New federal shooting ranges


PDA






ErikO
July 8, 2011, 10:17 AM
There's a Senate Bill on the floor this week to convert unused/underused federal lands for civilian marksmenship and target practice.
Target Practice and Marksmanship Act introduced in senate. (http://www.guns.com/uncle-sams-olive-branch-target-practice-and-marksmanship-act-introduced-in-senate.html)

If you enjoyed reading about "New federal shooting ranges" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Dimis
July 8, 2011, 01:51 PM
oh boy... more restrictive rules than the state ranges

USAF_Vet
July 8, 2011, 02:43 PM
Well, at least I got a nifty pic of Uncle Sam sporting twin revolvers as a desktop backgroud.

armoredman
July 8, 2011, 03:00 PM
Yes, I would have to wonder how the Forest Service would handle this one. They'd need to hire more range managers and range safety officers, for one. But we are strapped deep in debt now, where does the money for this one come from?

ErikO
July 8, 2011, 03:18 PM
As far as workforce goes, I know a few bored Land Management guys who are already certified NRA trainers who would more than likely be tapped to be less bored range types.

I'm personally all for taking the tax money from corporations that maintain their own 'air forces' like Kellogg's, McDonnalds, etc and use that money to cover the losses from increased exporation of labor. Or else spend part of the War on Terrorism/War on Drugs money to fund the ranges. That would be fine as well.

M-Cameron
July 8, 2011, 03:30 PM
ive always believed the Govt. should encourage more marksmanship training.......


the bill currently has four co-sponsors including Senators Michael Bennet (D-CO), Kay Hagan (D-NC), James Risch (R-ID) and Jon Tester (D-MT).

...and who says democrats are anti-gun.

Zoogster
July 8, 2011, 03:32 PM
The other big change could be changes in allowing people to shoot outside of those ranges. Requiring those not hunting to use said formal ranges for target shooting instead of elsewhere in the forest.

In Southern California we had dozens of free National Forest ranges.
Most of them have been closed in the last 10 years, and some counties have 0 now.
Many of the closures are politically motivated.
Many have closed down shooting completely, except for limited rounds while legally hunting or at a privately operated gun range.

The condition of many informal public ranges has taken a serious toll in the last 10 years, and has helped close them.
Too many people treat them as land fills, and it costs a lot of time and effort to clean up literally many tons of garbage annually. The worst trash is old electronics, leaving pieces of glass, shards of metal, plastic, and toxic components everywhere.
Second worst would be appliances and other things that take effort and a truck to remove.
Yet shooters would fill ranges with them.
Complete slobs.
If you think the shooting community is filled with good people a visit to such places can quickly set you straight when you see what they do when left to govern themselves.


Los Angeles, Orange, and San Diego counties have all closed their free public shooting, and and generally outlawed informal shooting outside of private pay to play ranges in the counties. Just 5-10 years ago there was many free remote outdoor places to go.
Riverside County is currently moving towards the same result.
That is half the population of the state in those counties.



Formal ranges are relatively boring, making holes in paper gets old quick.
I don't even enjoy such shooting, it is not recreation, it is just making sure the gun works and your proficiency is decent. Oh joy the gun went boom and the 2 dimensional target has a hole.
A manned range would be the same thing, and I don't see them paying some rangers to staff them full time.
I miss all the free ranges that existed just a short time ago.

Owen Sparks
July 8, 2011, 05:37 PM
This is not something that the federal government needs to be involved it. It could be the tip of a very dangerous wedge because it might get to the point that eventually the only place you can legally shoot is a sanctioned government range. They might even require you to leave your guns locked up there too. (for safe keeping)

M-Cameron
July 8, 2011, 06:20 PM
This is not something that the federal government needs to be involved it. It could be the tip of a very dangerous wedge because it might get to the point that eventually the only place you can legally shoot is a sanctioned government range. They might even require you to leave your guns locked up there too. (for safe keeping)

that is EXTREMELY paranoid....


so does the same thing apply to federal parks......soon the only place you can go camping, hiking , sightseeing, anything outside...is in a federal park.....?

i have a feeling people would complain if the govt. started handing out rifles for free.........coming up with theories that soon they would pass a law only allowing people to have govt. issued rifles.

O C
July 8, 2011, 07:29 PM
Udall’s bill would:
• Increase the amount of money states can contribute from their allotted Pittman-Robertson funds to 90 percent of the cost to improve or construct a public target range from the current limit of 75 percent. This would reduce local and state matching requirements from 25 percent to 10 percent.

• Allow the Pittman-Robertson funds allotted to a state to remain available and accrue for five fiscal years for use in acquiring land for, expanding, or constructing a public target range on federal or non-federal land. Under current law, states must use these funds within one year.

• Limit the legal liability exposure to the federal land management agencies regarding the management and use of federal land for target practice or marksmanship training.

• Encourage the federal land management agencies to cooperate with state and local authorities to maintain target ranges on federal land so as to encourage their continued use.

This is an excerpt from legislation proposed by Sen Udall (D-CO). The monies are already being collected, but will have greater numbers for shooting ranges . As I understand, the Feds can allocate land for ranges and the State has to spend the money that comes out of the excise tax on sporting goods. Color me skeptical, but, you never know...

Apocalypse-Now
July 9, 2011, 05:17 AM
we are strapped deep in debt now, where does the money for this one come from?

us.

O C
July 9, 2011, 12:36 PM
If I'm reading the proposal right, the funds are already there. Of course we pay it in the form of excise taxes, but how they are applied is the thrust of the bill. Currently States have to come up with a greater share of the funds ( from the Pittman-Robertson Funds), also the states would have 3 years to develop the range instead of 1. The most important provision is the limited liability part. That is what kills a lot of projects. I hope this passes and states build more ranges. The money is already being collected.

Owen Sparks
July 9, 2011, 02:05 PM
Quote:
This is not something that the federal government needs to be involved it. It could be the tip of a very dangerous wedge because it might get to the point that eventually the only place you can legally shoot is a sanctioned government range. They might even require you to leave your guns locked up there too. (for safe keeping)


that is EXTREMELY paranoid....

This is exactly what has happened in Great Britain where gun control is so strict that only certified members of approved target-shooting clubs are allowed to own guns and they must be kept locked up at the club at all times.

But don't take my word for it, see for yourself:
http://www.haciendapub.com/gunpage8.html
__________________

feedthehogs
July 10, 2011, 10:45 AM
ive always believed the Govt. should encourage more marksmanship training.......



Quote:
the bill currently has four co-sponsors including Senators Michael Bennet (D-CO), Kay Hagan (D-NC), James Risch (R-ID) and Jon Tester (D-MT).

...and who says democrats are anti-gun.




Either your young or have lived a sheltered life, but the less government always the better.
Marksmanship should be encouraged by the populace and would be more if it were not for all types of laws, rules and regulations passed by government to regulate the people where firearms and ammunition is concerned.

There is always a hidden agenda when it comes to politicians, especially when it comes to Democrats and seemingly progun legislation. To not sit back and rub your hand on your chin and think now what are they up to, is just foolish.

buck460XVR
July 10, 2011, 10:49 AM
This is a good bill with intentions of giving more gun owners more opportunity to enjoy the shooting sports at a safe and appropriate environment.

Among others, the National Shooting Sports Foundation has applauded the proposed bill. Said senior vice president Lawrence G. Keane, “We appreciate Sen. Udall’s leadership in fighting for safe, accessible shooting facilities...This legislation clears the way for new shooting ranges and allows for the proper management of existing ones. Access to these facilities is paramount to continuing to pass on our hunting and shooting sports heritage to younger generations.”

.......legitimate firearm/shooting sports organizations see no hidden agenda for gun control, no conspiracy for locking up our guns, only increased opportunities for shooting enthusiasts. I tend to agree with intelligent folks in the know with access to the facts and tend to shy away from folks wearin' tin foil hats.

M-Cameron
July 10, 2011, 10:55 AM
Either your young or have lived a sheltered life, but the less government always the better.
Marksmanship should be encouraged by the populace and would be more if it were not for all types of laws, rules and regulations passed by government to regulate the people where firearms and ammunition is concerned.

There is always a hidden agenda when it comes to politicians, especially when it comes to Democrats and seemingly progun legislation. To not sit back and rub your hand on your chin and think now what are they up to, is just foolish.

or maybe its the fact that i dont live in a tinfoil bomb shelter believing everything done by the Govt. is a conspiracy to get my guns.....

and just because someone had a (D) in front of their name, it means they must be anti-gun, freedom hating, war mongers.....?


do a little research on the senators.....they have all voted on pro-gun legislation in the past, many of them are life long shooters........and one of them is even A+ rated by the NRA.......

...yeah, its a conspiracy.........better watch out for this under the table attack.......:rolleyes:

Double Naught Spy
July 10, 2011, 11:42 AM
Well, based on what I have seen expressed here, the gov't is darned if they do and darned if they don't. If the gov't closes federal ranges, they are bad. If they want to open federal ranges, they are bad.

But don't take my word for it, see for yourself:
So you are saying that the government ranges are the same things as the private clubs? That isn't the same at all.

Here is your proof from the 11 year old article...
Great Britain has tightened to strangulation its already draconian gun control laws so that only certified members of approved target-shooting clubs are allowed to own guns. These must be .22 caliber or smaller and must be kept locked up at the club at all times.

Sorry, but this is factually incorrect. Handguns are highly regulated as such, but this doesn't apply equally across all classes of firearms. GB does have Draconian gun laws, no doubt, but your proof misrepresents the facts.

If you enjoyed reading about "New federal shooting ranges" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!