLM land.

Notice that N.G. spokesman LTC Dowling DID NOT offer any evidence (copper jackets, smashed lead bullets, etc.), nor did she refer to even one specific incident of said "attacks" on her tanks.

Nor did Sullivan offer one specific incident where "gun enthusiasts" are killing the protected eagles, hawks, falcons, and owls, at the Birds of Prey Refuge. Not one! He just "estimates" there are a bunch of killed birds out there, but just can't document it. Hmmmmmmmm.


"WWIII on the weekends"??? Not the various weekends I've been down there. Sure, you'll hear a few shots, but "WWIII??" Not hardly. But, it sounds not only ominous, but great on MSNBC, doesn't it?

I have a great deal of skepticism about ANYTHING that comes out of MSNBC.

L.W.

Thumper
April 5, 2007, 03:08 PM
I can't stop laughing at the phrase "squirrel gunner."

ball3006
April 5, 2007, 03:08 PM
of the tanks, the NG should let Ma do their talking........chris3

PotatoJudge
April 5, 2007, 03:16 PM
As for the article itself, remember that it is an MSNBC article, and that outfit is well known as an extremely left wing, anti-guns, anti-hunting organization.

It's an AP article that's been picked up by a couple newspapers and an ABC affiliate. It's not like MSNBC wrote it, but they did choose to pick it up. I agree that it's a biased and poorly written article.

ATV-riding, gun-toting sport shooters have flouted gun laws

Not how an unbiased article begins.

alucard0822
April 5, 2007, 03:35 PM
I'm quite a bit jealous out here in MD, there is no way we can shoot on the kings land, crappy indoor pistol ranges are the name of the game out here, the arcticle did seem somewhat sensational, too bad it always takes a few bad apples to spoil it for everyone, especially when the media is involved

wooderson
April 5, 2007, 04:18 PM
All that free 'range' land... makes a Texan cry.

El Tejon
April 5, 2007, 04:29 PM
Leanwolf, no, I understand it is someone's land, Uncle Sugar's land. If you use taxpayer land, you are getting a free ride on someone else's dime. I have always shot on my own dime.

While I find it amazing that other shooters do this (get free lunches), I am outraged that other shooters behave like this.:fire: To think that I pay their way for them to behave this way out there!!!

Disgusting, but probably par for the course in the Welfare/Nanny State that we live in. If "everyone" owns it, who cares what happens.:banghead: I would sell all BLM land off tomorrow if I ran the world.

Leanwolf
April 5, 2007, 05:47 PM
EL TEJON - "Leanwolf, no, I understand it is someone's land, Uncle Sugar's land. If you use taxpayer land, you are getting a free ride on someone else's dime. I have always shot on my own dime."

I happen to be a taxpayer, therefore it is MY land. I use it, as I have a right to use MY land. So how am I getting a free ride on someone else's dime?????

You mean you've never hunted on, target shot on, or camped or fished on National Forest land, or Wilderness land, BLM land, or any State Forest lands??? Were it not for those areas, very, very few people could ever afford to hunt, or recreate, anywhere.

If all our public land were sold off, I believe that 99% of it would end up in the pockets of George Soros, Ted Turner, Diane Feinstein, Teddy Kennedy, Bill Gates, some of the Mega Millionaire Marxists and Billionaire Bolsheviks of Hollywood, etc., etc., etc., and then virtually no one would be allowed to hunt. Only the very few in "favor" with the King.

L.W.

Jorg Nysgerrig
April 5, 2007, 05:52 PM
Must be hard not driving around on someone else's roads. ;)

Headless
April 5, 2007, 06:01 PM
Wow, El Tejon - I've read many posts of yours and thought, "He's spot on." but I must say I can't disagree with you more on selling off all public land, and I'm shocked that you'd have an attitude of, 'that's my land' when it is in fact OUR land they WE (they?!) are shooting on. Just so happens some of the folks who go there are complete idiots - par for the course, IMO. prosecute them, shoot back at them, whatever's needed imo...

I'm lucky enough to have a public shooting range just a few miles away. I can't imagine having to pay range fees and deal with the seemingly insane rules i've read about for indoor privately owned ranges. I pay my taxes; i do not see how I, or other folks who go there to shoot, are getting a 'free lunch'. Accusing people who use taxpayer owned land of getting to use it for free is like accusing someone who drives on public roads of using them for free. They paid their taxes; they paid to use the road. Likewise, they pay taxes to use that public land.

wooderson
April 5, 2007, 06:39 PM
If all our public land were sold off, I believe that 99% of it would end up in the pockets of George Soros, Ted Turner, Diane Feinstein, Teddy Kennedy, Bill Gates, some of the Mega Millionaire Marxists and Billionaire Bolsheviks of Hollywood, etc., etc., etc., and then virtually no one would be allowed to hunt. Only the very few in "favor" with the King.

You realize that the Walton family's wealth is notably greater than all of those people put together, right? Are them Marxists too?

I find it absolutely bizarre when I see someone worried about the influence and role of the hyper-wealthy, whilst simultaneously blaming it on them darn commies.

alucard0822
April 5, 2007, 06:43 PM
Disgusting, but probably par for the course in the Welfare/Nanny State that we live in. If "everyone" owns it, who cares what happens. I would sell all BLM land off tomorrow if I ran the world.


Im sure if that public land became a wal-mart parking lot noone would be able to shoot there at all

Dorryn
April 5, 2007, 06:51 PM
Making new laws keeps politicians in business and making a profit. Prosecuting the existing laws only profits lawyers. Thats why you will continue to see more laws, and limited prosecution.

phoglund
April 5, 2007, 08:10 PM
Amazing!

El Tejon: I just have to say I've agreed with many of your posts as well but you are way off the mark on this one. Public land is one of the last great resources our country has. The idea of selling it all off is one of the most repugnant ideas I've heard in some time! That's the sort of talk would get ya lynched in these parts!

I cringe every time I hear somebody talk about paying to hunt on some ranchers land. I couldn't live where every scrap of land around me was owned by somebody I had to pay to take a walk through the woods. :cuss:

"Uncle Sugars Land" = The land of every man woman and child in this country. Rich or poor, young or old, any color or religion you can name. Your land, my land, OUR land.

Most folks out here take good care of public lands. It's the attitudes of folks like you and like those that live back east who don't understand the value of public lands and the "wildness" they support that are the greatest threat to these lands, not the occasional yahoo that decides to shoot up a sign or leave a messy campsite. What a loss it would be if these places were turned into private reserves and our national parks into amusement parks. Do you realize the BLM has responsibility for 258 million acres of land and that total public land in the US is 635 million acres? It's unfortunate if you don't have any access to these lands but millions of Americans do and use it on a regular basis. I have no desire to live where I have to pay by the hour for forest/mountain/desert/prairie/lake/river/ocean time. I sure hope the urban masses who don't understand the value of open public land don't get your vision in their minds and destroy this resource for my descendants.

Smith357
April 5, 2007, 08:18 PM
The tanks should return fire and weed out the gene pool.

Axman
April 5, 2007, 08:23 PM
Well, it's just good to know that they weren't using those teflon coated, armor piercing bullets!!!

Gifted
April 5, 2007, 08:45 PM
The tanks should return fire and weed out the gene pool. That was my thought. If someone's stupid enough to shoot at a tank, they should expect some 7.62 headed their way. Give practice for the tankers too.

If I was allowed to smack a guy over the head with a wrench because he's not supposed to be on my flightline, I'd expect the tank to be allowed to shoot back, because you're not supposed to be shooting at him.

doubleg
April 5, 2007, 08:47 PM
What are they worried about, their in a TANK. :confused:

MassMan
April 5, 2007, 09:02 PM
It is a conspiracy planned by the antigun folk. They stole some unlocked guns or imported illeagle ones and started shooting signs and tanks in an attemtp to make us legals look bad. Thus making tougher laws look reasonable and responsible.
Just my theory. LOL

alucard0822
April 5, 2007, 09:13 PM
tankers are not always in the tank, you have observers and gunners that are up on top unprotected, reguardless I think public land, especially public land where people can shoot is one of the few great freedoms left to us in an increasingly repressive society, and a luxury those of us that live near the big city lights can only dream about, If what the arctice says is true, then it is sad that gun owners would abuse the land, shoot endangered animals and practice such unsafe shooting. If we don't act responsibly we are only encouraging some senator somewhere to push some bill to protect us from our evil ways, for the children's sake.

Cosmoline
April 5, 2007, 09:17 PM
A law... to protect.. A TANK!!! Now that one takes the cake. It's LITERALLY from a Monty Python skit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRm5WcjOikQ

lamazza
April 5, 2007, 09:23 PM
Here's a thought...catch the criminals and prosecute them to Hades and back.
Sounds like a rational course of action.

Axman
April 5, 2007, 10:15 PM
imported illeagle

What's a sick bird got to do with anything? ;)

crazed_ss
April 6, 2007, 08:58 AM
What are they worried about, their in a TANK

Well I'd imagine the tank wasnt buttoned up, there's a chance one of the tank crew could get hit in the head if someone was firing at them.

ptmmatssc
April 6, 2007, 09:48 AM
Evidence of people shooting at tanks would be nice . Maybe impact pics etc. .

If you enjoyed reading about "Bad News for Gun Owners" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!