The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old February 7, 2012, 12:24 AM   #1
HiBC
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 13, 2006
Posts: 3,593
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.
HiBC is offline  
Old February 7, 2012, 01:38 AM   #2
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,253
The bill is S. 1249, and currently has 7 co-sponsors. My only concern is that the committee is run by Boxer and Inhofe.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old February 7, 2012, 06:07 AM   #3
MTT TL
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 21, 2009
Location: Quadling Country
Posts: 1,801
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
__________________
Proxima est Mors, Malum Nullum adhibit Misericordiam
MTT TL is offline  
Old February 7, 2012, 09:53 AM   #4
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,045
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.
__________________
A gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

If you ever have a real need for more than a couple of magazines, your problem is not a shortage of magazines. It's a shortage of people on your side of the argument. -- Art Eatman
Spats McGee is offline  
Old February 7, 2012, 10:32 AM   #5
kraigwy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 16, 2008
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 9,416
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 Oct '78
Distinguished Rifle Badge 1071
kraigwy is offline  
Old February 7, 2012, 02:07 PM   #6
HiBC
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 13, 2006
Posts: 3,593
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,.
HiBC is offline  
Old February 7, 2012, 02:23 PM   #7
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,045
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=
__________________
A gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

If you ever have a real need for more than a couple of magazines, your problem is not a shortage of magazines. It's a shortage of people on your side of the argument. -- Art Eatman
Spats McGee is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:44 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.08901 seconds with 9 queries