HB 1804

[Guest justme]

Firearms and Ammunition - As introduced, requires law enforcement agencies to open their shooting ranges for public use when not being used by law enforcement personnel. - Amends TCA Section 38-8-116.

http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/106/Bill/HB1804.pdf

why no movement on this bill?

We should show our support for this bill and see if it can get moving. Law enforcement ranges--indoor and outdoor should have to be open for public use when they are not in use--as it stands now it seems department specific as to whether or not their ranges can be used. Taxpayer money pays for them--why should the people not have access?

Edited July 14, 2009 by justme

[Paletiger13]

I agree. Besides there is one under 2 miles from my house.

[Motasyco]

Since there are no public ranges in the county where I live, this would be wonderful. Time to write our legislators again.

[Guest bkelm18]

Firearms and Ammunition - As introduced, requires law enforcement agencies to open their shooting ranges for public use when not being used by law enforcement personnel. - Amends TCA Section 38-8-116.

http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/106/Bill/HB1804.pdf

why no movement on this bill?

We should show our support for this bill and see if it can get moving. Law enforcement ranges--indoor and outdoor should have to be open for public use when they are not in use--as it stands now it seems department specific as to whether or not their ranges can be used. Taxpayer money pays for them--why should the people not have access?

Our tax money pays for the military, so why can't we just walk on to a military base and do whatever we want? Drive their tanks, shoot their guns, fly their planes? Not really for this particular bill, seems mostly a waste of time. Of course there are several ranges close to me that are open to the public, so it really makes no difference to me.

[JayC]

It's my understanding that any range which receives any federal money must allow the use of the range by the general public. I'll see if I can find said federal law... very few local ranges ran by the police department haven't taken some form of government grant relating to their range.

[Guest justme]

Our tax money pays for the military, so why can't we just walk on to a military base and do whatever we want? Drive their tanks, shoot their guns, fly their planes? Not really for this particular bill, seems mostly a waste of time. Of course there are several ranges close to me that are open to the public, so it really makes no difference to me.

Or you could just take it to an extreme and try to be ridiculous about it.

As long as they are not using the range then they should have to open them up to the people--whose money funds them--and yes, even military handgun/rifle ranges should be open to members of the public as long as the range is not in use.

I am all for this bill--there is absolutely nothing wrong with the public using police firing ranges. As it stands, whether or not the public can use a police range is up to the individual department--this law simply makes a uniformed policy that says all ranges must be open to the people as long as they are not in use at the time.

[ukerduker]

Our tax money pays for the military, so why can't we just walk on to a military base and do whatever we want? Drive their tanks, shoot their guns, fly their planes? Not really for this particular bill, seems mostly a waste of time. Of course there are several ranges close to me that are open to the public, so it really makes no difference to me.

Sure why not... Let's take your example of using a tank for instance:

You can first put down a credit card to cover your extreme thinking. You will probably need an American Express here. The costs will span the tank maintenance, the fuel, the cost of every round you want to shoot, and a deposit on any potential damages you might cause. But wait, you have your security clearance right? No? Then you must pay for the background check. And before you can get in the tank, you need to go to tank school at Fort Knox KY. That might cost a few more bucks and take several weeks. You might need 2 AMEX's.

This bill is not "a waste of time". Extreme thinking like this is out of step with the intent of the bill.

[Guest pws_smokeyjones]

For the most part I agree that tax payer funded police ranges should be open to the public - however we need to remember that if that happens, it is going to INCREASE the amount of funding we put into those ranges. When they open them to the public then they will have to staff them during public hours. Range Officers, clean up, admission/administration, pre-session firearms safety inspection etc...

I'm not saying that stuff is 'needed', but since it is a government deal that stuff will be undoubtedly required like they do at SRHEC by Percy Priest Lake.

[Guest proudsuthrner]

also, you are able to go onto the military bases.. as long as you are being escorted. for the ranges on base. they arent like the ones for the public

[Guest justme]

For the most part I agree that tax payer funded police ranges should be open to the public - however we need to remember that if that happens, it is going to INCREASE the amount of funding we put into those ranges. When they open them to the public then they will have to staff them during public hours. Range Officers, clean up, admission/administration, pre-session firearms safety inspection etc...

Not so--same rules as would apply when using a state run WMA range like Royal Blue. There are no range officers there--same rules for police ranges...

and for cleaning up--I am sure there is a trash can available, and the brass can be picked up by anyone wanting the spent casings.

Firearms safety inspections? Should not be required. You are responsible for the safe operation of your firearm.

A small fee could be required for use by the session or by the week/month--goes to help not only the department, but upkeep for the range as well.

[OD#3]

I'm leary of "taxpayer-funded so should be open to the public" arguments.

I used to shoot at a National Forest rifle range, because it was free back then. As in all things, a small percentage of the visitors there ruined it for everyone else; trash was everywhere, there was evidence of range tables, signs, and other structures having been deliberately shot at, and range safety was poor. That and the institution of a usage fee eventually drove me to join a local club. This was a much nicer facility, and the behavior of almost everyone was exemplary.

Times change, and liability concerns eventually drove the club to institute the practice of having range officers and installing overhead baffles. These range officer positions were unpaid and staffed by retired folks who do a great job, but the range hours were necessarily shortened. Although initially annoyed by the restrictions, I have seen the benefits of much less trash and increased safety and longevity of the range infrastructure just by having someone in charge to keep an eye on everyone.

But rules are still broken. The "unnecessary baffles" installed to prevent anyone from being able to shoot over the very high backstop have been hit by a few rounds over the years---the position of the impacts on the baffles indicating that the initial trajectory would have carried the rounds over the backstop. Trash is repeatedly placed in the "brass only" collection buckets. The shed roof over the shooting benches still develops an occasional new bullet-hole shaped leak every now and then.

As nice as the club range is, it can't hold a candle to the local police range in terms of safety and overall condition of the equipment. This is because the shooting sessions at the police range are very tightly controlled. Police officers can't even shoot there any old time they want to; most shooting is done at scheduled intervals. There is evidence of errant low hits in the 4-foot high railroad tie walls in front of the target stands, but no deliberate vandalism. Lane marker posts that would have been shot in two in a few years at a public facility have been there for thirty years. A target storage shed installed 20-30 years ago is unscarred despite its being located DOWN-RANGE just 10-15 feet to the left of the far left target stand. The shed roof over the tables at the rear has no bullet holes in it. This all despite the "quick-draw" and "shooting while moving to cover and from cover" style of training that often goes on there.

The police range is just not set up for informal target shooting by the public. The tables in the rear are over 50 yards from the target stands, the space between occupied by lane-marked asphalt designed to have the shooters down-range from the tables for most shooting. The targets are shot from varying distances, but the target stands are permanent--only the shooter moves. Everyone has to move to these different points at the same time so that no one is ever forward of the actual firing line. The police range was built with taxpayer money to train police officers. So it was designed differently than most other public and private ranges.

In order to accomodate the public, the department would have to redesign the range and pay officers to police it. This would require even more taxpayer money--money that isn't provided in that unfunded mandate of a bill. I can almost guarantee that the monies needed would have to come from the department's own training budget--one that is already stretched pretty thin and currently provides only bi-annual range training for its officers---officers who, if they are serious about keeping their shooting skills up, must join private ranges to get in the needed practice.

This bill is a bad idea.

[Guest justme]

I'm leary of "taxpayer-funded so should be open to the public" arguments.

As nice as the club range is, it can't hold a candle to the local police range in terms of safety and overall condition of the equipment. This is because the shooting sessions at the police range are very tightly controlled. Police officers can't even shoot there any old time they want to; most shooting is done at scheduled intervals. There is evidence of errant low hits in the 4-foot high railroad tie walls in front of the target stands, but no deliberate vandalism. Lane marker posts that would have been shot in two in a few years at a public facility have been there for thirty years. A target storage shed installed 20-30 years ago is unscarred despite its being located DOWN-RANGE just 10-15 feet to the left of the far left target stand. The shed roof over the tables at the rear has no bullet holes in it. This all despite the "quick-draw" and "shooting while moving to cover and from cover" style of training that often goes on there.

And? You have poor people everywhere. People who respect others property will take care of it regardless of where they are at. I go to a WMA range and I see no vandalism or trash being tossed everywhere and people take their targets with them when they leave. I have yet to find targets still hanging, I have found garbage cans in good condition, benches in decent condition. You have nasty, evil minded people everywhere. It is irregardless of where you go in the world--you are going to have people who simply don't care. I don't think that fact should stop the public from being able to use both indoor and outdoor police ranges--our taxes pay for them, we should be able to have reasonable access to them.

The police range is just not set up for informal target shooting by the public. The tables in the rear are over 50 yards from the target stands, the space between occupied by lane-marked asphalt designed to have the shooters down-range from the tables for most shooting. The targets are shot from varying distances, but the target stands are permanent--only the shooter moves. Everyone has to move to these different points at the same time so that no one is ever forward of the actual firing line. The police range was built with taxpayer money to train police officers. So it was designed differently than most other public and private ranges.

I would submit that all target practice is somewhat informal. There is generally one mindset when shooting--hit the target, and I don't care whether you are the police or not--your goal is to hit the target with every round you shoot.

Everything you describe is exactly the type of range that the people should have access to. The ranges were built using public funds in order to practice shooting skills--and therefore should be open to the public.

In order to accomodate the public, the department would have to redesign the range and pay officers to police it.

Why? Range officers are not needed--WMA ranges work perfectly fine by and large without them.

This would require even more taxpayer money--money that isn't provided in that unfunded mandate of a bill.

no money was allocated because range officers and police to "police the range" simply are not needed.

I can almost guarantee that the monies needed would have to come from the department's own training budget--one that is already stretched pretty thin and currently provides only bi-annual range training for its officers---officers who, if they are serious about keeping their shooting skills up, must join private ranges to get in the needed practice.

There would be no need for money to have to come from the departmental budget for range officers or officers whose special duty is to police the range because they are not needed.

As for "public" ranges...I joined one of those once--and I have yet to go simply because had I known the way they would do prior to paying my money upfront for a year I would have never signed up. I refuse to patronize a range that takes 3 months to decide whether or not they want me to use it...

And cities could vote to require a certain fee and charge it by the visit, or more preferably by the month or year...and that money could then be used to purchase new or different training equipment, make any needed or necessary repairs or even purchase or help build different types of training tools or devices for use by everyone.

This bill is a bad idea.

This bill is a great idea--and should be passed. It would mean that law enforcement could also on their off duty time use the same ranges if that is what they wanted to do--because they would be required under the law to be open to the entire public....

Edited July 15, 2009 by justme

[OD#3]

Justme, you make good arguments that could be used to convince a county or municipality to open their range to the public as the law currently allows. What I object to is the passage of a law that REQUIRES these entities to open their ranges. This legislation masquerades as a common-sense proposal to make available to the tax-paying public a publicly-funded asset that would otherwise be going to waste, when it is more akin to what has happened to military training areas over the years--they've become wildlife refuges.

Ft. Stewart, Ga. was like that. Every tree that had a nesting pair of Red-Cockaded woodpeckers in it was prominently marked and cordoned off. Woe be to any soldier who so much as drove a tracked vehicle within fifty feet of such a tree, for he wasn't just punished through his chain-of-command; he faced huge fines and imprisonment. There were also gopher tortoises to look out for and Eastern Indigo snakes--also endangered species. And nowhere else have I see such strict EPA regulations. Training time was often spent digging up and disposing of an entire trash bag of dirt for each drop of oil that fell on the ground. Meanwhile, off post, vast tracks of old-growth forest was being cleared for business and housing developments. The Army tried to put a positive spin on it all, suggesting that troops could consider these areas as minefields or other tactical obstacles. But the real affect was that it complicated and hampered the effective training of troops. The American Public, unwilling to abide by such draconian EPA and Endangered Species Act interpretations, found another use for otherwise "wasted" tax dollars--just set aside those large military training areas as wildlife refuges.

We've seen some encouraging legislation recently regarding ranges, such as the one grandfathering protection from nuisance ordinances attempting to close ranges that have existed for thirty years. But it also suggests that any range younger than this is most definitely subject to being declared a nuisance and closed. This bill you're so fond of seems to me to be just more of the "not in my backyard" attitude--its a way for the public to have more ranges available without having to put up with the noise a new range would afflict on our urban sprawl.

Rather than declare public ranges important enough in this republic to inconvenience anyone, we'll just throw a bone and try to make everyone happy by making police departments open their ranges to the public when not in use. And we'll spin it by suggesting that taxes have already paid for it, it won't interfere with officer training, and that the shooting community is so well-behaved that there will be no need to staff it. It sounds like a win-win situation, but I predict that police department budgets will be strained by this. And police officer training that the public expects their tax dollars to be well-spent on, will suffer in the end.

[Guest justme]

Justme, you make good arguments that could be used to convince a county or municipality to open their range to the public as the law currently allows. What I object to is the passage of a law that REQUIRES these entities to open their ranges. This legislation masquerades as a common-sense proposal to make available to the tax-paying public a publicly-funded asset that would otherwise be going to waste, when it is more akin to what has happened to military training areas over the years--they've become wildlife refuges.

Again, public tax dollars--your money and mine has gone into funding these ranges. It should not take a state law to force counties and municipalities to do the right thing and open their ranges up to the general gun owning public when they are not in use. I do not object to making a government work FOR us instead of against us--and this is exactly what this law does. It is our government, the officers work for the people, the ranges are public funded. This bill makes a single, uniform policy that all departments within the state must follow. Let's make the government--all of the government work FOR the people for a change.

Now I am no tree hugger--but as for military bases becoming wildlife refuges--I see no need to mercilessly slaughter animals just because they might get in the way of the military machine. I do see a need to conservatively cull deer, and other wildlife during hunting season in order to prevent over population--nothing wrong with that. But to just wantonly kill animals just because they might be in the way of the military would be wrong. Just like it would be wrong to wantonly kill animals just because they might be in the way of the local government. You can move forward in progress without devastating entire wildlife populations.

Ft. Stewart, Ga. was like that. Every tree that had a nesting pair of Red-Cockaded woodpeckers in it was prominently marked and cordoned off. Woe be to any soldier who so much as drove a tracked vehicle within fifty feet of such a tree, for he wasn't just punished through his chain-of-command; he faced huge fines and imprisonment. There were also gopher tortoises to look out for and Eastern Indigo snakes--also endangered species. And nowhere else have I see such strict EPA regulations. Training time was often spent digging up and disposing of an entire trash bag of dirt for each drop of oil that fell on the ground. Meanwhile, off post, vast tracks of old-growth forest was being cleared for business and housing developments. The Army tried to put a positive spin on it all, suggesting that troops could consider these areas as minefields or other tactical obstacles. But the real affect was that it complicated and hampered the effective training of troops. The American Public, unwilling to abide by such draconian EPA and Endangered Species Act interpretations, found another use for otherwise "wasted" tax dollars--just set aside those large military training areas as wildlife refuges.

I agree double standards are wrong. I also agree--that the EPA and other governmental agencies have run amok in our society. As I said in earlier comments here--we can have progress while respecting the environment, and without the need for draconian regulations that make it impossible to move forward, backward or sideways. I agree--changes need to be made.

We've seen some encouraging legislation recently regarding ranges, such as the one grandfathering protection from nuisance ordinances attempting to close ranges that have existed for thirty years. But it also suggests that any range younger than this is most definitely subject to being declared a nuisance and closed. This bill you're so fond of seems to me to be just more of the "not in my backyard" attitude--its a way for the public to have more ranges available without having to put up with the noise a new range would afflict on our urban sprawl.

The reason I like this bill--it helps to remind the government exactly who they work for. I also like it because it gives the people an extra choice to make when they head out to the range.

As for the urban sprawl--I personally would not care to see a local public range open up near me. I think people want to have their cake and eat it too-they want to be free of nuisance noise, but they also want to be able to go to the range whenever they want--and yet they don't want it near them. A well build indoor range is a threat to no one. I honestly don't see the problem people have with a range in their neighborhood as long as bullets are not flying through their windows or walls or zinging over their heads.

As for the urban sprawl--I hate urban areas--urban areas are simply not for me--give me the country any day.

Rather than declare public ranges important enough in this republic to inconvenience anyone, we'll just throw a bone and try to make everyone happy by making police departments open their ranges to the public when not in use. And we'll spin it by suggesting that taxes have already paid for it, it won't interfere with officer training, and that the shooting community is so well-behaved that there will be no need to staff it. It sounds like a win-win situation, but I predict that police department budgets will be strained by this. And police officer training that the public expects their tax dollars to be well-spent on, will suffer in the end.

I am all for well built, public ranges. I am for well constructed outdoor ranges--as long as those ranges did not pose a true safety hazard to the area. Obviously you don't want an outdoor long gun range near a hospital or school or near homes. I am also all for making the government work for the people not against them. I am for inconveniencing police departments by requiring them to open their ranges up to the public when those ranges are not in use--again publically funded. UNLESS a county/city was willing to pay for the construction of a public range that was up to the same standards as the departmental ranges--same size, configuration and so on. Yes, I would be willing to pay a reasonable yearly fee for use of the range. The fee money could and should be used for the upkeep of the range and for purchasing new equipment for the range--and for youth and adult firearms education programs, handgun carry permit courses, advanced courses in handgun and rifle/shotgun use and so on.

I truly do not see how a departmental budget will be strained by allowing for the use of their range. I do however see the off duty police benefiting from this simply because as a member of the general public when not on duty--they would also have unfettered access to the range.

I also believe that the shooting community are pretty well behaved--you have idiots everywhere, there is no escaping that. As for not needing to staff the range--again WMA ranges seem to work well without staffing, why should LE ranges not work equally well? Yes you have idiots everywhere--but you won't escape that regardless of where you go.

[Guest canynracer]

Tax dollars pay for a lot of things.

and what happens when some idiot gets hurt and files a lawsuit against the dept? Who pays the settlement?

who pays the insurance when it increases? cause it WILL go up.

There are a lot of things I pay for as a tax payer, but that does not necessarily mean I get to use it whenever I want.

I THINK thats the point Bkelm was trying to make. And yes, it was extreme, but why stop at the ranges if we are going to use the "My taxes pay for this" argument...

[GLOCKMEISTER]

all the dept would have to do is say they use the range on a daily basis and it would be a no go.

Kinda like Metro... they use it everyday.

Edited July 17, 2009 by GLOCKMEISTER

[Oh Shoot]

...Of course there are several ranges close to me that are open to the public, ...

John Sevier, Norris, and Coal Creek are the only ones I know.

Others??

- OS

[Daps]

So does this bill mean where the police shoot I can shoot for free? Our officers shoot at the FOP. I paid $30 for year and can use it whenever they aren't out there training

[cadillacdude1975]

i dont think this will go anywhere because of the strapped budgets that most police departments have to operate with. if any more money is handed out for the police departments, it should be given to the men and women in uniform as pay increases. i really do not think this will go anywhere. they need to amend current laws like that bullsh*t park carry bill to make a state law a state law.