Wear your eye and ear protection!!!

[mykeal]

What could or should the range officer do if some 'well respected, older' members refused to wear ear protection?

He should refuse them the use of the range. It's an unsafe practice, period. (I note you did not take exception to my characterization of that position in the above posting, so I assume you must agree with that).

If the owners/managers of the facility refuse to back him up on that, he should refuse to act as an RSO at that range, because in so doing they are condoning unsafe activity.

Again, as I said above:

Is there ANY question that shooting without ear protection damages hearing? Not just risks damage, actually CAUSES damage. And if not, is there ANY question that an activity that results in damage to the body is unsafe by definition?

Is there ANY question that shooting without eye protection risks loss of sight? Can anyone reasonably say that's SAFE activity?

You suggest that somehow property laws might be used against the RSO if he attempts to proscribe unsafe activity. I know of no statutory or case law that would support such a position. I have no doubt some lawyer might attempt to make such a claim, but it will not prevail.

As far as personal rights are concerned, let me make something very clear: I completely agree that an individual in this country has every right to abuse his/her hearing, eyesight, weight, heart, liver, lungs, whatever all he/she desires; it's perfectly fine with me if someone wants to shoot without ear or eye protection all by themselves. But, as an RSO, it's my RESPONSIBILITY to see that the range I'm operating is safe. And as I said above, safe operation includes the use of eye and ear protection. If someone wants to shoot without it, they're perfectly free to do so elsewhere. But not on the range where safety is my responsibility.

 

[JohnM]

WHEW!!! What a Nanny outbreak!

 

[junkman_01]

JohnM,

I agree with you.

 

[camar]

Eye and Ear protection are provided for those who desire. I recommend that the hearing protection be worn when using the handgun side of our ranger since it is under a partial roof. As for the children I do require that they wear eye and ear protection until they become of a legal age to make their own choice.
This nanny state B.S. has taken over our lives where we pass the responsibility of our safety on to a higher authority rather than stepping up to the plate and saying I am in control of my own life.
For those of you who have been brainwashed into giving your lives over to the government- I feel sorry for you.
I am a free man, not a slave. I was raised when we were free and had to accept responsibility for our actions, not the way it is now. Now we have become effinemate(SP) and buy into all the touchy feely bulls&*t.
Range safety has nothing to do with wearing eye and ear protection. Range safety is ensuring and enforcing safety with firearms.
So how did the line become crossed with eye and ear protection becomming a part of range safety? I would guess that the nanny state atitude would make that leap?

 

[JohnM]

Well put.

 

[junkman_01]

camar for President!

 

[mykeal]

You are shirking your responsibility as an RSO. "Everyone is responsible for their own safety - it's not my job" That's exactly what you've said.

Junkman_02, camar and JohnM -
Do you refuse to patronize a range that requires ear and eye protection because it imposes a 'nanny state' and infringes on your freedom?

It's interesting that you are all refusing to answer the questions I posed. Is it perhaps because to answer them truthfully you have to disavow your political position?

 

[JohnM]

Do you refuse to patronize a range that requires ear and eye protection because it imposes a 'nanny state' and infringes on your freedom?

Yes I probably would, but my range is mostly my front yard and non of the club ranges around here enforce what you would like to.

There ya go.

 

[mykeal]

These are the questions you are avoiding:

Is there ANY question that shooting without ear protection damages hearing? Not just risks damage, actually CAUSES damage. And if not, is there ANY question that an activity that results in damage to the body is unsafe by definition?

Is there ANY question that shooting without eye protection risks loss of sight? Can anyone reasonably say that's SAFE activity?

 

[mykeal]

non of the club ranges around here enforce what you would like to.

Would you care to identify those ranges?

 

[junkman_01]

Do you refuse to patronize a range that requires ear and eye protection because it imposes a 'nanny state' and infringes on your freedom?

I would and have. A club near here tried to enforce eye protection for all shooters. When they announced that they were going to enforce this policy at a NRA sanctioned tournament, there was such an uproar from the registrants that they withdrew the requirement in favor of a 'hold harmless' document from each shooter, because the NRA does not require ear or eye protection, they merely 'urge' it. So step down from your soap box now.

Highpower Rifle Rule Book

3.19 Eye Protection* - All competitors and other personnel in the immediate vicinity of the range complex are urged to wear protection eye wear devices.

3.20 Ear Protection* - All competitors and other personnel in the immediate vicinity of the range complex are urged to wear hearing protection devices of either the passive or electronic type. Standard medically prescribed
hearing aids may be used.

*Match sponsors (and/or ranges) may require eye and ear protection.

 

[junkman_01]

These are the questions you are avoiding:

Is there ANY question that shooting without ear protection damages hearing? Not just risks damage, actually CAUSES damage. And if not, is there ANY question that an activity that results in damage to the body is unsafe by definition?

Is there ANY question that shooting without eye protection risks loss of sight? Can anyone reasonably say that's SAFE activity?

The answer to both questions is yes, but we are free men who will not be dictated to.

Let me ask you a question. Is there ANY question that driving to the range risks being killed or injured in a car accident?

If you answer honestly, then why take the risk of going to the range at all?

 

[arcticap]

You suggest that somehow property laws might be used against the RSO if he attempts to proscribe unsafe activity. I know of no statutory or case law that would support such a position. I have no doubt some lawyer might attempt to make such a claim, but it will not prevail.

1. The membership approves the club rules under which the range officers operate.

2. A range officer cannot physically stop or harass a member who is following all of the rules of the club.

3. I'm simply advocating that range officers should follow club rules and the law.
That's not far fetched, that's respect for the club rules and recognizing the rights of the individual club member.
If a club has such eye & ear protection rules then all of the members need to abide by it, or don't belong to such a club or don't be a range officer at such a club if it's personally disagreeable to not have such rules.

4. I believe that either the Executive Board, or the President of a club, or a high ranking club officer, or the owner of a range property could have a rogue range officer forcibly removed from club property. And if the R.O. doesn't leave when the police ask him too then he can be charged with harassment, trespassing or what ever other charges that they want to use.
The same goes for rogue club members who don't want to follow the established club or range rules. It's simply a law & order issue.

 

[mp510]

Theoretically if a range officer exceeded his authority, based on his actions he could potentially end up being charged for attempting to interfere with a member's legal use of range property.

At best, that would be a civil case. If the range officer were an agent or employee of an incorporated range, any case would likely be against the corporation itself..... and even then damages would probably be nominal at best.

How can a range officer become a rogue authority in spite of the written rules?

Sometimes the concern about needing to defend oneself from a nuisance law suit is reason enough to enact a mandatory policy. But that's still up to the membership or management of the range to decide.

Written rules do not necessarily need to enumerate everything that is required or forbidden. Most likely, the range officer has a grant (through his capacity) to maintain a safe environment implicitly and ostensibly with a level of reasonable discretion in situations that may not be covered by posted regulations. Invariably, most ranges (public and private) make it clear through their terms that range officers are the definitive authority then and there- thus even if he were operating beyond the scope of his capacity, that is something that would need to be taken up later by those empowered to do so (which could well be difficult, regardless of desire, depending on the structure of the entity)....even then, it is very concievable that the Range Officers superiors would embrace his decision, since it is a reasonable and prudent measure to prevent an injury that is common (ly associated enough with the shooting sports to be warned of on nearly every related product) to mitigate potential liability that would be almost certain to follow any related injury. If the range is corporation, and particularly if the range officer is an officer of that corporation, he has a legal and moral obligation to act in the best and exclusive interest of the corporation when acting as an agent thereof- which presumably would cover reasonable steps taken to prevent injury to patrons while using the property (thus preventing injury to the corporation resultant to his inaction).

 

[Gambit88]

Question. Where do us reenactors and nssa/acwsa/cas shooters stand. Many of them don't wear ears and I've never seen any wear eyes. (admit I don't do case) personally as artillery and scout I always wear ears but how can you wear eyes and be correct? Cap frags can be awfully dangerous especially to leftys like me.

Gambit

 

[[email protected]]

Next thing they will want us to start wearing underware when we shoot

 

[Gambit88]

Now now don't be talkin crazy there.

Gambit

 

[arcticap]

how can you wear eyes and be correct?

Antique eye glass frames can be found at antique stores and fitted with lenses, and there's modern wire frame eye glasses that look very similar.

 

[Gatofeo]

When I see people engaged in unsafe practices, and knowing better, I get tight-jawed.
I believe every motorcyclist should wear a helmet. Long pants and full enclosed shoes (not sandals or bare feet) should be mandatory.
Shooting without ear and eye protection is foolish.
Not wearing a seat belt is foolish.
Scream all you want about individual rights, but what about MY rights as a taxpayer?
Because it most often requires MY taxes, in one form or another, to provide medical and rehabilitative care to the Jackleg who refuses to dress safely on a motorcycle, wear a seat belt, keep his kids in proper restraints or wear proper eye and ear protection in environments that require caution.
It's more than common sense, it's being a good, responsible citizen.
If you want to run down the road on your motorcycle or 4-wheeler without a helmet, fine: put up a $1 million bond to cover your medical expenses so I and other taxpayers don't have to!
That's my view on it.
I wear a seat belt, wouldn't get on a motorcycle if you paid me, and never shoot without eye and ear protection.
It's called, "being responsible."

 

[junkman_01]

Scream all you want about individual rights, but what about MY rights as a taxpayer?

What makes you think you have any rights as a taxpayer? You'll pay and you'll like it too!

 

[Jaymo]

By the same token, all guns and knives should be banned so that we taxpayers don't have to pay for gang bangers and illegal alien drug dealers to get trauma care when they shoot/stab each other.
After all, guns and knives are dangerous. We should be responsible.
We also need to require anyone using a chainsaw to wear a full suit of chain or plate mail armor because chainsaws are extremely dangerous tools.
Then there's welding equipment, jackhammers, lawnmowers, and weedwhackers.
Don't even get me started on the dangers of toothpicks.

 

[Tallbald]

All I was doing was suggesting/reminding everyone that we should all wear eye and ear protection when we shoot.....ouch to the controversy. Don

 

[mdauben]

Question. Where do us reenactors and nssa/acwsa/cas shooters stand.

I'm not a reenactment fanatic but I shoot period muzzleloaders and at one time was involved in a Civil War group. I always wore safety glasses and ear plugs. Always. I think it's foolish not to.

On the other hand there were other people I shot with who didn't wear them and that's their buisness.

There are lots of recreational and personal behaviors we all take part in which increase our chances of injury or illness. those are personal choices WE make and as long as they do not endanger others we have every right to engage in them.

 

[mykeal]

Let me ask you a question. Is there ANY question that driving to the range risks being killed or injured in a car accident?

It's clear you have completely missed the point.

No, there is no question that driving to the range risks death or injury; it does. However, when I drive to the range I wear a seat belt, observe traffic laws and practice defensive driving techniques. In short, I do all I can to prevent or avoid death or injury. I can't totally eliminate the risk, but I can reduce it to a small level. And for purposes of illustration, I'll point out that I don't intentionally do something that I know will eventually result in damage to my person, such as driving with my head out the window because I like to feel the wind in my hair, and I have the right to do so (in that it's not proscribed by statute).

Shooting at the range also involves risking death or injury. However, in this case you advocate intentionally engaging in activity that you know will eventually result in damage to your person, to wit: not wearing hearing protection.

Your argument, correct me if I'm wrong, is that you have the right to damage your body, and so to engage in (by your own admission) unsafe activity that will do so. To apply your argument to the 'driving to the range' scenario, you would drive with your head out the window, because you can.

Nowhere did I ever suggest that you not engage in shooting because it's risky activity, but your invocation of the 'driving to the range analogy' suggests that I did. It simply doesn't apply. If, however, you had suggested that while driving, I do something intentionally that I know will result in injury, then that analogy would have been applicable. And would have illustrated the futility of your position.

Regarding your demand that I 'step down from your soapbox now', you'll need to be a bit more specific in the argument. How does your example of a single club event shirking their responsibility for safety compel me to change my position regarding mine? It doesn't.

 

[junkman_01]

I really do not care what you think or say.