gun ranges

Uncategorized

I Think Tom Might Be Correct – We Need An Asst AG For The Second Amendment

December 1, 2016 by 5 Comments

Tom Gresham made the suggestion on his show Sunday that the Trump Department of Justice should have a special Assistant Attorney General for the protection of the Second Amendment. He referenced how DOJ sent armies of lawyers to the South after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Heller and McDonald decisions confirmed that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms and that right applies in the states. However, the current DOJ is doing nothing to protect that individual civil right.

I think Tom is on to something.

Having just read of the latest attack on the Second Amendment and the gun culture coming out of New Jersey, I think this is doubly true. An ostensibly anti-suicide bill would create onerous requirements on gun ranges that would force them to close. As the 7th Circuit decided in the Ezell v. Chicago, gun ranges are an essential part of the Second Amendment.

From the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs:

The bills as presently written would require the owner or operator of every range and gun club to verify that every range user has an FID card, NJ carry permit, or pistol purchase permit, along with government-issued photo ID, every time that person uses the range. That is an impossible burden for most ranges to meet – most ranges are unstaffed or staffed sporadically by volunteers. Few ranges have staff during all operating hours. NO SHOOTING ACTIVITY COULD OCCUR ON ANY RANGE THAT IS NOT STAFFED TO VERIFY CREDENTIALS.

The bills as presently written would also prevent you from using your own firearms on a range unless the range first verifies your credentials, every time you use the range, and bans all temporary transfer on a range unless the range verifies the credentials of both the transferor and transferee. THIS IMPACTS A HUGE SWATH OF SECOND AMENDMENT ACTIVITY, INCLUDING TRAINING, COMPETITION, TARGET PRACTICE, OPEN HOUSES, RANGE GUESTS, HUNTER EDUCATION, WOMEN’S EVENTS, ETC. (see below for detailed examples).

I think of the ranges that I have open to me in western North Carolina. The indoor ranges are staffed and could meet the requirements of such a bill. However, the NC Wildlife Resources Range at Cold Mountain (yes, that Cold Mountain) and the ranges in the Pisgah and Nantahala National Forests are neither staffed nor have Range Safety Officers. These free and/or inexpensive places to shoot would have to be shut down.

Sebastian is correct when he concluded:

This would essentially close every club in New Jersey. It would make it impossible to bring new shooters into the sports, since they would essentially need to apply for and receive an FID card before they could even try it out. This would destroy the shooting culture in New Jersey, and that’s exactly what it’s intended to do. Suicide prevention is a ruse. Christie has shown a willingness to veto legislation like this, and will probably continue to do so as long as he’s in office, but it’s going to be hell to pay if Christie is replaced with an anti-gun Democrat.

 If you live in New Jersey, I suggest that you do as the ANJRPC says and contact your legislators. As to the idea of a special Assistant Attorney General for the Second Amendment, I’m not sure how to contact the incoming Trump Administration directly. However, you could send the suggestion to Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) at his Senate offices.

Uncategorized

A Public Gun Range For Buncombe County?

June 20, 2016 by

Buncombe County Commissioner Mike Fryar (R-Buncombe) has proposed the county switch $500,000 from a budget line allocated to the Asheville Art Museum and use it for the development of a public shooting range in the county. He had visited the range that was recently opened in Cleveland County (Shelby, NC) that is run in a partnership between the county and the NC Wildlife Resources Commission.

Photo Credit: WLOS Staff

The range as Commissioner Fryar envisions it would have a 100-yard rifle range with six stations and a 25-yard pistol range with eight stations. I would hope they go further and create a pistol bay that can be configured for more advanced training or IDPA/USPSA competitions.

As might be expected, Fryar’s proposal is not being met with open arms by some of his fellow commissioners. From WLOS:

Commissioner Ellen Frost, also from District 2, called the gun range “absurd”.

She went on to say that it was not an appropriate time to bring up the issue after 49 people were gunned down inside a gay nightclub in Orlando.

“I think it’s incredibly disrespectful to the people of Orlando,” she said.

Fryar says he understands both views.

“Orlando was terrible. It was bad terrible, but as I told my brother 35 years ago, be careful brother. There’s a nightclub here in town called Scandals. He opened it,” he said. “My brother went to gun ranges and shot, in indoor range to shoot his pistol because he always had a pistol at the bar.”

Scandals, by the way, is a gay-friendly nightclub in Asheville.

The issue comes to a vote on Tuesday. Unfortunately, given the left-leaning composition of the Buncombe County Board of Commissioners which include Ellen Frost, I don’t expect the proposal to pass.

From the Citizen-Times quoting Commission Chairman David Gantt:

Getting a majority of commissioners to defund the museum and put the money toward a gun range may, however, prove difficult. Fryar had the support of the two other Republicans to put the proposal on the agenda. But Democrats hold a 4-3 majority on the county’s governing body.

Democratic board Chairman David Gantt said he opposed the proposal because it would “leapfrog” over other projects the county has planned for years, including work on the East Asheville Library, the recycling transfer station and the radio system for emergency responders.

“Buncombe County would also have to buy land to build this proposed public outdoor shooting range,” Gantt said, adding a site would be tough to find and that he thought costs would exceed $500,000 for taxpayers.

“I believe that public shooting ranges should be financed by private business, not Buncombe County taxpayers,” he said.

The problem with a range as a private business is zoning. I fully expect the Buncombe County Commissioners to react similarly to the Haywood County Commissioners and put too many restrictions on new private ranges that they would not put on their own range.

Uncategorized

Is Charleston Looking To Chicago For Inspiration On Target Ranges?

October 3, 2011 by 6 Comments

Bob Chase owns a furniture store in Charleston, South Carolina which has a mostly vacant warehouse in a semi-industrial section of the city. According to the Charleston newspaper The Post and Courier, he’d like to convert this 6,000 square foot building into an indoor shooting range which seems a reasonable use in a city that has no indoor ranges. There are ranges in North Charleston and Summerville and outdoor ranges in the Francis Marion National Forest and Summerville.You can see the building in the picture below.

The problem for Mr. Chase is that he wants to open his range in a city headed by a member of Bloomberg’s Illegal Mayors. Mayor Joseph Riley has been mayor of Charleston for 36 years and a member of MAIG since 2009.

Mr. Chase had been meeting with city officials over his plans to open a range in the shadow of the on-ramp to the Ravenel Bridge which crosses the Cooper River. You can see this in the screen cap from Google Maps below which shows the street view as seen from the front of his warehouse.

On September 13th, the Charleston City Council passed the first reading of two ordinances that would regulate ranges and the discharge of firearms within the city. (More on this meeting a bit later.) Mr. Chase was given no indication from city officials over their plans to move these ordinances and feels somewhat blindsided by their actions.

Chase said he had been meeting with city officials to discuss the project but had no idea the ordinances were coming. “They really met with me just as a ruse,” he said. “I feel it’s disturbing the city would not follow the rules it has.”

Chase said he supports the mayor, but added, “I don’t have the authority of picking and choosing the laws I follow, so why should they?”

By moving as they did to start consideration of new ordinances, the Mayor and City Council  have foreclosed any grandfathering of Mr. Chase’s property and he will be subject to the new zoning ordinances if they are adopted. As the following from the Minutes of the September 13th meeting of City Council illustrate, their move on the ordinances was a rush job.

Councilmember White said, “I’m going to abstain from the vote and I just wanted to explain why. I don’t normally abstain, generally speaking, but I don’t have enough time to digest this and with all due respect. I recognize we sometimes have time constraints to deal with, but I’m just going to abstain without further information at this time.”

Mayor Riley said, “I can understand, I apologize for that. I was just nervous, that
if we didn’t have enough regulations in place, something might get through that we
would regret. So, it’s just to make sure we have that. “

The Mayor recognized Councilmember Hallman.”

Councilmember Hallman said, “Is there a pending permit for an indoor shooting range on Meeting Street that necessitates us voting on this tonight, versus deferring it and discussing it at the next meeting?”

Mr. Keane said, “We have the expectation that we could have one soon, so we
really prefer to get an ordinance. We can go through the ordinance if you’d like tonight, to explain it to you, if that would be helpful, if we can get first reading tonight, then we can continue to discuss it before it gets final reading. We’ll have public hearings and it will come back. But we’d like to have something pending in case we do get a permit. We could get one tomorrow.”

Mayor Riley said, “If there’s a pending zoning ordinance, and if someone were to
apply, while the ordinance is pending; if what they seek is not allowed in the ordinance, the pending ordinance would keep that from happening until the pending ordinance was disposed of. So, that was the thought.”

After the City Council had the first reading on two proposed ordinances, they were sent them to the Charleston Planning Commission for public hearings. The first ordinance would make indoor shooting ranges a permitted use but would require a conditional use permit if located within a light or heavy industrial zone. Moreover, it would impose additional conditions for indoor shooting ranges. While not mentioned in the proposed ordinance below, the article in the Post and Courier reports these conditions would be a location “at least 1,000 feet from the nearest church, city park or home.”

AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 54 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF CHARLESTON (ZONING ORDINANCE) BY AMENDING THE TABLE OF PERMITTED USES IN ARTICLE 2 LAND USE REGULATIONS TO INCLUDE INDOOR SHOOTING RANGE AND OUTDOOR SHOOTING RANGE USES IN THE TABLE OF PERMITTED USES, TO MAKE INDOOR SHOOTING RANGE USES A CONDITIONAL USE WITHIN THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AND HEAVY INDUSTRIAL ZONE DISTRICTS, TO ADD CONDITIONS FOR INDOOR SHOOTING RANGE USES IN SECTION 54-207, AND TO CLARIFY THAT OUTDOOR SHOOTING RANGE USES ARE PROHIBITED WITHIN THE CITY OF CHARLESTON PURSUANT TO SECTION 5-213 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF CHARLESTON.

As can be seen in the zoning map below, this ordinance, if passed with the conditions mentioned, would preclude locating a range in Mr. Chase’s mostly vacant warehouse.

The second ordinance that passed it first reading amended the city code dealing with the discharge of firearms within the City of Charleston. It removed four current exceptions including one that allowed shooting galleries. I think it might be argued that a shooting range might qualify as a shooting gallery. It replaced these exceptions with an exception for indoor shooting ranges.

AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND SECTION 21-213 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF CHARLESTON TO DELETE SUBSECTIONS (1), (2), (3) AND (4) AS EXCEPTIONS TO SECTION 21-213 THAT GENERALLY PROVIDES THAT NO PERSON, EXCEPT IN CASES OF URGENT NECESSITY, SHALL DISCHARGE OR CAUSE TO BE DISCHARGED ANY FIREARM IN THE CITY, THEREBY ELIMINATING THE FOLLOWING EXCEPTIONS TO THE PROHIBITING OF THE DISCHARGING OF FIREARMS IN A SHOOTING GALLERY; (2) PURSUANT TO THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF THE MAYOR OR PUBLIC SAFETY DIRECTOR; (3) TO THEATRICAL OR LIKE PERFORMANCES; AND (4) TO MILITARY OR SIMILAR DISPLAYS AND TO FURTHER AMEND SECTION 21-213 TO PROVIDE AN EXCEPTION FOR DISCHARGING FIREARMS IN AN INDOOR SHOOTING RANGE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW ON LANDS WITHIN THE CITY THAT ARE ZONED TO PERMIT SUCH USE.

In addition to Mayor Riley, opposition to the range comes from Councilman Robert Mitchell (District 4) and Councilman Jimmy Gallant III (District 5) who represent this area of Charleston. They were the ones who made the motion and second to approve the ordinances in question. Councilman Mitchell, in particular, is opposed to the proposed range. He made that quite clear according to the Minutes of the Council meeting.

Councilmember Mitchell said, “I heard about it and that’s part of the District that I and Councilman Gallant is representing, partially. I don’t think it needs to be in the Peninsula City of Charleston. I don’t believe something like that needs to be in the Peninsula City of Charleston. It’s an indoor firing range. But the problem I having it in that area with a lot of shootings, I don’t need something to be opening that up. I believe something like that can either be in the area, an industrial area like we did with the tattoo parlor, if you may. In an industrial area if you want to open something, they have one on Cross County Road, the same place I went to the shooting range, but it needs to be in an industrial area, but not in the Peninsula City. I don’t believe that.

The range that Mr. Mitchell refers to is ATP Gunshop and Range in Summerville which is located in another municipality. He was also quoted in the Post and Courier as saying another reason he opposes it is that there is “so much shooting anyway with individuals in the community.”

If one had access to a GIS system for Charleston, it would be quite interesting to see if any areas exist within the city that are not within 1,000 feet of a house, a church, or a city park. If this restriction amounts to a virtual ban on indoor ranges within Charleston, I think Mayor Riley and Charleston City Council would be on dubious legal ground. The City of Chicago found this out when their ban on target ranges was ruled void by the 7th Circuit in Ezell v. Chicago. In that decision, the court held that “the right to maintain proficiency in firearm use (is) an important corollary to the meaningful exercise of the core right to possess firearms for self‐defense.” While Ezell was decided in the 7th Circuit and Charleston is located within the 4th Circuit, judges look to other circuits for guidance. Mr. Chase had made it very clear that if he is precluded by the new zoning ordinances from opening his range, he will go to court. It could get expensive for the taxpayers of the City of Charleston.

Uncategorized

Tweaking?

September 7, 2011 by 3 Comments

When I hear the word “tweaking” I think of the scene from the Tom Hanks-Meg Ryan film “You’ve Got Mail” where Hanks’ character sends an email saying his business requires tweaking.

Yesterday, the Chicago Tribune reported that the Chicago City Council was working on tweaks for their gun range restrictions given the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling in Ezell v. Chicago. Mayor Rahm Emanuel submitted amendments to the Council’s Public Safety Committee. His transmittal letter said he was sending these amendments at the request of the Superintendent of Police and the Corporation Council.

The council’s Public Safety Committee on Tuesday recommended approval of a tweak that would cut in half the licensing fee to open up a shooting range. The cost would be $2,000 for two years.

The city also would reduce the minimum distance a gun range would have to be located from homes, parks and houses of worship to 500 feet from 1,000 feet.

Other changes include requiring a registry of all shooting range patrons for at least one year. This registry would include not only their name and date and time of visit but also their FOID and Chicago Firearms Permit numbers. Another change was an amendment to the range air filtering and ventilation requirements which went into very technical detail.

M. Rose Kelly of the City’s Law Department said they had tried to anticipate the Appeals Court ruling. She said that after reading the court’s ruling, “we’ve looked at the shooting range ordinance and feel that it needs some tweaking in some areas to come into compliance.”

Whether the changes will still pass muster are still debatable. They are still quite restrictive and I think Chicago is doing the “with all deliberate speed” approach to this with emphasis on “deliberate”.