shooting

[jeanontheroad]

There is a growing movement to ban shooting on public land because of the people who drag trash out and shoot it up and generally engage in reckless behavior. So, I want to know what the shooters think about having shooters join a shooting club, indentifying suitable pieces of public land, and leasing those tracts to the club for, say a dollar a year. What size is needed? 100 acres? 300 acres?

The club would be responsible for clearly posting the area as a shooting range, for maintaining the area, for determining which firearms and bows can be safely used in which areas, and for enforcing whatever rules they decide on.

Shooting would be banned from other areas.

 

[sparky1]

Since so many tragedy's have happened this past year, many States have made some very restrictive laws against Shooting, I am NOT ANTI GUN, however Virginia's New Governor says he will pass as many laws curtailing guns as he can.
my picticular property, I do allow friends a place to shoot--NOT HUNT, both north & south of me are homes., west it a Highway so East is it--toward a creek. thru soft wood Popular trees & downhill. luckily I have not yet had a complaint against me or a county sheriff depudy visit.

 

[jeanontheroad]

My family enjoys target shooting and does it safely. But I have seen some pretty darned reckless behavior - signs, landmarks, trees and petroglyphs shot up, people shooting towards houses, roads, and each other. It's a minority who do these stupid things, but when a an area is closed, everyone loses access.

 

[Van-Tramp]

Here in Boulder County we have a few "regular" places that most people go target shooting. They do build up trash pretty quickly, and I have seen some pretty poor behavior at times, but it is a rare occurrence. I've seen more stupidity from people driving so it isn't a "shooting thing".

Anyway, what I am getting at is the one or two "regular places" are often closed to shooting numerous months of each year. However, the rest of the National Forest land (gobs and gobs of space) is not closed to shooting. Here, as in most places, you need to only get 150 yards off the road and away from residences and you are free to shoot. I actually prefer to do this over going to those regular places anyway, so it is what I do.

It is when "the masses" go to a particular place that the restrictions start being set. So, go where most do not.

 

[sparky1]

shooting.
my friends are so happy to be able to practice they always bring trash bags, do a nice pick up I let them leave the trash in the bin out back, another friend takes the shells he wants and the rest to the county land fill for me. (he lives closer to it), happy all around. stray bullets from guy south of me shot out 2 storm windows on the back of my house of course he denied it,
impossble ,definitely came from him.
at night can see his back porch light exact angle,,
keeb.

 

[sl1966]

I avoid places where people publically shoot nowadays. While most are responsible gun owners, there's always one idiot in the bunch. I have a nice souvenir scar in my shoulder from one such encounter.

For the mobile lifestyle I decided on an air rifle rather than a powder burner. The reason being is that LEO tends to be a lot more forgiving towards them and there aren't as many restrictive laws (yet). For practice I've got a metal trap that collects all the pellets neatly for me. The main use is to take mainly rabbits in areas where open season is year round. I go for birds too, but that depends on season. I

 

[Van-Tramp]

Ironic, here in my home town air-rifles are more restricted than an actual fire-arms. There are city ordinances restricting even public display of an air rifle or airsoft-type toy (cant even use it in my garage with the door open) yet I can, and do, carry a loaded pistol on my belt openly.

I think you may find that the air-rifles are not protected by the 2nd Amendment and hence are more restricted in many areas of the country, not by Federal or even State laws, but by County and City ordinances. In NY state, an air-rifle *IS* considered a fire-arm (seriously) and will get you arrested unless you have a permit to own a firearm in NY.

Be safe.

 

[sl1966]

Ironic, here in my home town air-rifles are more restricted than an actual fire-arms.

Thanks for the heads up. I do check with local LEO if I can't find anything online before arriving someplace. The few times I did was a win/win since they'd told me about some great places to plink at. I haven't been to that many places yet tho.

 

[akrvbob]

I'm loathe to see more restrictions on use of public land. There are already laws on the book that regulate where you can shoot and punishes vandalizing the land. The problem is their is so much public land and so few Rangers.

They can make it illegal to shoot on public land but all that will do is to stop the decent people who shoot and clean up after themselves. The ones who shoot and litter will just keep doing it because they are as***les and that's what they do. You can't pass laws against being an as***le.

What they do now when the ATV as***les destroy an area is do an emergency closure and enforce it and clean it up. I'd be much more in favor of doing that.
Bob

 

[sl1966]

I'm loathe to see more restrictions on use of public land.

This is a can of worms if there ever was one. Not by you per se but by those who are too easily ready to do all kinds of heinous things to the land. Most often times simply because it's not "the city". Shooting aside I could tell you all manner of horror stories from friends in the border patrol or natives with reservations on said borders. In a word, ugly!

 

[flying kurbmaster]

IMO shooting should be banned on all public land, and everywhere else. The year is 2014 not 1776.

 

[sl1966]

. . . blink . . . blink

 

[akrvbob]

Flying Kurbmaster 2 wrote:
IMO shooting should be banned on all public land, and everywhere else. The year is 2014 not 1776.
==============
While I totally disagree with this, it is a valid opinion stated clearly and reasonably.

Tread carefully in your responses. Remember that respect and kindness are the absolute rules of this forum even if we disagree. We aren't going to change each others minds nor do we need to. Nor do we need to be right and prove someone else wrong.

If you can't say something nice and constructive, don't say anything at all.
Bob

 

[Optimistic Paranoid]

Self-defense is an inherent natural right.

This implies a right to own the tools necessary to defend your life.

This also implies the right to train and practice with those tools to achieve and maintain the necessary skill level needed to effectively defend one's life.

As for 2014 vs 1776, I haven't noticed any magic changes in human nature that demonstrates that other people are no longer a possible threat.

Regards
John

 

[jeanontheroad]

Hi Paranoid. One thing you need to remember is that an increasing number of people share kurbmaster's view. Gun owners have a right to own guns and practice with them, but nowhere is it implied that they have a right to have free facilities provided to them to do so.

More and more public land is being closed for shooting because some shooters are irresponsible. When someone drops trash in an area so they can shoot at it, and then leaves the trash and cartridges there, or when someone chooses to shoot towards houses or a highway, the public gets upset. The cops are not going to fingerprint the trash or make casts of tire marks to locate the person who did it. Everyone is going to be kicked out.

 

[owl]

Treading lightly here. 1. The facilities are not free. No, they aren't, I fought for them as did many in my family, some of us died. I pay taxes and am entitled to a say as to how the land is used. 2. The argument that some abuse something so none of us can have it, is a tired argument voiced by governments the world over to exercise their control over peoples lives. 3. Public land is where you hunt in most of this country. Now we arrive at the crux. If you backdoor outlawing shooting on public land you have stopped hunting. It is never as simple as it seems. There is always an agenda, recognizing that is the difficult part.

 

[flying kurbmaster]

Self-defense is an inherent natural right.

This implies a right to own the tools necessary to defend your life.

This also implies the right to train and practice with those tools to achieve and maintain the necessary skill level needed to effectively defend one's life.

As for 2014 vs 1776, I haven't noticed any magic changes in human nature that demonstrates that other people are no longer a possible threat.

Regards
John

Hard to ague with that but I will venture to add that,

Procreating is a inherent natural right

This implies the right to own the tools necessary to procreate

I think it shifted a few great granddads back when gramma Jane scratched his eyes out when he decided to practice with his tools in the back of the cave one afternoon.

You are right Human nature hasn't changed that much so we had to make laws so we stopped practicing great granddads old moves because somewhere along the line we realized that there were others living in the cave, and great granddad kept tripping over the fire,

 

[jeanontheroad]

Owl: tired arguments, government control

Me: You can't have your cake and eat it, too. I don't think "The Government" cares whether you shoot there or not. But they are charged with caring for public land that everyone, not just you or me or kurbmaster, has a stake in. No particular individual citizen has any more of a right determine how it is used than any other individual citizen. When that land is abused or used in a way that is dangerous to others, those others complain to the government and expect something to be done about it.

If some are abusive and reckless, I see 3 choices. The first is that the areas increases oversight by an increased rangers presence. That costs money, which we have to be willing to pay. A second option is that citizens who want to use a area in a particular way provide the oversight and supervision, themselves --- which I suggested in the beginning --- by arranging to have recognized use rights, the way ranchers lease grazing rights. The 3rd option is a ban. A ban is cheap. It does not cost money, time or effort. We are going to get what we are willing to pay for in time, effort and money.

 

[owl]

I'm sorry, equating cave era mating with shooting on public land ? I can't think of anything to say that won't take my warning level to 60%. Of course my reputation numbers might increase as well. "Grandad tripping over the fire", most likely one he built. Kurb, thanks, best laugh I've had all day!

---

Jean, with all due respect the same argument can be had for camping (living) on public land. In fact, I believe it has been visited here. A segment of the population will always object to what you want to do on public land.

 

[jeanontheroad]

Owl, why do you think I believe that campers or hikers or anyone else can't loose the use of areas if those areas are abused or used recklessly by members of the group?

---

Owl: tired arguments

Me: An example, when we first moved here, everyone (including us) anchored out by Shell Key on the weekend. The key has a large bird colony that MOST of us had the good sense to leave alone. But A FEW people did not leave the birds alone. A FEW people thought it was great fun to bring along their dogs, which did not leave the birds alone. Now, people are banned from most of the key, and the authorities aren't kidding. We were lucky to maintain any ability to use the island at all. It might not sound fair, but it only takes a few idiots to ruin things for everyone.