Skip to comments.Congress considering measures to expand access to shooting ranges
Posted on 03/11/2012 7:30:14 AM PDT by marktwain
Wednesday, the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) reported impending action on S. 1249, the "Target Practice and Marksmanship Training Support Act." S. 1249 and its House counterpart, H.R. 3065, would permit a portion of the revenue raised through a long-established federal excise tax on firearms and ammunition to be used for the construction, operation, and maintenance of public shooting ranges.
This tax--11% on long guns and ammunition, and 10% on handguns--amounts to a considerable sum of money, especially in light of the sustained boom in firearm sales. That money has, since the signing of the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act in 1937, been used for wildlife conservation. A discussion about the appropriateness of a federal role in wildlife conservation is beyond the scope of this column, but it is fair to question whether funding such efforts is any more the responsibility of gun buyers than of the rest of the public. In 1937, when a far greater percentage of gun owners were hunters, the case for such a tax was perhaps stronger than it is today.
Now, however, with shooting ranges being squeezed out by increasing development, places to shoot are becoming precious. We've talked about that before, during an earlier attempt to pass similar legislation:
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...
If it exists....they tax it...Sometimes it’s called a “fee”...bottom line...they’re taking YOUR hard earned money and in most cases giving it away to “buy votes”.
I have a better idea. Abolish the tax and let the free market decide where and how many shooting ranges to build.
After all, Congress can't even accomplish what it has to do without this increased work load like securing borders, balancing budgets, and actually coming up with a budget!
Just a little too much freedom for a thing like Congress to ever consider.
There's a range up the road from me in the foothills near California's Capitol where the Dept. of Justice (under the Attorney General in CA) agents used to come and train at a minimal cost. In 2005 the operators made national headlines when they booted DOJ officers from the range after the A.G. came out in favor of proposed ammo-stamping laws. That's the way I'd rather have it.
This legislation is just back door gun control.
I don’t go now to the range because it is too expensive. Making it more expensive is not going to change that.
Cut all “poll taxes” on second amendment purchases and maybe then I will go to the range. If more do so, the market will realize, hey I need to open up a range.
Gun control people want to increase “poll taxes” on ammunition and firearms, and now “proponents” want to increase “poll taxes” on ammunition and firearms?
This does not pass the smell test.
Actually, there is no way in Cowboy Hell I would take one of my weapons (if I had any) to a Government Range to shoot. Frankly, that’s just the equivalent of stupid...
I’ve a better idea than that: how about enforcing already existing Federal law concerning ranges:
10 USC § 4309 - RIFLE RANGES: AVAILABILITY FOR USE BY MEMBERS AND CIVILIANS
(a) Ranges Available. All rifle ranges constructed in whole or in part with funds provided by the United States may be used by members of the armed forces and by persons capable of bearing arms.
(b) Military Ranges.
(1) In the case of a rifle range referred to in subsection (a) that is located on a military installation, the Secretary concerned may establish reasonable fees for the use by civilians of that rifle range to cover the material and supply costs incurred by the armed forces to make that rifle range available to civilians.
(2) Fees collected pursuant to paragraph (1) in connection with the use of a rifle range shall be credited to the appropriation available for the operation and maintenance of that rifle range and shall be available for the operation and maintenance of that rifle range.
(3) Use of a rifle range referred to in paragraph (1) by civilians may not interfere with the use of the range by members of the armed forces.
(c) Regulations. Regulations to carry out this section with respect to a rifle range shall be prescribed, subject to the approval of the Secretary concerned, by the authorities controlling the rifle range.
Use the excise tax to pay the ‘reasonable fees’.
I would steer well clear of a federally funded gun range, especially when its going to be recording what you shoot, what you drive and knows where you live.
Frankly I have not used a public range since 1983.
You’re quite right. We have a nice one nearby.
Why should gun purchasers who don't use ranges be forced to pay for them? Abolish the excise tax. Let privately owned gun ranges compete for customers who have more money in their pockets having paid 10% less for their guns. The least efficient use of money is when it passes through government.
There is no free market when siting and building firing ranges is the goal. Local municipalities and neighbors make it very hard to build or improve a range. A lot of existing ranges were located in the boondocks when started. Now, due to urban sprawl, they are surrounded by houses. The new neighbors complain about the noise and hours, just as they do about farm smells and farm tractor noise.
That is why range preservation laws are necessary in every state. Such laws say existing ranges can’t be declared a nuisance and shut down just because of neighbor complaints. The laws do not trump safety, so shooters at any range must be careful that no bullets leave the property. Don’t shoot without careful aiming and all aiming must be below the backstops. My range has banned fast draws and shooting at metal targets or targets near the ground to lessen the chance of ricochets.
Reference bump - thanks! ;-)
So no SCSA, IDPA, or IPSC/USPCA or 3-Gun variant competitions at your range? What do you do there?
I'm sure they are. But across-the-board excise taxes on gun buyers who don't use ranges are not necessary. Publicly operated ranges are not necessary either.
“Shooting range shut to Lockyer staff - Gun club banning on-duty Justice officers as protest
Fast forward to today. Lockyer’s wife, who is 30 years younger than he is (70 vs 40), has been caught whoring around with a 35 year old convicted drug user. She, by the way is an Alameda County Supervisor! Those “classy” RATs again!
“That’s not my granddaughter, that’s my WIFE!”/s;)