Month: July 2011

Uncategorized

DOJ Decrees Multi-Rifle Reporting In The Southwest

July 11, 2011 by 1 Comment

This was released this afternoon by Deputy Attorney General James Cole and orders the reporting of multiple sales of certain semi-automatic rifles sold in the Southwest. Cole, you may remember, had his nomination held up by Senator Charles Grassley until a deal was reached to allow ATF Acting Director Kenneth Melson to be interviewed by House Oversight Committee staff. Given that Melson came in on his own accord with his own attorney, in hindsight, Cole should have been left in limbo.

Statement of Deputy Attorney General James Cole Regarding Information Requests for Multiple Sales of Semi-Automatic Rifles with Detachable Magazines

WASHINGTON – Deputy Attorney General James Cole issued the following statement today regarding information requests for multiple sales of semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines in select states along the Southwest Border:

“The international expansion and increased violence of transnational criminal networks pose a significant threat to the United States. Federal, state and foreign law enforcement agencies have determined that certain types of semi-automatic rifles – greater than .22 caliber and with the ability to accept a detachable magazine – are highly sought after by dangerous drug trafficking organizations and frequently recovered at violent crime scenes near the Southwest Border. This new reporting measure — tailored to focus only on multiple sales of these types of rifles to the same person within a five-day period — will improve the ability of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to detect and disrupt the illegal weapons trafficking networks responsible for diverting firearms from lawful commerce to criminals and criminal organizations. These targeted information requests will occur in Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas to help confront the problem of illegal gun trafficking into Mexico and along the Southwest Border.”

This qualifies as one of the “under the radar” moves on gun control by the Obama Administration that was promised to Sarah Brady.

If you will remember, towards the end of May, I had up a form letter generator thanks to the efforts of “P.T.”. This generated over 3,200 letters opposing this regulation. This generated 9,666 page views so I am hoping that there were more letters actually sent in opposition even if not through the letter generator.

It is now obvious to me that our letters were ignored and that the Obama Administration had no intention of listening. The comment requirement was just to check off an item that was required by law. If you go to the ATF’s website where they had previously published “submissions for public contents, all you will see is a blank page.

Clearly, this action by the Obama Administration is without legal grounding as Congress granted no such authority in the Gun Control Act of 1968. As one commentator to Instapundit.com said about Brit Hume’s comment that the Obama DOJ reminded him on the Nixon Justice Department:

Fast & Furious is a Nixonian Cover-up? AFAIK no one died because G. Gordon Liddy broke into Watergate. And at least AG Elliot Richardson and Asst AG William Ruckelshaus had the decency to resign when faced with firing Archibald Cox. This lot doesn’t bat an eye at firing an inconvenient Inspector General or honest public servant. I think we can comfortably state that the current administration is more ethically impaired then Richard Nixon’s.

It is time for Congress to get off their ass and pass Sen. Jon Tester’s S. 570 which would prohibit the Justice Department from tracking and cataloguing the multiple sales of shotguns and rifles. The bill has 28 co-sponsors in the Senate which is much more than the average bill. I fear, however, that it will stay bottled up in the Senate thanks to the efforts of Sen. Pat Leahy and Sen. Harry Reid.

I do foresee legal challenges being filed shortly against this directive. Whether it comes from the NRA or the Second Amendment Foundation or another group, one will come.

UPDATE: The Washington Post has more about the reporting requirement here.  Pravda on the Potomac’s favorite gun reporters, James Grimaldi and admitted plagiarist Sari Horwitz, included this little ditty as well:

The decision comes in the middle of a congressional investigation into a bungled ATF gun-smuggling investigation code-named “Fast and Furious.” Many current and former ATF agents said that if the new reporting rule had been in place, it might have prevented the types of mistakes made by the ATF in that investigation.

Of course, that is complete and utter bullshit. The dealers were already reporting these individuals and were told by ATF to go through with the sale. What makes anyone think that the sale still would not have been ordered to go through even with this rule under Operation Fast and Furious? Remember, they were “trying to bring down a drug cartel” and rules don’t matter when you are going for glory.

Uncategorized

Here Is One 9th Circuit Decision I Hope Isn’t Overturned

July 11, 2011 by

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has a well-deserved reputation as being the most overturned circuit in the nation. This is usually due to their “out-there” opinions. However, the Supreme Court accepted an appeal by the City of Los Angeles of a case where the 9th Circuit said the police search warrant for weapons was so broad as to be unconstitutional. This case, Millender v. County of Los Angeles, et al., involved a general search warrant that specified the seizure of “all handguns, rifles or shotguns of any caliber, or any firearms capable of firing ammunition…” even though the police knew they were looking for one specific firearm.

The NRA and CRPA had filed an amicus brief in this case in support of Millender. Below is the release from attorney Chuck Michel which give more on this case. As I said in the title, this is one case that I hope is not overturned on appeal.

The Fourth Amendment guarantees our right to not be subjected to search and seizure under a “general” search warrant (i.e., a warrant not based on probable cause and not particularly describing the place to be searched and the person or thing to be seized).

Firearms are generally lawful to possess, and usually may not be seized without probable cause that a specific firearm was used in a crime. On August 24, 2010, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Millender v. County of Los Angeles, et al. (07-55518), confirmed that a general search warrant requesting the seizure of “all handguns, rifles or shotguns of any caliber, or any firearms capable of firing ammunition…” was unconstitutional when the police who sought the warrant were aware they were actually searching for just one specific firearm.

The National Rifle Association (NRA) and the California Rifle and Pistol Association Foundation (CRPAF) argued this point in an amicus (friend of the court) brief filed in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on behalf of the Mrs. Millender. A copy of the brief, along with the opinion, other case related briefs, and memorandum analyzing the opinion is posted at http://michellawyers.com/millendervlosangeles.

Following the Ninth Circuit’s Millender decision, defendant County of Los Angeles sought review by the United States Supreme Court. On June 27, 2011, the Supreme Court agreed to review the case, and to address the question of whether law enforcement is entitled to qualified immunity against a civil rights law suit when a judge has signed off on the warrant – even when the officers seized property (i.e. firearms) unrelated to the case (and the specific firearm) they are investigating. The case will be heard by the Supreme Court next year. NRA and CRPAF will weigh-in again through an amicus brief at that time.

Far too often police seize entire firearms collections even when most of those firearms are not alleged as part of any criminal offense. In fact, to get to large gun collections local police even resort to “stinging” gun collectors with enticing too-good-to-be-true firearm deals that often involve grey areas of the law, making inadvertent violations of the law common. Some police are politically motivated to inflate statistics of the number of guns seized in order to justify increased funding for their efforts. These seizures often result in damage to the firearms, and inevitably cost their owners expenses and legal fees to get the firearms back.

The Millender case involved a domestic assault between Mr. Bowen and Mrs. Kelly. Bowen threatened Kelly using a specifically identified sawed-off shotgun. Kelly called the police. Police ran Bowen’s record and discovered he was a felon. Police then tracked down an address purported to be Bowen’s residence, and drafted a search warrant that included a request to seize all firearms and ammunition. Police included these general requests despite having a picture of the specific sawed-off shotgun Bowen allegedly used in the assault.

At 5 a.m. the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department SWAT team served the warrant at the address of Bowen’s foster mother, Mrs. Millender (law enforcement knew that this was her residence, not Bowen’s). Police broke in through her front security door and a front window. Bowen was not there, but law enforcement nonetheless seized from Mrs. Millender a 12-gauge “Mossberg” shotgun with a wooden stock that looked nothing like the sawed-off shotgun they were after, along with a box of .45 caliber ammunition.

Bowen was found the following day hiding under a bed in a motel.

The District Court held that the police had qualified immunity from the damages sought in the civil rights case because of the supposed validity of the warrant.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the warrant was over-broad, especially given law enforcement’s knowledge of the specific firearm Bowen used, and considering the total lack of any gang related evidence. Due to the extreme degree in which the warrant was unconstitutional, the Court of Appeals held that the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity and could be sued for damages for violating the Millenders’ civil rights.

H/T Tom Gresham

Uncategorized

UN Meeting On Small Arms Treaty

July 11, 2011 by

The Third Preparatory Committee Meeting for the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) is meeting at the United Nations in New York this week. The Second Amendment Foundation is accredited to the UN as an NGO – Non-Governmental Organization – through its membership on the Executive Committee of the World Forum on the Future of Shooting Sports Activities and has people attending the meeting. I will have more on this meeting later.

The Second Amendment Foundation, represented by Alan Gottlieb and Julianne Versnel, is in attendance at the Third Preparatory Committee Meeting for the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) in New York this week.

These meetings lay the ground work for the final negotiation sessions of the ATT in 2012. SAF’s position is firm – an ATT which in any way affects the constitutional rights of American gun owners is totally unacceptable. Civilian firearms and ammunition must not be within the scope of the United Nation’s Arms Trade Treaty. There is no compromise on this crucial point.

The Second Amendment Foundation has been active for years at the United Nations both its headquarters in New York and Vienna, Austria and elsewhere internationally in response to anti-gun rights initiatives that would restrict our sovereignty. In addition to attending the first two preparatory meetings, SAF was represented at the May meeting of Governmental Experts where marking, tracing and record keeping policies were discussed.

SAF is a Member of the Executive Committee of the World Forum on the Future of Sport Shooting Activities, a recognized Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) at the United Nations. This status allows us to closely monitor the internal UN debate over firearm issues and report back to our members and supporters.

This NGO status has also allowed SAF to take an active role in speaking at the UN, most recently at the Programme of Action to Prevent and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects in 2010.

In addition to its UN and World Forum on the Future of Sport Shooting Activities, SAF is a founding member of The International Association for the Protection of Civilian Arms Rights (IAPCAR) which includes scores of national and international organizations, representing tens of millions of firearm and knife owners worldwide.

In March, Alan and Julianne received a commemorative muzzleloading rifle in recognition for their international work protecting the rights of gun owners presented by FISAT (the Italian shooters association), and Chiappa Firearms during the EXA exhibition in Brescia, Italy.

Uncategorized

Quote Of The Day

July 11, 2011 by 1 Comment

With reference to a 2009 video of former Deputy Attorney General David Ogden announcing that DOJ had been ordered by President Obama to increase efforts in the Southwest to interdict the flow of weapons to Mexico, Traction Control had this comment.

“This program is so plain stupid that it smacks of Obama thinking it up himself.”

If not the quote of the year, it is pretty damn close to it.

H/T SayUncle

Uncategorized

Motion For Injunction Sought In NRA’s Illinois Case

July 11, 2011 by

I meant to post this on Friday but didn’t. A day after the Second Amendment Foundation filed a Motion for a Preliminary Injunction in their case against Illinois, Moore v. Madigan, the NRA filed a similar motion in their case against Illinois. Both of these motions came after the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals found against Chicago and ordered a preliminary injunction against the range ban in Ezell v. Chicago.

The Memorandum for the Motion for a Preliminary and/or Permanent Injunction can be found here.

NRA Files a Motion for an Immediate End to Illinois’ Ban on Right-to-Carry

Friday, July 08, 2011

Fairfax, Va. — The National Rifle Association (NRA) is filing a motion for an injunction asking the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois to immediately strike down Illinois’ complete and total ban on carrying firearms for self-defense outside the home or place of business.

This week, the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that any violation of the Second Amendment constitutes irreparable harm – a factor needed to receive a preliminary injunction on NRA’s lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Illinois statute prohibiting carriage.

The NRA filed a lawsuit, Shepard v. Madigan, on May 13 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. The lead plaintiff is church treasurer Mary Shepard; joining her is the Illinois State Rifle Association, the NRA’s state affiliate.

Because Illinois statutes prohibit carrying handguns, they infringe on the right of the people, including Mrs. Shepard, members of the ISRA and other law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and are thus null and void.

Uncategorized

Crafting Uses For Your Ammo Stockpile

July 11, 2011 by

The Complementary Spouse loves to craft. One of her current projects is making trivets out of old wine corks glued on bases she finds at thrift stores.

After she glues down the corks, she needs to add weight so that they have a good contact with the base. She has found that boxes of ammo work perfectly for this task.

So if your significant other is giving you grief over having too much ammo set aside, just point out this post. It will give a whole new meaning to ammo crafting.

Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

Uncategorized

2010 – The Year Of The .380

July 11, 2011 by 3 Comments

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives released their 2010 interim Annual Firearms Manufacturing and Export Report on Thursday of this past week. These summary statistics provide a clear view of the trends in the firearms industry over the past year and especially when compared to the prior year’s report. The table below shows both the absolute and relative changes by category in firearms production in 2010 from the prior year.

Production of rifles in all calibers dropped by over 650,000 rifles or a drop of 28.4% when compared to the previous year. By contrast, total pistol production was up by 19.25% for a total of 2,227,871 pistols manufactured in 2010. Revolvers are in a separate category from pistols. Production for that category was flat with an insignificant drop from the prior year. Shotgun production was also flat with 1.2% drop in the number produced in 2010 as compared to 2009.

The production figures by manufacturer within each category are not yet available. Thus, I can’t say for sure that the drop in rifle production is due to the bubble bursting for AR-15’s but I think that is a reasonable supposition. With the fear of a new Assault Weapons Ban that began with the inauguration of Barack Obama fading, the market for “modern sporting rifles” or “sport utility rifles” is returning to normal.

Change in Firearms Production From 2009  to 2010
Pistols
Revolvers
To .22
52,013
16.2%
To. .22
-11,870
-8.4%
To .25
6,322
42.0%
To .32
874
11.5%
To .32
-7,619
-.16.1%
To .357 Mag
18,684
17.3%
To .380
274,613
70.2%
To .38 Spec.
-22,783
-.9.8%
To 9mm
43,631
7.44%
To .44 Mag
13,652
45.6%
To .50
-9,347
-1.8%
To .50
1,166
4.2%
Total Pistol
359,613
19.25%
Total Revolver
-277
-.05%
Total Rifles
-659,693
-28.4%
Total Shotguns
-9,337
-1.2%

While the market for rifles has dropped, the same can’t be said about pistols. That market had an over 19.25% growth in production in 2010. If 2009 was the Year of the AR, then 2010 was the Year of the .380. Production in that category of pistol grew by 70.2% or 274,613 units. The growth in the production of .380 pistols accounted for three-quarters of the total growth for pistols in 2010. If one listened to the stories from last year, you knew that .380 ammo was hard to find. These production figures, while not sales figures, definitely point to the increase in demand for these small pistols.

9mm pistol production also grew in 2010 while the larger pistol calibers – .40 S&W and .45 ACP – contracted just a bit. I imagine that the 2011 numbers will show a growth in that category with 2011 being the centennial year of the Browning-designed 1911.

I think a strong argument can be made that the growth in .380 pistols has come from the concealed carry movement. The Ruger LCP, the Kahr P380, the Sig P238, and the Kel-Tec P-3AT are all easily concealed and have been readily adopted by those who want a small pistol that fits in the pocket. It will be interesting to see the complete production numbers by manufacturer when they are released by BATFE.

In conclusion, while 2010 was a down year for the firearms market overall – 5,107,309 units in 2010 versus 5,417,003 units in 2009 – certain segments grew very strongly. While the Violence Policy Center and other gun prohibitionists will try to spin this as a negative overall for the firearms industry, it really isn’t. It merely illustrates that firearms production has peaks and valleys in demand by segment just like any other industry. I think most industries in America would have been very happy to only have had a 5.7% drop in production for 2010 when compared to the prior year.

Uncategorized

World Net Daily Did The Right Thing (Updated)

July 10, 2011 by

UPDATE: WND has removed the T-shirt in question. From Sean at An NC Gun Blog.

UPDATE: After emailed conversation with WND Editor Joseph Farah, they have pulled the shirt from their e-store! He has given me his personal assurance that a full investigation will commence as soon as everyone gets back to the office on Monday!

Mr. Farah, I want to thank you for your quick response to this situation and I look forward to discussing this with you on Monday. It is clear from your swift handling of this that you are committed to honest dealings and I applaud you for it.

Due to the nature of the Internet, a post once published can never really go away. I have retained the post below for you to read, but be assured that Mr. Farah has handled this already and no further emails to him are necessary, unless you wish to email him with your thanks for his proper handling of it.

On the evening of July 6th, I posted on the breaking story from David Codrea and Mike Vanderboegh regarding the potential involvement of the ATF’s Tampa Field Division in gunwalking to MS-13 in Honduras. The very first person to make a comment on this post was Sean Sorrentino who said, “Am I the only person on the planet that didn’t get guns from the ATF?”. You can see a screen cap of his comment below.

David Codrea read the comment and thought it would make a great T-shirt. He did a post on it on his War On Guns blog on Thursday. Sean ran with the idea and with the help of Robb Allen created a T-shirt featuring HIS comment. He put it up for sale on this Friday. I know because I’ve already bought one.

Sean reports in a blog post this morning that he found out his words and David’s idea were taken by World Net Daily to create a T-shirt.

I got an email from David Codrea, one of the two original “Online Reporters” of the Gunwalker scandal, and the person who suggested that my phrase “Am I the only person on the planet who didn’t get guns from the ATF?” should be put on a t-shirt. He sent me this link. As you can see, the same phrase appears on the WND shirt. I’ve gotten a screen capture as well.

Go to Sean’s website and read the whole story. Go to World Net Daily’s Superstore and let them know what you think of their faux shirt. You can also make your displeasure known to Joseph Farah, the editor and CEO of World Net Daily, by sending him an email at jfarah@worldnetdaily.com .

I fully support capitalistic endeavors. One of the hallmarks of our capitalist system is copyright protection which preserves the rights of the person who first created the literary expression. Unfortunately, WND probably has much deeper pockets than a blogger in North Carolina and any legal action would be too costly to pursue. That said, there is nothing to stop the blogger community from shaming World Net Daily into doing the right thing. Making knock-offs is something that I would expect from Red China and not from a supposedly conservative organization. If Mr. Farah wants to emulate the ChiComms, he is free to do so but we don’t need to approve of it.

Uncategorized

Text Of S. 1249 – Targert Practice And Marksmanship Training Support Act – Finally Released

July 9, 2011 by

The Target Practice and Marksmanship Training Support Act of 2011 was introduced by Sen. Mark Udall (D-CO) on June 22nd.

Former Rep. Betsy Markey (D-CO-4) introduced a very similar bill in the 111th Congress. That bill, H. 3781, never made it out of committee.

This bill has the support of the National Shooting Sports Foundation which is a bit change from earlier years. As Michael Bane said in a blog post, this is a recognition that Gun Culture v. 2.0 will be the future of the shooting sports. He also notes that our enemies know that if they can deprive us of a place to shoot, they can limit our growth.

This is HUGE! One of the baseline strategies of our enemies — perhaps the only one that has been working, BTW — has been to deprive us of places to shoot. A significant amount of revenue flowing into range development, coupled with pushing federal land management agencies to allow land for ranges (a big issue here in Colorado), is a very important start.

This is a good bill that deserves our support. Increasing places to shoot – especially free or low cost ones – is critical if we want to introduce new people to shooting. The days of shooting in your back yard are over in most places throughout the United States. While the bulk of open lands are in the western United States, there are quite a  number of National Forests east of the Mississippi. Moreover, the bill would allow support for public ranges on non-Federal land so state, county, and municipal lands could also be used for ranges.

The text of S. 1249 was finally released and can be seen below.

112th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. 1249

To amend the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act to facilitate the establishment of additional or expanded public target ranges in certain States.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

June 22, 2011

Mr. UDALL of Colorado (for himself, Mr. RISCH, Mr. TESTER, and Mr. BENNET) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works

A BILL

To amend the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act to facilitate the establishment of additional or expanded public target ranges in certain States.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Target Practice and Marksmanship Training Support Act’.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS; PURPOSE.

(a) Findings- Congress finds that–

(1) the use of firearms and archery equipment for target practice and marksmanship training activities on Federal land is allowed, except to the extent specific portions of that land have been closed to those activities;

(2) in recent years preceding the date of enactment of this Act, portions of Federal land have been closed to target practice and marksmanship training for many reasons;

(3) the availability of public target ranges on non-Federal land has been declining for a variety of reasons, including continued population growth and development near former ranges;

(4) providing opportunities for target practice and marksmanship training at public target ranges on Federal and non-Federal land can help–

(A) to promote enjoyment of shooting, recreational, and hunting activities; and

(B) to ensure safe and convenient locations for those activities;

(5) Federal law in effect on the date of enactment of this Act, including the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 669 et seq.), provides Federal support for construction and expansion of public target ranges by making available to States amounts that may be used for construction, operation, and maintenance of public target ranges; and

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

(b) Purpose- The purpose of this Act is to facilitate the construction and expansion of public target ranges, including ranges on Federal land managed by the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management.

SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF PUBLIC TARGET RANGE.

In this Act, the term `public target range’ means a specific location that–

(1) is identified by a governmental agency for recreational shooting;

(2) is open to the public;

(3) may be supervised; and

(4) may accommodate archery or rifle, pistol, or shotgun shooting.

SEC. 4. AMENDMENTS TO PITTMAN-ROBERTSON WILDLIFE RESTORATION ACT.

(a) Definitions- Section 2 of the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 669a) is amended–

(1) by redesignating paragraphs (2) through (8) as paragraphs (3) through (9), respectively; and

(2) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following:

`(2) the term `public target range’ means a specific location that–

`(A) is identified by a governmental agency for recreational shooting;

`(B) is open to the public;

`(C) may be supervised; and

`(D) may accommodate archery or rifle, pistol, or shotgun shooting;’.

(b) Expenditures for Management of Wildlife Areas and Resources- Section 8(b) of the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 669g(b)) is amended–

(1) by striking `(b) Each State’ and inserting the following:

`(b) Expenditures for Management of Wildlife Areas and Resources-

`(1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (2), each State’;

(2) in paragraph (1) (as so designated), by striking `construction, operation,’ and inserting `operation’;

(3) in the second sentence, by striking `The non-Federal share’ and inserting the following:

`(3) NON-FEDERAL SHARE- The non-Federal share’;

(4) in the third sentence, by striking `The Secretary’ and inserting the following:

`(4) REGULATIONS- The Secretary’; and

(5) by inserting after paragraph (1) (as designated by paragraph (1) of this subsection) the following:

`(2) EXCEPTION- Notwithstanding the limitation described in paragraph (1), a State may pay up to 90 percent of the cost of acquiring land for, expanding, or constructing a public target range.’.

(c) Firearm and Bow Hunter Education and Safety Program Grants- Section 10 of the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 669h-1) is amended–

(1) in subsection (a), by adding at the end the following:

`(3) ALLOCATION OF ADDITIONAL AMOUNTS- Of the amount apportioned to a State for any fiscal year under section 4(b), the State may elect to allocate not more than 10 percent, to be combined with the amount apportioned to the State under paragraph (1) for that fiscal year, for acquiring land for, expanding, or constructing a public target range.’;

(2) by striking subsection (b) and inserting the following:

`(b) Cost Sharing-

`(1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (2), the Federal share of the cost of any activity carried out using a grant under this section shall not exceed 75 percent of the total cost of the activity.

`(2) PUBLIC TARGET RANGE CONSTRUCTION OR EXPANSION- The Federal share of the cost of acquiring land for, expanding, or constructing a public target range in a State on Federal or non-Federal land pursuant to this section or section 8(b) shall not exceed 90 percent of the cost of the activity.’; and

(3) in subsection (c)(1)–

(A) by striking `Amounts made’ and inserting the following:

`(A) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in subparagraph (B), amounts made’; and

(B) by adding at the end the following:

`(B) EXCEPTION- Amounts provided for acquiring land for, constructing, or expanding a public target range shall remain available for expenditure and obligation during the 5-fiscal-year period beginning on October 1 of the first fiscal year for which the amounts are made available.’.

SEC. 5. LIMITS ON LIABILITY.

(a) Discretionary Function- For purposes of chapter 171 of title 28, United States Code (commonly referred to as the `Federal Tort Claims Act’), any action by an agent or employee of the United States to manage or allow the use of Federal land for purposes of target practice or marksmanship training by a member of the public shall be considered to be the exercise or performance of a discretionary function.

(b) Civil Action or Claims- Except to the extent provided in chapter 171 of title 28, United States Code, the United States shall not be subject to any civil action or claim for money damages for any injury to or loss of property, personal injury, or death caused by an activity occurring at a public target range that is–

(1) funded in whole or in part by the Federal Government pursuant to the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 669 et seq.); or

(2) located on Federal land.

SEC. 6. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING COOPERATION.

It is the sense of Congress that, consistent with applicable laws and regulations, the Chief of the Forest Service and the Director of the Bureau of Land Management should cooperate with State and local authorities and other entities to carry out waste removal and other activities on any Federal land used as a public target range to encourage continued use of that land for target practice or marksmanship training.