A VERY disturbing development at the indoor range

[Spats McGee]

What, exactly, does that 'real risk' have to do with the fact that cost of defense is a factor to consider in a range setting up its policies?

Only that we’re deciding whether to worry about reloaders at an inherently dangerous place

Realistically, someone could 'go postal' at any time and place. (I'm old enough to remember a bunch of post office shootings in the 1980s, from whence I believe we get the term "going postal.") So that is not particularly relevant to a discussion of range policy. If there's no way to mitigate a risk, like someone shooting the place up, leave it be and live with it. Nothing else to do. On the other hand, reloads may (and I stress may) present some risks that can be mitigated. The range attorney's job is, in part, to advise the range on policies that can be enacted that will either: (a) mitigate the risk itself; or (b) mitigate something else that could result from it, like legal fees or the cost of defense.

You may consider banning reloads to be silly in light of the fact that the person next to me might be shooting a defective .50 AE pistol. That does not really have any effect on how the range policy might affect its cost of defense, silly or not.

 

[GeoDudeFlorida]

Realistically, someone could 'go postal' at any time and place. (I'm old enough to remember a bunch of post office shootings in the 1980s, from whence I believe we get the term "going postal.") So that is not particularly relevant to a discussion of range policy. If there's no way to mitigate a risk, like someone shooting the place up, leave it be and live with it. Nothing else to do. On the other hand, reloads may (and I stress may) present some risks that can be mitigated. The range attorney's job is, in part, to advise the range on policies that can be enacted that will either: (a) mitigate the risk itself; or (b) mitigate something else that could result from it, like legal fees or the cost of defense.

You may consider banning reloads to be silly in light of the fact that the person next to me might be shooting a defective .50 AE pistol. That does not really have any effect on how the range policy might affect its cost of defense, silly or not.

I'm not sure about the law - I'm not an attorney, nor do I play one on TV, and I did not stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night - but I do know about project management and risk assessment. Every aspect of life involves risk. Life IS risk. There are three things you can DO about risk: avoid it, mitigate it, or prepare for it. Now, to some folks those might all sound like the same thing said three ways but it's not. Avoidance is knowing what can go wrong and taking steps to make sure none of them do. Avoidance takes precognition and most folks are kind of lacking there. Mitigation is knowing what is very likely to go wrong and taking steps to prevent those things from happening and having a plan in place to deal with them if they do. Mitigation takes a lot of planning, which can be costly - remember, opportunity costs are very real in the real world of economics. Preparation, like mitigation, takes a lot of planning - which can be very costly - and like avoidance it also takes a good sense of precognition - which most people simply lack. Preparing for risk is about knowing what can go wrong, what might go wrong, what will inevitably go wrong, and having plans for every possible combination of the above.

The problem is: There's no way to know what hasn't gone terribly wrong, yet, but may, until it does - and then it's too late. Some things are obvious and that's what us mere mortal folks shoot for - pun intended - is avoiding the obvious, planning for the obvious, and putting plans in place to prevent the obvious mistakes and deal with those obvious mistakes when they happen (mitigation) - because we can't predict the future very accurately but we know eventually the worst thing you can't imagine going wrong, will. I guess a lawyer's job is to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that something was obvious when it wasn't; or, that something that wasn't obvious, should have been. Beats me but, all I know is, entropy happens.

The glass is always full; the only difference is in the liquid-to-vapor ratio.

 

[CQB45ACP]

Realistically, someone could 'go postal' at any time and place. (I'm old enough to remember a bunch of post office shootings in the 1980s, from whence I believe we get the term "going postal.") So that is not particularly relevant to a discussion of range policy. If there's no way to mitigate a risk, like someone shooting the place up, leave it be and live with it. Nothing else to do. On the other hand, reloads may (and I stress may) present some risks that can be mitigated. The range attorney's job is, in part, to advise the range on policies that can be enacted that will either: (a) mitigate the risk itself; or (b) mitigate something else that could result from it, like legal fees or the cost of defense.

You may consider banning reloads to be silly in light of the fact that the person next to me might be shooting a defective .50 AE pistol. That does not really have any effect on how the range policy might affect its cost of defense, silly or not.

Didn’t say silly just bigger fish to fry.

If we’re getting in to legal issues and advice to mitigate legal risk...1. Don’t open a range. 2. No, seriously, don’t open a range.

 

[Spats McGee]

If we’re getting in to legal issues and advice to mitigate legal risk...1. Don’t open a range. 2. No, seriously, don’t open a range.

So range owners should not take any steps to mitigate risks? That seems like awfully bad advice.

 

[CQB45ACP]

So range owners should not take any steps to mitigate risks? That seems like awfully bad advice.

Didn’t say that either, but you’re on a tear so keep going.

 

[Spats McGee]

Didn’t say that either, but you’re on a tear so keep going.

Not exactly. What you said was:

If we’re getting in to legal issues and advice to mitigate legal risk...1. Don’t open a range. 2. No, seriously, don’t open a range.

Given what you've posted, it would appear that either:
You don't think ranges should engage in any kind of risk mitigation. (Bad advice); or
You don't think any risk mitigation is possible, shy of avoiding opening a range altogether.

 

[packetloss]

Very few people reload near me, and all the ranges near me allow you to use reloads and pick up your brass. One range however, was a bit ridiculous in that I had to mark all my brass and they wanted to inspect it before I left to make sure I didn't take any of "their" brass. A bit anal for the possibly $1 of "their" brass that might get swept up with my brass. Needless to say I don't go there anymore.

I suppose if tons of new folks started reloading now due to the ammo shortage, I can see ranges encountering more mistakes with reloads now than at previous points in time.

 

[GeoDudeFlorida]

I suppose if tons of new folks started reloading now due to the ammo shortage

We do know for a fact this has happened. We can also infer from the sales data and lack of availability that a good chunk of them folks - most maybe? - are starting out as first-time reloaders on progressive presses. Maybe that's a contributing factor since reloading on a progressive means more things happening at once and more to keep track of?

 

[CQB45ACP]

Not exactly. What you said was:

Given what you've posted, it would appear that either:
You don't think ranges should engage in any kind of risk mitigation. (Bad advice); or
You don't think any risk mitigation is possible, shy of avoiding opening a range altogether.

17 is my answer. To the question how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

The decision to mitigate or not or how much isn’t a legal one. Or which priority is the top priority. All business decisions.

Some sound legal advice is helpful but unless all attorneys give the same advice, one is back to making a business decision.

That might be why some ranges prohibit any reloaded ammo while others would permit all.

The NRAHQ range permits reloaded ammo, collecting one’s own brass, and they promote reloading by selling spent cases sorted by caliber. I wonder whether this is the mitigation the NRA counsel suggested? Sounds almost like none doesn’t it?

 

[ballman6711]

I suppose if tons of new folks started reloading now due to the ammo shortage, I can see ranges encountering more mistakes with reloads now than at previous points in time.

I can also see this happening. But at the same time people need to be more responsible with what they do and how they do it. This is especially true with reloading, where if something goes wrong the results can be anywhere from annoying to fatal.

Very few people reload near me, and all the ranges near me allow you to use reloads and pick up your brass. One range however, was a bit ridiculous in that I had to mark all my brass and they wanted to inspect it before I left to make sure I didn't take any of "their" brass. A bit anal for the possibly $1 of "their" brass that might get swept up with my brass. Needless to say I don't go there anymore.

The last sentence is IMO the solution to a lot of problems. I don't go to ranges where I know safety issues exist. And I don't go to ranges where I'm not allowed to collect my brass, whether it came from my reloads or from factory ammo.

chris

 

[GeoDudeFlorida]

17 is my answer. To the question how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

The decision to mitigate or not or how much isn’t a legal one. Or which priority is the top priority. All business decisions.

Some sound legal advice is helpful but unless all attorneys give the same advice, one is back to making a business decision.

That might be why some ranges prohibit any reloaded ammo while others would permit all.

The NRAHQ range permits reloaded ammo, collecting one’s own brass, and they promote reloading by selling spent cases sorted by caliber. I wonder whether this is the mitigation the NRA counsel suggested? Sounds almost like none doesn’t it?

If the NRAHQ range is a private, members only range, that is a measure of mitigation. If it is open to the public with no identification, training, monitoring or safety requirements, that would be an absence of mitigation.

Another question implied by your observations is, at what point does reloaded ammo become a "perceived" liability to the sport? Remember, in the realm of public policy, perception is reality.

 

[CQB45ACP]

If the NRAHQ range is a private, members only range, that is a measure of mitigation. If it is open to the public with no identification, training, monitoring or safety requirements, that would be an absence of mitigation.

Sorry you are partly (large part) incorrect, counselor. The NRA range is open to the public including NON-NRA members.

The fees are lower for NRA members than non and lower still if you buy an annual range membership.

18 is now the number. Angels that is. Yes there are the mitigation actions you mention also but wasn’t this thread ostensibly about ranges mitigating WRT reloading?

Nope, not about perceptions, sorry.

 

[unwashed]

I hear you but this to me is just a business owner setting his own rules. And I don’t really care. I’d just take my business elsewhere. I didn’t know however there were ranges that didn’t allow reloaded ammo. As a newbie, I never gave it any thought. And if that happens around here I’ll be PO’d and SOL.

Vaccines and vax cards are not a business decision it's a political one and any private company that makes decisions based on a political issues loses it's private status. It squarely puts them in the public sphere. This issue is equal to the reloading issue ie; safety of others, nanny state, life is risky but no one wants to be accountable hence nanny. Vax cards is just a continuation of this reloading issue, safety over freedom. For gun guys, I'd think people would understand this. But, I digress from past experience of gun owners at the range questioning me why do I need a 20 round mag, cause they evil.

 

[GeoDudeFlorida]

Sorry you are partly (large part) incorrect, counselor. The NRA range is open to the public including NON-NRA members.

The fees are lower for NRA members than non and lower still if you buy an annual range membership.

18 is now the number. Angels that is. Yes there are the mitigation actions you mention also but wasn’t this thread ostensibly about ranges mitigating WRT reloading?

Nope, not about perceptions, sorry.

Never mind. I'm asking for the thread to be closed. Too much hostility. Nothing more to be served by carrying on.

 

[Jim Watson]

I'm also seeing a lot more sloppiness in firearms handling - people at the sales counter sweeping the crowd with the muzzle, not checking chambers,

The place here is poorly laid out, the gun rental counter virtually guarantees range and store customers get swept. Most other stores are nearly as bad.

 

[CQB45ACP]

Never mind. I'm asking for the thread to be closed. Too much hostility. Nothing more to be served by carrying on.

Sorry mostly my doing I’m afraid. And sorry to @Spats McGee too.

 

[Spats McGee]

Sorry mostly my doing I’m afraid. And sorry to @Spats McGee too.

Not a problem. I'm as much to blame for that sidetrack as you are.

 

[bikerdoc]

Were done here, closed at O Ps request