range closure.....
since the trap range was privately owned & operated, one NEEDS to find a lawyer who will attack this closing under article 1, section 10 of the Constitution, which states in part,"....no state shall pass any bill...or law... impairing the obligation to contracts....." and the DNR people need to be informed of this tactic as well(if they are, in fact, on your side). this part of the Constitution has stood in the supreme court over 145 times, & in state & federal courts something like 1600 times. the contract, as long as it isn't fraudulent, w/out criminal conduct or intent, is supreme, and since there is no criminal conduct, or intent, in shooting, the judge cannot allow anyone to close down the range, as people are paying to use it, & not committing any crime. we NEED to use this tactic more often. the politicians know about this, but they don't want YOU to know about this. this argument has recently been used to strike down, as unconstitutional, the law in Colorado prohibiting the sale of raw(unpastuerized) milk; & Virginia wineries forced Maryland lawmakers to capitulate w/out trial, the law forcing the wineries to refuse to sell cases of wine to customers w/Md. tags on their cars, for fear Maryland would prosecute the wineries. i apologize for stirring up so much dust here on my first post, but i get a little(well, more than a LITTLE) ticked when i hear the shop-worn, shelf-worn, overworked, under-prosecuted, wailing about the second amendment, when no one takes the time to investigate something that effectively places another arrow in your quiver that is, in actuality, in superior position to the second amendment. after all, the contract section is in the Constitution, not the bill of rights which was added later.
