Target Practice and Marksmanship Training Support Act

HiBC · February 7, 2012, 12:24 AM

Folks,I just received an e-mail frm dem Senator Mark Udall,telling me he has introduced this bill,and asking for my support.

This shortcut may work:
http://ct.symplicity.com/t/muv/e00a3...hootingranges/

Of course,this COULD be wonderful,if it is done right,or it could be a Trojan Horse,no telling what is hidden in it.

I'd appreciate if the legal minds here could tell us what the bill offers,and what,if anything,it takes from us,before I sign the petition.

**Tom Servo** · February 7, 2012, 01:38 AM

The bill is S. 1249, and currently has 7 co-sponsors. My only concern is that the committee is run by Boxer and Inhofe.

MTT TL · February 7, 2012, 06:07 AM

It will be a cold day in hell before Boxer signs on to a bill that says:

Quote:

it is in the public interest to provide increased Federal support to facilitate the construction or expansion of public target ranges

**Spats McGee** · February 7, 2012, 09:53 AM

S.1249 amends prior law (the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 669 et seq.), so it's a little difficult to tell exactly what it does without pulling the prior statutes and doing the whole "strike-and-insert dance" with them. With that said, at first glance, it appears to expand permissible funding for public target ranges. However, I see one section that strikes the words "construction and operation," and inserts "operation." Given that, what we may be looking at here is a bill that allows increased overall funding for ranges, but doesn't fund construction of new ones.

kraigwy · February 7, 2012, 10:32 AM

If you live in Montana, Texas, Utah, Idaho, Wyoming, etc do you want congressmen from NJ, Ill. CA, NY, etc telling you how to run your range.

Leave the feds out of it. Many states already have State funded ranges ran by the state, which means local control, not control from DC.

An example, how hard would it be for the EPA to say "no lead bullets' on target ranges?

HiBC · February 7, 2012, 02:07 PM

kraigwy,that was actually one of my first concerns,lead ban.Another might be "If we give you designated ranges,we take away shooting in National Forests,or BLM,or National Grasslands.

This law is getting a bunch of radio spots.....

I really wish this could be a good thing,but I so distrust where it is coming from!!

And,it can be played both ways.If we do not support it,they can say"We tried to fund
public places to shoot and got no support..."

I'll watch this thread a while,.

**Spats McGee** · February 7, 2012, 02:23 PM

As for leaving the feds out of it, that horse has already left the barn. Right, wrong or indifferent, the feds are already in it. The question, then, is whether this makes their involvement better or worse.

As for the EPA, if I remember correctly (never, ever, ever guaranteed), there was a push to have them ban lead bullets a while back under some toxic chemicals law. Someone decided that they didn't have the authority to to do that.

I'm woefully short on extra time right now, but I'll see if I can find a little time to do the legal gymnastics to figure out exactly how this thing is going to work. Given that there hasn't been any activity on it since June 2011, I have a hunch that it may die in committee. If anyone has news to the contrary, I'd love to hear about it.

Edit: Turns out it was another group that petitioned the EPA to ban lead ammo. That petition was denied. Here's the NRA blurb on it: http://www.nraila.org/hunting/issues...spx?s=&st=&ps=

February 7, 2012, 12:24 AM	#1
HiBC Senior Member Join Date: November 13, 2006 Posts: 8,283	Target Practice and Marksmanship Training Support Act Folks,I just received an e-mail frm dem Senator Mark Udall,telling me he has introduced this bill,and asking for my support. This shortcut may work: http://ct.symplicity.com/t/muv/e00a3...hootingranges/ Of course,this COULD be wonderful,if it is done right,or it could be a Trojan Horse,no telling what is hidden in it. I'd appreciate if the legal minds here could tell us what the bill offers,and what,if anything,it takes from us,before I sign the petition.

February 7, 2012, 01:38 AM	#2
Tom Servo Staff Join Date: September 27, 2008 Location: Foothills of the Appalachians Posts: 13,059	The bill is S. 1249, and currently has 7 co-sponsors. My only concern is that the committee is run by Boxer and Inhofe. __________________ Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe

February 7, 2012, 09:53 AM	#4
Spats McGee Staff Join Date: July 28, 2010 Location: Arkansas Posts: 8,821	S.1249 amends prior law (the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 669 et seq.), so it's a little difficult to tell exactly what it does without pulling the prior statutes and doing the whole "strike-and-insert dance" with them. With that said, at first glance, it appears to expand permissible funding for public target ranges. However, I see one section that strikes the words "construction and operation," and inserts "operation." Given that, what we may be looking at here is a bill that allows increased overall funding for ranges, but doesn't fund construction of new ones. __________________ I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some.

February 7, 2012, 10:32 AM	#5
kraigwy Senior Member Join Date: June 16, 2008 Location: Wyoming Posts: 11,061	If you live in Montana, Texas, Utah, Idaho, Wyoming, etc do you want congressmen from NJ, Ill. CA, NY, etc telling you how to run your range. Leave the feds out of it. Many states already have State funded ranges ran by the state, which means local control, not control from DC. An example, how hard would it be for the EPA to say "no lead bullets' on target ranges? __________________ Kraig Stuart CPT USAR Ret USAMU Sniper School Distinguished Rifle Badge 1071

February 7, 2012, 02:23 PM	#7
Spats McGee Staff Join Date: July 28, 2010 Location: Arkansas Posts: 8,821	As for leaving the feds out of it, that horse has already left the barn. Right, wrong or indifferent, the feds are already in it. The question, then, is whether this makes their involvement better or worse. As for the EPA, if I remember correctly (never, ever, ever guaranteed), there was a push to have them ban lead bullets a while back under some toxic chemicals law. Someone decided that they didn't have the authority to to do that. I'm woefully short on extra time right now, but I'll see if I can find a little time to do the legal gymnastics to figure out exactly how this thing is going to work. Given that there hasn't been any activity on it since June 2011, I have a hunch that it may die in committee. If anyone has news to the contrary, I'd love to hear about it. Edit: Turns out it was another group that petitioned the EPA to ban lead ammo. That petition was denied. Here's the NRA blurb on it: http://www.nraila.org/hunting/issues...spx?s=&st=&ps= __________________ I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some.

February 7, 2012, 02:07 PM	#6
HiBC Senior Member Join Date: November 13, 2006 Posts: 8,283	kraigwy,that was actually one of my first concerns,lead ban.Another might be "If we give you designated ranges,we take away shooting in National Forests,or BLM,or National Grasslands. This law is getting a bunch of radio spots..... I really wish this could be a good thing,but I so distrust where it is coming from!! And,it can be played both ways.If we do not support it,they can say"We tried to fund public places to shoot and got no support..." I'll watch this thread a while,.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search