Hearings On Target Range Bill Today

The NSSF sent out an alert yesterday that the Senate Environmental and Public Works Subcommittee will hold hearings on S. 1249 – the Target Practice and Marksmanship Training Act of 2012 – which is sponsored by Sen. Mark Udall (D-CO).

The Senate Environment and Public Works subcommittee will hold a hearing tomorrow, Tuesday, April 24, at 10:15 a.m., on several bills important to sportsmen and sprotswomen, including NSSF’s priority this legislative session–S. 1249, the Target Practice and Marksmanship Training Support Act. The bill, introduced by Senator Mark Udall (D-CO), would allow states to expand their use of Pittman-Robertson funds to develop or expand public target shooting facilities. Amending the restrictions on Pittman-Robertson funds for this purpose is long overdue. More public shooting ranges are needed throughout the country to accommodate the rapidly growing number of target shooters who contribute to P-R funding through purchases of firearms and ammunition. Learn more about this bill and write your senators to support it.

 You can read the full text of the bill here and read more about it here and here.

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

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.

The Chicago Range Ordinance

I have embedded below the Chicago Range Ordinance that will be presented to the Chicago City Council this morning by Mayor Rahm Emanuel. It was passed unanimously -though grudgingly – by the Committee on Public Safety yesterday. Newspaper articles in both the Chicago Tribune and the Chicago Sun-Times have referred to portions of the ordinance and some of the restrictions. Rather than going by what a reporter on deadline says about the bill, I think it is better to have the entire ordinance out there for all to see in its original form.

The move to introduce, pass, and implement this ordinance is a rush job as the City of Chicago freely admits. Jeff Levine of the City of Chicago’s Law Department had this to say:

But Levine said the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals could rule on the lawsuits at any time, making it important for the city to get its own firing range rules on the books. The city hopes the appellate judges will opt not to intervene if Chicago has a firing range law in place, Levine said.

As Sebastian noted last night, Alan Gura does not think this ordinance should moot Ezell v. Chicago.

Chicago Range Ordinance 07-11
(function() { var scribd = document.createElement(“script”); scribd.type = “text/javascript”; scribd.async = true; scribd.src = “http://www.scribd.com/javascripts/embed_code/inject.js”; var s = document.getElementsByTagName(“script”)[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(scribd, s); })();

Gun Ranges In The City Of Chicago

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel was true to his word that a bill would be introduced today to amend the Chicago Gun Law regarding shooting ranges. The item below is the only item on the agenda for the City Council’s Committee on Public Safety this afternoon at 2pm CDT.

ORDINANCE

(DIRECT INTRODUCTION)

An ordinance amending Chapters 8-20 and 8-24 and related
provisions of the Municipal Code.

Translating these Municipal Code references, Chapter 8-20 deals with Weapons and Chapter 8-24 deals with Firearms and Other Weapons. Within Chapter 8-20 is Section 280 which prohibits “shooting galleries and target ranges” while Chapter 8-24 deals with discharging a firearm within the City of Chicago.

As I and others have noted, passage of such an amendment to the Municipal Code of the City of Chicago could moot the Second Amendment Foundation’s case – Ezell v. Chicago -that challenges the prohibition on shooting ranges within the City of Chicago. An appeal of Judge Kendell’s denial of a preliminary injunction is pending a decision by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. The appeal hearing was held in April and seemed quite favorable to those supporting gun rights and shooting ranges.

More On S. 1249 – Target Practice and Marksmanship Training Support Act

While the text to Senator Mark Udall’s S. 1249 is still not available, I was able to find his release on the bill which gives a broad outline. All in all it looks like a good bill.

Here in western North Carolina we are surrounded by Federal lands with two National Forests, one National Park, and TVA maintained land. In many of the counties, the amount of Federally owned land reaches 90%. Even with all that Federal land, there is one public range maintained by the NC Wildlife Resources Commission and three (and maybe a fourth) maintained by the USFS in Nantahala National Forest. There are none that I can find in Pisgah National Forest which borders the largest city in western North Carolina – Asheville.

Posted: Wednesday, June 22, 2011

Today, Mark Udall re-introduced legislation to help states construct and maintain safe public shooting ranges. The bill, the Target Practice and Marksmanship Training Support Act, would help ensure that there are enough accessible ranges where hunters and marksmen can safely practice recreational shooting.

Under current law – the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act – an excise tax is collected on sporting equipment and ammunition, which states can use for activities such as wildlife restoration and hunter education programs. However, it has limited effectiveness in establishing and maintaining shooting ranges, which are declining in number. Udall’s Target Practice and Marksmanship Training Support Act, co-sponsored by Senators Jim Risch, Michael Bennet and Jon Tester, would amend the law to give states more flexibility to use existing funds to create and maintain shooting ranges.

“The number of places in our communities and on public lands where Colorado sportsmen and women can safely shoot and target practice has steadily dwindled,” Udall said. “This bill would give states more flexibility to use federal dollars – that have already been allocated to them – to create safe, new public places to shoot. It would be a triple win for sporting and conservation communities: states can create higher quality and safer shooting ranges, more Coloradans can take up the sport, and it would generate more money for future conservation and hunter education efforts.”

Udall’s bill would:
• Increase the amount of money states can contribute from their allotted Pittman-Robertson funds to 90 percent of the cost to improve or construct a public target range from the current limit of 75 percent. This would reduce local and state matching requirements from 25 percent to 10 percent.

• Allow the Pittman-Robertson funds allotted to a state to remain available and accrue for five fiscal years for use in acquiring land for, expanding, or constructing a public target range on federal or non-federal land. Under current law, states must use these funds within one year.

• Limit the legal liability exposure to the federal land management agencies regarding the management and use of federal land for target practice or marksmanship training.

• Encourage the federal land management agencies to cooperate with state and local authorities to maintain target ranges on federal land so as to encourage their continued use.

Range Protection Bill Passes NC State Senate

SB 560 – the Sport Shooting Range Protection Act – passed the North Carolina Senate yesterday by a 36-13 vote. According to Grass Roots NC, the rules were suspended which allowed a single vote for both the 2nd and 3rd readings of the bill. It now goes to the NC State House. More importantly, it was passed prior to the crossover deadline of June 9th which means the bill can still be considered for passage anytime between now and next year. It does not have to pass the House before the probable adjournment of this session in July.

The breakdown of the vote is below.

Ayes: Senator(s): Allran; Apodaca; Berger, D.; Berger, P.; Bingham; Blake; Brock; Brown; Brunstetter; Clary; Daniel; Davis; East; Forrester; Garrou; Goolsby; Gunn; Harrington; Hartsell; Hise; Hunt; Jackson; Jenkins; Kinnaird; Meredith; Newton; Pate; Preston; Rabon; Rouzer; Rucho; Soucek; Stevens; Tillman; Tucker; Walters

Noes: Senator(s): Atwater; Clodfelter; Dannelly; Graham; Jones; Mansfield; McKissick; Nesbitt; Purcell; Robinson; Stein; Vaughan; White

Exc. Absence: Senator(s): Blue

Those voting against the bill were all Democrats while the majority in favor was a mixture of both Democrats and Republicans.

The bill as passed was amended in committee to specify that to be considered in continuous operation the range had to relocate within the same county. If it moved to another county, it was now subject to the ordinances in effect when the property was purchases.

SECTION 1. G.S. 14‑409.46 is amended by adding two new subsections to read:

“(f) For the purposes of this Article, a sport shooting range that relocates to another location within the same county due to condemnation, rezoning, annexation, road construction, or development:
(1) Is still considered to be continuously in existence since beginning operation at its previous location; and
(2) Is not considered to have undergone a substantial change in use as the result of the location.
(g) A sport shooting range that is exempted from liability under this Article and that relocates to a new location in a different county shall comply with ordinances in effect at the new location as of the date property is purchased to establish the range at the new location.”

Range protection is important. The days of shooting in your backyard so long as you lived outside the city limits are all but over in a lot of places. Even in rural areas in states with strong range protection laws, the establishment of a new range is not an easy task as seen in this story from Missouri. Attacking shooting ranges is a backdoor attack on the Second Amendment as the Ezell case in Chicago makes clear.

NC Senate Holds Hearings On Shooting Range Bill Tomorrow (Updated)

The NC Senate Judiciary II Committee will hold hearings tomorrow at 10am on SB 560 – Sport Shooting Range Protection. This bill would make the legal presumption that shooting ranges that relocated due to urban and residential encroachment is still considered to be in continuous use and is not considered to have undergone a substantial change in use.

This bill has already had a favorable report from the Senate Committee on State and Local Government.

To read the bill and see the impact of residential encroachment, go to this post.

If you are a North Carolina resident, I’d suggest contacting the members of the Judiciary II Committee to express your support for this bill.

North Carolina is urbanizing at a fast rate. The state was one of the fastest growing in population in the Southeast over the last 10 years according to census statistics. This will be putting more pressure on ranges located near towns and cities to possibly relocate. This bill would help protect those ranges and our shooting opportunities.

UPDATE: From GRNC on the hearings:

GRNC Range Protection Bill Advances

SB 560, “Sporting Shooting Range Protection,” received its second committee hearing today, this time before the Senate Judiciary II Committee, and came within a hair of getting a favorable report, which would send it to the Senate floor. SB 560 is GRNC’s bill for closing loopholes in the existing range protection law by offering “grandfather” protection against noise and environmental complaints for any range forced to relocate due to rezoning, annexation or development.

Bill sponsor Sen. Andrew Brock (R-Davie, Rowan, GRNC ****) did an outstanding job of presenting the bill; committee chairman Buck Newton (R-Nash, Wilson, GRNC ****) did an exemplary job of trying to move the bill despite a busy calendar; and Sen. Austin Allran (R-Catawba, GRNC ****) offered a prompt motion for favorable report.

Unfortunately, limited time and persistent questioning by anti-gun committee members Charley Dannelly (D-Mecklenburg, GRNC 0-star) and Floyd McKissick (D-Durham, GRNC *) forced Chairman Newton to defer a vote on the bill until Thursday.

SB 560 – Greater Protection For North Carolina Shooting Ranges

State Senator Andrew Brock introduced SB 560 on Tuesday in the North Carolina Senate. The bill says, in effect, that a range that moved from its present location to a new location due to annexation, road construction, zoning changes, etc. would still be considered in continuous operation.

*S560-v-1*
A BILL TO BE ENTITLED
AN ACT TO PROVIDE THAT A SPORT SHOOTING RANGE THAT RELOCATES DUE TO CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES IS STILL CONSIDERED TO BE CONTINUOUSLY IN EXISTENCE SINCE BEGINNING OPERATION AND NOT TO HAVE UNDERGONE A SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE IN USE.

The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts:
SECTION 1. G.S. 14-409.46 is amended by adding a new subsection to read:
“(f) For the purposes of this Article, a sport shooting range that relocates due to condemnation, rezoning, annexation, road construction, or development:
(1) Is still considered to be continuously in existence since beginning operation at its previous location; and
(2) Is not considered to have undergone a substantial change in use as the result of the location.”
SECTION 2. This act is effective when it becomes law.

The importance of this bill is due to the protections granted in NCGS § 14‑409.46 – Sport shooting range protection. If a range was continuously operated from 1994 onwards without any substantial changes in the use of the range and was in compliance with any noise ordinances at the time the range began operation, then it cannot be sued over noise issues.

With the increasing population growth and increasing suburbanization of North Carolina, ranges that used to be far from residential location are suddenly finding themselves surrounded by housing subdivisions. This protection would be very useful if they do decide to move due to development.

That certainly is the case with the Asheville Rifle and Pistol Club south of Asheville near the French Broad River. There is a new housing development in the last 5 or so years that is just over the ridge from the 200-yard rifle range. See the picture below which is a screen capture from Google Maps. You have to wonder if the developer or the people buying the houses were aware that a rifle range was just over the ridge when they purchased either the land or the homes.