An idea about pushing back in states that have passed strict gun control

[Chantry]

I was talking with a fellow shooter last night and he mentioned an idea.

This is not a very nice idea and I wish it hadn't gotten to this, but sadly
worth at least considering.

The idea is for those private clubs that allow law enforcement the use of
their range for qualification and training purposes to no longer allow the use
of their range to local, state or federal agencies in any state that passes
extreme restrictions on it's citizens.

I know this primarily affects the rank & file LEO who is usually on our
side and that is unfortunate, however we need to stop being so nice, because if
we continue to be nice and try to do the right thing we are going to lose this
fight in the legislature and maybe the courts.

[Hacker, SASS #55963]

What do you do if any zoning for your gunclub has to get local chief LEO approval?

 

This is generally a bad idea. The local LEOs didn't create the democrap monsters in state legislatures.

Here in Colorado, the county sheriffs are generally against almost all of the anti-gun manure laws pending final enactment.

[Chantry]

"What do you do if any zoning for your gunclub has to get local chief LEO approval?"

 

This is generally a bad idea. The local LEOs didn't create the democrap monsters in state legislatures.

Here in Colorado, the county sheriffs are generally against almost all of the anti-gun manure laws pending final enactment."

 

Each state is different and local considerations need to be taken into account.

 

I'm aware that the rank & file and local LEO's didn't come up with this crap. I'm also aware, at least in CT, that after watching and listening to public testimony on two different days, very few of them spoke out in our favor.

 

CT does not have county level law enforcement and we don't get to elect the heads of our law enforcement. It is either town level or state level and the police chiefs pretty much serve at the sufferance of the mayor or governor so they have to toe the anti-gun line or risk losing their jobs and/or pensions.

 

As for the zoning issue, any proposed increases or improvements to the range would have to go in front of a zoning board, I don't think police chiefs have very much input.

 

And if it wasn't for the pro-gun DEMOCRATS in CT, we would have lost the battle a long time ago since they control the State Senate and House with 2/3rd majority in both.

[Hacker, SASS #55963]

"What do you do if any zoning for your gunclub has to get local chief LEO approval?"

 

This is generally a bad idea. The local LEOs didn't create the democrap monsters in state legislatures.

Here in Colorado, the county sheriffs are generally against almost all of the anti-gun manure laws pending final enactment."

 

Each state is different and local considerations need to be taken into account.

 

I'm aware that the rank & file and local LEO's didn't come up with this crap. I'm also aware, at least in CT, that after watching and listening to public testimony on two different days, very few of them spoke out in our favor.

 

CT does not have county level law enforcement and we don't get to elect the heads of our law enforcement. It is either town level or state level and the police chiefs pretty much serve at the sufferance of the mayor or governor so they have to toe the anti-gun line or risk losing their jobs and/or pensions.

 

As for the zoning issue, any proposed increases or improvements to the range would have to go in front of a zoning board, I don't think police chiefs have very much input.

 

And if it wasn't for the pro-gun DEMOCRATS in CT, we would have lost the battle a long time ago since they control the State Senate and House with 2/3rd majority in both.

 

 

While the police chiefs may have nothing to do with zoning approvals in most cases when it comes to firearms they may well have some authority.

Do you think that other members of the zoning commission would tolerate this?

 

Speculations on zoning is just that speculations. But the zoning commissioners are more likely to dislike your "harrassing" local cops.

It also could represent a money issue for a town/area where leo do not presently have a range but must rely on local gunclubs that under you scheme would deny them access.

While new england (where I lived for many years) has mostly towns and limited unincorporated areas, the west such as Colorado has many areas where there are no towns and only the local county sheriffs deputies for law enforcement.

My house for example is in unincorpated El Paso County, not in a town. And the gunclub I belong to permits local LEOs to use our range.

I doubt that will change even though Colorado is about to have a bunch of new gun unfriendly laws.

 

Goodwill created with local LEOs is worth something. And the whole scheme will not change the issues at all.

They may make it harder for your range to exist. If that happens you will have no one to blame but those who do this scheme er scam.

 

All things considered it is still a bad idea.

[Dirty Dan Dawkins]

If a business owner want to do this, go for it. See how far it gets. Not only wil the cops not shoot there, when word gets out, some of the general public will stop, some members will leave. In the end this would go to do nothing but generate ill will and resentment.

[Tex Jones, SASS 2263]

I expect that an action like that would only serve to further isolate the law abiding firearm owners and shooters. Generally, the LEOs who use our range, whether in an official capacity or privately, have always been straightforward and pretty much pro gun.

[Chantry]

I find the responses interesting, because on the local forums here, the gun owners in CT & MA are mostly in favor of the idea and a club in VT has already done what I suggested.

 

This is more about making the police chiefs and the mayors aware that there are consequences to their active hostility toward gun owners and hitting them in one of the few spots we can, their budgets.

 

CT also has a range protection act, so there are significant limitations on what can be done to an existing range by local residents or town governments.

[Hacker, SASS #55963]

Chantry as you pointed out in your "take a legislator to the range" thread, uninformed legislators depend upon local police chiefs.

 

Whether CT has a range protection, law we all know that laws can and will circumvented by those so inclined.

And of course local mayors and police chiefs don't always have input to legislators.

 

The ignorant are not really inclined to learn.

[Utah Bob #35998]

I'm afraid that in many areas, the colateral damage done to the relations between shooters and law enforcement would outweigh any political leverage gained.

Manufacturers refusing to sell to government agencies is one thing, but a move like this on the part of citizen shooters would make things very personal I fear.

[Chantry]

I'm afraid that in many areas, the colateral damage done to the relations between shooters and law enforcement would outweigh any political leverage gained.

Manufacturers refusing to sell to government agencies is one thing, but a move like this on the part of citizen shooters would make things very personal I fear.

 

UT, everything you post is worthy of consideration and I have a great deal of respect for you, however we in CT are in a horrible fight with a governor who is competing with NY & MD to see who can write the most restrictive guns laws in the country. After watching 1 day and listening another, I saw exactly ONE police officer take time out of his day and testify against gun control. I will grant there may have been a couple of more that I didn't see or hear, however the law enforcement community here in CT has been almost completely silent publicly. I'm sorry, but if I, along with hundreds if not thousands of others are willing to take time to testify publicly, then I don't believe it us unreasonable for us to expect them to do so as well. They at least have the police unions to protect them against retaliation, something many of us private citizens don't have.

 

Here is a link to SB 1076: http://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/TOB/S/2013SB-01076-R00-SB.htm if you have a strong stomach, I invite you to read. Below is just ONE of the highlights:

 

To register your firearms, you will have to report IN PERSON to a place designated by the CSP. The information you will need to register your firearms includes the following:

 

Your date of birth, your place of birth, your social security number, your occupation, your business address and your business phone.

A copy of your driver’s license.

The date you acquired the firearm and the name address and phone number of the person you got it from. If it was a dealer, you will need their federal firearms license number.

You will need to supply your right thumbprint and two color passport-type photos.

There will be an unspecified fee for each firearm after 7/1/14.

Applications will be denied for failing to meet any of the requirements for registration.

Registration cards must be stored with the firearm at home and carried with it when outside the home.

Any denial of the registration application means confiscation of the firearm.

THESE REGISTRATIONS ARE ONLY GOOD FOR ONE YEAR! You will have to reregister each firearm once a year.

[Hacker, SASS #55963]

Chantry,

 

So desperate times demand desperate actions?

OK, I understand, I lived Fairfield County CT for a number of years, my parents still live there.

 

But again name us one good thing that this scheme will produce.

 

If you want the rest of the folks on the TEAM SASS to agree that it is a good idea, I think you are in for a long wait.

[Chantry]

Chantry,

 

So desperate times demand desperate actions?

OK, I understand, I lived Fairfield County CT for a number of years, my parents still live there.

 

But again name us one good thing that this scheme will produce.

 

If you want the rest of the folks on the TEAM SASS to agree that it is a good idea, I think you are in for a long wait.

We're not going to agree. If we be nice and play by the anti gun people rules we will lose. And if forcing local PD's to spent money and time going to a less convenient range makes rank & file LEO's realize they need to make a public stand on our side, so be it. Because right now, here in CT, local LEO's aren't helping gun owners.

[Utah Bob #35998]

I just don't see how this plan will help anything. I don't think it will cause legislators to change their minds. And the legislators are the ones that deserve a full court press.

In your first post you say the rank and file LEOs are on your side but in post 10 you seem to have changed your mind because of their lack of visible support at the hearings

I don't really know the ins and outs of the situation in CT but I know you are facing some real bad actions because of Newtown, just like we did because of Aurora.

I hope you guys can battle through his mess.

[T. H. O' Sullivan]

There has been a growing "us against them" mentality in the U.S. regarding the general public and law enforcement. Whatever happend to the appreciation of your local town cop or deputy providing for public safety? I've never been a cop, but I am member of the Sheriff's Mounted Posse, and we are more than just a ceremonial unit. In my area we don't have any ranges, so almost anywhere you want to shoot can be used. A few State Police Officers and some San Miguel County deputies get together with me every few months for a shoot fest out here on the ranch.

 

I can understand the frustration and perhaps I don't have a good understanding of what you're facing in Connecticut, but here in rural New Mexico, law enforcement are our friends, neighbors, local scout leaders and deacons in our churches. If we reach a point in the United States when the local Police or Deputies are considered our enemies, then I'll have to become a total hermit and cut off all contact with society. Maybe I'll become one of those Doomsday Preppers and live in a steel container in a hole.

[Chantry]

I just don't see how this plan will help anything. I don't think it will cause legislators to change their minds. And the legislators are the ones that deserve a full court press.

In your first post you say the rank and file LEOs are on your side but in post 10 you seem to have changed your mind because of their lack of visible support at the hearings

I don't really know the ins and outs of the situation in CT but I know you are facing some real bad actions because of Newtown, just like we did because of Aurora.

I hope you guys can battle through his mess.

We are doing our best to pressure the legislators, but given what faces us if we lose, we need to be open to any possibilty that might help us and when the towns have to find money they don't have to find a suitable range for mandatory qualfications, we may see results, because the voters aren't likely to vote for a new police range for every town, even if there was space available. The average voter won't want to spend the money and won't want a police range in THEIR backyard.

 

I want to believe the reports that rank & file LEO are on the pro-gun side, however I also have to go by what I have seen first hand here in CT, which is minimal, nearly non-existent support from the rank & file LEO who are supposed to be on our side. The one LEO, a full shift supervisor Sgt and the leader on a multi-town SWAT team, I saw testify did a great job the both times he testified and apparently he shocked the legislators present by saying the average shooter is a better shot then the average police officer.

 

Where are the rest of the local LEO's who say they are on our side? Why aren't they testifying? Their testimony on our side will almost certainly carry a lot more weight with the legislators.

[Chantry]

There has been a growing "us against them" mentality in the U.S. regarding the general public and law enforcement. Whatever happend to the appreciation of your local town cop or deputy providing for public safety? I've never been a cop, but I am member of the Sheriff's Mounted Posse, and we are more than just a ceremonial unit. In my area we don't have any ranges, so almost anywhere you want to shoot can be used. A few State Police Officers and some San Miguel County deputies get together with me every few months for a shoot fest out here on the ranch.

 

I can understand the frustration and perhaps I don't have a good understanding of what you're facing in Connecticut, but here in rural New Mexico, law enforcement are our friends, neighbors, local scout leaders and deacons in our churches. If we reach a point in the United States when the local Police or Deputies are considered our enemies, then I'll have to become a total hermit and cut off all contact with society. Maybe I'll become one of those Doomsday Preppers and live in a steel container in a hole.

 

Respect is a 2-way street. I'm generally appreciative of the local police officer, I've been pulled over in the past for traffic violations and rightfully so and the local officer has often cut me slack, even when I didn't really deserve it. Here in CT interaction with law enforcement by the general public is minimal and usually negative in an official capacity. I rarely see local and state police enforcing basic traffic laws and CT State Police are great for driving up and down the highways at 85 mph, chatting on their cells and tail gating the car in front of them to get them to move over, all with the lights off. When I travel on the holidays I almost never see a CT State Police cruiser and even more rarely do I see them doing traffic enforcement.

I know a couple of police officers who I like and respect, but police officers here in CT seem to only associate with other police officers.

[Col. Nathan C. Riddles, SASS # 7462]

Man, am I glad we don't have those problems here in Texas! One state rep (D) introduced an anti gun bill and it never even made it out of committee,

 

Our local PD has there own city owned range and the sheriffs dept is allowed to use it. The DPS has their own indoor range, as does the FBI, SS, & USM in the basement of the federal building. The surrounding depts in other counties also have their own ranges.

 

Here the counties have no zoning authority. Public shooting ranges are regulated by the TX Parks & Wildlife Dept and DPS have to approve range used for the concealed handgun license course.

 

I am 100% in favor of private companies cutting off sales to LE agencies located in states that have enacted grossly restrictive gun laws. But I'm leary of stopping leos from using privately held ranges that they have been allowed to use for years. It may lead to bad blood between them and the general sport shooters.

 

Btw if states were to pass laws like the example you give, I think they would eventually be ruled unconstitutional & thrown out. The 5th Amendment of the Constitution prohibits the government from taking private property w/o just compensation. But maybe your gov & politicians follow Obambam's lead, "the Constitution be damned."

[Utah Bob #35998]

We are doing our best to pressure the legislators, but given what faces us if we lose, we need to be open to any possibilty that might help us and when the towns have to find money they don't have to find a suitable range for mandatory qualfications, we may see results, because the voters aren't likely to vote for a new police range for every town, even if there was space available. The average voter won't want to spend the money and won't want a police range in THEIR backyard.

 

I want to believe the reports that rank & file LEO are on the pro-gun side, however I also have to go by what I have seen first hand here in CT, which is minimal, nearly non-existent support from the rank & file LEO who are supposed to be on our side. The one LEO, a full shift supervisor Sgt and the leader on a multi-town SWAT team, I saw testify did a great job the both times he testified and apparently he shocked the legislators present by saying the average shooter is a better shot then the average police officer.

 

Where are the rest of the local LEO's who say they are on our side? Why aren't they testifying? Their testimony on our side will almost certainly carry a lot more weight with the legislators.

We thought that having the county sheriffs very vocally on our side would help. They publicized their opposition to the gun control bills on numerous occasions and spoke at legislative committees. They explained how the laws woud be ineffective and in many cases unenforceable.

It did no good. The liberal legislators had their agenda.

The only recourse is court challenges now, and trying to vote them out of office in the next elections.

[T. H. O' Sullivan]

Respect is a 2-way street. I'm generally appreciative of the local police officer, I've been pulled over in the past for traffic violations and rightfully so and the local officer has often cut me slack, even when I didn't really deserve it. Here in CT interaction with law enforcement by the general public is minimal and usually negative in an official capacity. I rarely see local and state police enforcing basic traffic laws and CT State Police are great for driving up and down the highways at 85 mph, chatting on their cells and tail gating the car in front of them to get them to move over, all with the lights off. When I travel on the holidays I almost never see a CT State Police cruiser and even more rarely do I see them doing traffic enforcement.

I know a couple of police officers who I like and respect, but police officers here in CT seem to only associate with other police officers.

I guess I don't have a good perspective on your part of the United States. 30 or our 33 Sheriffs in New Mexico signed a petition of solidarity in non-enforcement of any anti-2A legislation. The irony of what I am learning is that some of the States that comprised our original 13 Colonies, puting in place our Great Nation and Freedoms, have now become the antithesis of what our Founders intended. It's a shame. Maybe you should consider a move to a more free State here in the West? We need more pro gun folks settling here to offset the infestation of progressive wackos.

[Hacker, SASS #55963]

We're not going to agree. If we be nice and play by the anti gun people rules we will lose. And if forcing local PD's to spent money and time going to a less convenient range makes rank & file LEO's realize they need to make a public stand on our side, so be it. Because right now, here in CT, local LEO's aren't helping gun owners.

 

It doesn't matter whose rules you play by. Based upon Sandy Hook elementary shooting for CT and Colorado for the Aurora Theatre shooting those states will have a higher than average amount of new balogna oriented laws intended to show that politicians are paying attention to the horrors of those events. The fact that most of the laws would have not prevented the incident that made those states infamous is not relevent. So you will lose anyway.

 

When your range is closed because of this action don't cry to those who told you not to do it.

You have not identified one item of positive outcome that could possibly justify this action.

 

Moreover there are LEOs that have taken a real stand against the new set of laws.

I have seen my very own El Paso County Sheriff Terry Maketa appear as a witness against all of the new laws in Colorado.

 

This is beginning to sound like the LEOs in your area have been gulping from the Bloomidiot koolaid.

 

Don't do it!

[Hacker, SASS #55963]

We are doing our best to pressure the legislators, but given what faces us if we lose, we need to be open to any possibilty that might help us and when the towns have to find money they don't have to find a suitable range for mandatory qualfications, we may see results, because the voters aren't likely to vote for a new police range for every town, even if there was space available. The average voter won't want to spend the money and won't want a police range in THEIR backyard.

 

I want to believe the reports that rank & file LEO are on the pro-gun side, however I also have to go by what I have seen first hand here in CT, which is minimal, nearly non-existent support from the rank & file LEO who are supposed to be on our side. The one LEO, a full shift supervisor Sgt and the leader on a multi-town SWAT team, I saw testify did a great job the both times he testified and apparently he shocked the legislators present by saying the average shooter is a better shot then the average police officer.

 

Where are the rest of the local LEO's who say they are on our side? Why aren't they testifying? Their testimony on our side will almost certainly carry a lot more weight with the legislators.

 

 

As for a new range if you deny them, they may figure a way to sieze your range under imminent domain.

 

Some LEOs work shifts that prevent them from testifying. Some if not all may not been invited nor recognized.

 

On the responsibility side, did citizens approach these respected LEOs to see if they would testify?

Have you determined if the committees would have heard them.

The reason I ask this is that the democrat dominated senate here in Colorado finagled the committee meetings times and places and rules so that few could actually attend the committee meetings. The rules exclude many from testifying even if they could make it.

 

To me it seems as though you need more facts before you jump off the bridge.

[Chantry]

As for a new range if you deny them, they may figure a way to sieze your range under imminent domain.

 

Some LEOs work shifts that prevent them from testifying. Some if not all may not been invited nor recognized.

 

On the responsibility side, did citizens approach these respected LEOs to see if they would testify?

Have you determined if the committees would have heard them.

The reason I ask this is that the democrat dominated senate here in Colorado finagled the committee meetings times and places and rules so that few could actually attend the committee meetings. The rules exclude many from testifying even if they could make it.

 

To me it seems as though you need more facts before you jump off the bridge.

Testifying here in CT is sign up and wait your turn. If they were serious about testifying they could have used a vacation day.

 

And if they pass what they want, they might as well take the ranges because most of us won't be able to comply or afford all the regulations they want passed.

[Chantry]

We thought that having the county sheriffs very vocally on our side would help. They publicized their opposition to the gun control bills on numerous occasions and spoke at legislative committees. They explained how the laws woud be ineffective and in many cases unenforceable.

It did no good. The liberal legislators had their agenda.

The only recourse is court challenges now, and trying to vote them out of office in the next elections.

 

I'll add that if we here in CT escape with just state level mandatory background checks and 15 magazine limit with those you already own being grandfathered, I'll be relieved.

[Hacker, SASS #55963]

Chantry, Keep up the battle! But remember fight against those that make the decisions. The politicians. The LEOs should not be your target here.

I know how you feel. We have a number of bills, most of which will pass. That are all incompetent when it comes to stopping the horror of any of the mass murders that have happened.

 

The interesting difference between your police and our Sheriff is that our Sheriff is elected and most police chiefs IIRC are not elected but appointed by the mayor or town manager etc.

 

 

There is another possibility as to why your LEOs didn't come forth to testify. That is that they were told by their leaders not to. And that their leaders were told not to testify by state legislatures or other state officials. Here in Colorado, the state legislature allegedly threatened to withhold pay increases for sheriffs if they didn't support the anti-gun legislation. I say alleged as the president of the Colorado Senate has denied the claim. But politicians lie........all the time.

So your target cops may not have been able to do anything. Or they may be part of the problem. Either way denying them the use of your range is not a good idea.

 

You still have not answered my question about any good coming from denying them the use of your range. Can you not find any good?

 

One further question; IIRC months back when the question of conspiracy about reporting on Sandy Hook killing, you asserted that you knew your local cops and they could not have been a part of it. Now you are willing to deny local cops the use of your range. Have you changed your opinion of your local cops?

After all a conspiracy would have been a natural part of any anti-gun scam. Particularly democrat named assault weapons.

[Chantry]

Chantry, Keep up the battle! But remember fight against those that make the decisions. The politicians. The LEOs should not be your target here.

I know how you feel. We have a number of bills, most of which will pass. That are all incompetent when it comes to stopping the horror of any of the mass murders that have happened.

 

The interesting difference between your police and our Sheriff is that our Sheriff is elected and most police chiefs IIRC are not elected but appointed by the mayor or town manager etc.

 

 

There is another possibility as to why your LEOs didn't come forth to testify. That is that they were told by their leaders not to. And that their leaders were told not to testify by state legislatures or other state officials. Here in Colorado, the state legislature allegedly threatened to withhold pay increases for sheriffs if they didn't support the anti-gun legislation. I say alleged as the president of the Colorado Senate has denied the claim. But politicians lie........all the time.

So your target cops may not have been able to do anything. Or they may be part of the problem. Either way denying them the use of your range is not a good idea.

 

You still have not answered my question about any good coming from denying them the use of your range. Can you not find any good?

 

One further question; IIRC months back when the question of conspiracy about reporting on Sandy Hook killing, you asserted that you knew your local cops and they could not have been a part of it. Now you are willing to deny local cops the use of your range. Have you changed your opinion of your local cops?

After all a conspiracy would have been a natural part of any anti-gun scam. Particularly democrat named assault weapons.

Forcing the PD's and towns to spend money they don't have in their budgets to find alternative ranges will hurt some of those who have testified against us. I find the argument that the police officers fear retaliation from their police chiefs unpersuasive given the strength of the police unions here in CT and the inability of police chiefs to fire police officers for DUI's, making false reports and other incidents of a similar nature.

You mis-remember my comments. I never stated I knew police officers that were at Sandy Hook, I stated that I do not believe that all of the police officers, EMT's, doctors, medical examiners and parents of those lost would ALL lie to further a political agenda. Especially when that could potentially lead to criminal charges or a civil suit against anyone who lied or falsified information. I believed that then and believe it now.

 

[Manatee]

[Hacker, SASS #55963]

 

Forcing the PD's and towns to spend money they don't have in their budgets to find alternative ranges will hurt some of those who have testified against us. I find the argument that the police officers fear retaliation from their police chiefs unpersuasive given the strength of the police unions here in CT and the inability of police chiefs to fire police officers for DUI's, making false reports and other incidents of a similar nature.

You mis-remember my comments. I never stated I knew police officers that were at Sandy Hook, I stated that I do not believe that all of the police officers, EMT's, doctors, medical examiners and parents of those lost would ALL lie to further a political agenda. Especially when that could potentially lead to criminal charges or a civil suit against anyone who lied or falsified information. I believed that then and believe it now.

 

If you recall correctly I used the term IIRC about your sandy hook comments.

You STILL owe this thread an answer about what the good of terminating access to your range.

[Utah Bob #35998]

Let us know what your compadres in CT think of this.

 

I think you might get a P for engaging the wrong target.

Just kidding.

[Chantry]

If you recall correctly I used the term IIRC about your sandy hook comments.

You STILL owe this thread an answer about what the good of terminating access to your range.

I've responded: Forcing the PD's and towns to spend money they don't have in their budgets to find alternative ranges will hurt some of those who have testified against us.

[Chantry]

Let us know what your compadres in CT think of this.

 

I think you might get a P for engaging the wrong target.

Just kidding.

Probably running about 60%-65% in favor

 

This is not an approach I would take in CO since you have elected Sheriff's. This is an approach that may work in some of the very blue states such as CT, MA, CA & MD.

[Subdeacon Joe]

I have a gut feeling that most street cops would know what is going on and why. Also that most gun owners can differentiate between the individual and the department/agency/bureau he works for.

 

I fail to see the difference between Barrett telling the State of CA and the counties, cities, towns, etc. in it, "Sorry, we will no longer sell to you. Nor will we service the arms made by us that you now own." and private clubs/ranges telling departments, agencies, etc. "Sorry, but you can't rent the facilities training." Unless, of course, some discrimination suit could be brought.

And, I hate to say it, but even with all the "LEO's are your friends" stuff that gets posted here, when it gets down to brass tacks, LEOs are agents of the government. The same government that in many cases is working hard to legislate the 2nd amendment into meaninglessness. They go into it of their own free will, and while it is unfortunate that the individual LEO may catch some of the splash for grass roots actions aimed at various governmental agencies, I feel that we need to use, or at least be willing to use if necessary, every tool we have in the box. As the original poster said: "This is not a very nice idea and I wish it hadn't gotten to this, but sadly worth at least considering." And, it IS a tool, and we should at least consider it.

On the flip side, not long ago the City of Santa Rosa (or maybe it was the Sonoma Co. Sheriffs Dept.) opened a very expensive firearms training facility. It isn't open to the public. Seems like there should be some public hours.

[Chantry]

If a business owner want to do this, go for it. See how far it gets. Not only wil the cops not shoot there, when word gets out, some of the general public will stop, some members will leave. In the end this would go to do nothing but generate ill will and resentment.

I'm referring to private gun clubs that allow local PD's to use their range for training and annual qualifcations

[Hacker, SASS #55963]

I've responded: Forcing the PD's and towns to spend money they don't have in their budgets to find alternative ranges will hurt some of those who have testified against us.

 

Do you think your fellow voters will like having their local taxes increased to buy a range. That is downside.

So I guess you view of positive and mine are VERY DIFFERENT.

Good luck and don't be surprised if you lose your range.