APNewsbreak: Obama Administration Will Not Restrict Recreational Shooting On Public Lands

[Purveyor]

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration says it will not restrict recreational shooting on public lands, reversing a draft policy that had caused an uproar among gun owners and hunters, especially in the West.

In a memo sent Wednesday, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said he would direct his agency to “take no further action to develop or implement” the draft policy, which would have restricted target shooting on some public lands near residential areas. Officials said they were trying to ensure public safety in rapidly growing areas of the West, where some residents have clashed with gun owners who use public lands for target practice.

MORE...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts-law/apnewsbreak-obama-administration-will-not-restrict-recreational-shooting-on-public-lands/2011/11/23/gIQAp949oN_story.html

[msongs]

1. shooting and destroying stuff, it's what the gun crowd does best nt

[We_Have_A_Problem]

6. you know nothing about firearms or those who own them...

...yet you somehow know what all of us do best? Pretty damned arrogant if you ask me.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

15. define "gun crowd"

thanks.

[BiggJawn]

22. Wasn't that a Ramsey Lewis album? n/t

[Simo 1939_1940]

23. HA HA -- good one BiggJawn!

(I presume you were goofing on Ramsey's "The In Crowd".)

[appleannie1]

2. It is stupid to shoot near populated areas. Bullets can kill from over a mile away.

[Remmah2]

5. Actually you can get 2 to 5 miles depending on the cartridge.

Probably worth researching before posting.

[rfranklin]

10. Actually you proved his point...

Shooting in public areas is really dangerous.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

11. As long as the range is constructed properly...

...not really. Sure, some dumbass could shoot over the backstop, but if he's that stupid, he probably wouldn't bother going to the range to act like a retard.

When assessing risk, one must not only consider possibility, but probability. Sure, it is POSSIBLE that I could win the lottery tomorrow even though I never buy a ticket, but the probability of me finding the winning ticket is so low as to be incalculable.

The objections to shooting at an outdoor range look only at possibilities, not probability.

[SteveM]

30. See #29, et al. nt

[TheWraith]

25. Yes and no.

Theoretically, a powerful rifle bullet could make several miles of distance and still have enough energy to be fatal, if you, say, fired it into the air at a 45 degree angle. However, that's far different from, say, having an outdoor range where berms and line of sight are carefully coordinated to insure that there's little risk of bullets escaping.

[SteveM]

29. An outdoor range I use has houses within range, but it's safe...

We shoot from booths where even the front side (facing targets 100 - 300 yds. away) is boarded up, save for a narrow slit along the bottom and above the shooting rest. From your position, and with a rifle with over 3 miles range, you can only shoot so high before you are obstructed by the front side shield. The targets have berms of earth behind them, rising well above the height restriction imposed by the booth upon the rifle's barrel. Result? The bullets hit the target (or not), but cannot range over the berm, and are thereby absorbed.

Furthermore, this range has a full-time range officer who oversees proper shooting and gun-handling procedures. I would point out that this range is on lightly-developed lands with more people around than any park, national forest, WMA, etc.

This is to Obama's credit and helps him on the gun issue. Isn't that a good thing for his chances of re-election?

[Scuba]

3. Politically wise. n/t

[montanacowboy]

4. It's Election Season

he is pandering to the NRA

[krispos42]

12. Where was the uproar supporting restrictions?

You'll have to type harder... I can't hear you over the roar of the crickets.

[SteveM]

31. Makes you wonder: Given Obama's chances, are gun-controllers happy for this or not?

[ileus]

7. The voters let their voice be heard....and they listened....this time...

[safeinOhio]

19. They didn't listen to Wayne Lapierre

and his latest Glenn Beck type rant about how Obama's new secret plan is support gun rights right up to the 20120 elections and then take grandpa's shotgun away.

:puke:

[postulater]

8. Target shooting done responsibly is not dangerous.

I wonder if the 'clash' was about noise as much as anything. But that may be able to be handled locally.

(didn't read the link, if I'm missing something, sorry)

[burf]

9. I wonder if this had anything to do with the decision...........

The US Sportsmans Alliance had posted an article on "protect fishing, hunting and recreational shooting on federal lands."


H.R. 2834 passed the Committee with strong bipartisan support by a vote of 29-14.

This vital piece of legislation would require fishing, hunting and recreational shooting to be included in all federal land planning documents and would fix numerous inconsistencies in federal law that are being exploited by litigious environmental groups to reduce hunting opportunities on federal land.

When the bipartisan vote is over 2-1 against, that might indicate the policy might need to be reexamined.

http://www.ussportsmen.org/page.aspx?pid=308

[eShirl]

13. "Recreational shooting?" What, like heroin or something?

[Hoyt]

14. It would harm manufacturers of targets that resemble people and latest "assault/tactical" weapons.

[friendly_iconoclast]

17. *You* own an "assault/tactical" weapon yourself

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=474450#475112

Granted, it's design is 130 years old- but then again the Kalashnikov design is at least 65 years old and the AR was designed in the Fifties. Which leads to a question: How old does an "assault/tactical" design have to be before you deem it acceptable?

[Hoyt]

18. Nope, you are wrong -- I sold it to a collector or Evans who had the next serial number.

Had no bullets for it, nor wanted any.

"Acceptable" depends on why they want it. If it's to hang on wall -- who cares. I wish all guns were hung on the wall like buggy whips. Unfortunately, people who buy the guns that we are talking about, are likely to have a problem.

BTW, why do you keep up with people's posts?

[spin]

20. Why do you keep insisting that people who engage in a legal activity ...

have a problem? What exactly is this problem?

Shooting has been one of our favorite sporting activities during the history of our nation. Carrying concealed handguns has also been common throughout American History.

Pepper-box

The pepper-box revolver or simply pepperbox (also "pepper-pot", from its resemblance to the household pepper grinder) is a multiple-barrel repeating firearm that has three or more barrels grouped around a central axis. It mostly appears in the form of a multi-shot handheld firearm. Pepperboxes exist in all ammunition systems: matchlock, wheellock, flintlock, percussion, pinfire, rimfire and centerfire.


Pepper-box by Allen & Thurber, one of the most common American designs

***snip***

This type of weapon was popular in North America from 1830 until the American Civil War, but the concept was introduced much earlier, in the 15th century several single shot barrels were attached to a stock, being fired individually by means of a match.

***snip***

The pepperbox, at least the weapon that is mostly associated with this term, was invented in the 1830s and was meant mainly for civilian use. It spread rapidly in the United Kingdom, the USA and some parts of continental Europe. It was similar to the later revolver in that it contained bullets in separate chambers in a rotating cylinder. Unlike the revolver, however, each chamber had its own barrel, making a complex indexing system unnecessary (though pepperboxes with such a system do exist).<5>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepper-box

My own mother carried a small S&W Ladysmith .22 caliber revolver during the 1920s and successfully used it to stop an attack from a man who rushed her from some bushes while she was walking home from work. If the man had been able to carry out his attack, he might well have killed my mother and I would not be here today.

[beevul]

24. Because it makes it easy...

"BTW, why do you keep up with people's posts?"'

(I can only assume that his answer would resemble mine)

Because it makes it easy to point out for the whole world, with examples, posters that talk out both sides of their mouths.

[friendly_iconoclast]

27. And if the guy you sold it to decides to make like Charles Whitman...

...well, that's no longer your problem, is it?

You took Werner Von Braun approach to armament disposal:

"I shoot ze rockets in ze air, they fall to earth I know not where..."

(with apologies to Tom Lehrer)

[oneshooter]

28. You DID go through a FFl Dealer and have a NICS check done

did you or the buyer have to pay for the background check? Did you fill out a 4473? Can't be too careful now, can we?

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Tuesday Afternoon]

16. lol

funny :D

[spin]

21. No. It's more like archery. (n/t)

[hollowdweller]

26. I feel like the administration is wrong on this one.

Correct me if I'm wrong but reading about this issue it seems like the idea was to shut down ranges where houses were too close, where shooters were shooting things other than targets or where a stray bullet might hit a hiker or person.

I don't think that's unreasonable, I was reading about one range they closed where people were shooting over the backstop and hitting animals on a nearby ranch and although local gun shops sponsored cleanups shooters had trashed the place.

A gun range I go to not on gov't land but on county land has had everything shot up by shooters. The bathrooms, all the trash drums, people have put glass bottles out there and shot them.

I understand why they halted that. Considering that paranoid gun owners had this issue all over the net distorted in my view as some sort of an example of how Obama was going to take our guns, but I think the idea was a good one.

http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2011/10/grand_haven_gun_club_listens_t.html

http://www.ar-15.co/forums/showthread.php?t=3508

http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20100215/NEWS01/702159901&news01ad=1

http://www.athensnews.com/ohio/article-34845-annie-forget-your-gun-the-shooting-range-is-closed.html

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/20107955/detail.html

For the record the place I shoot at the most is about 30 feet from my house. I have my own range set up :)

[SteveM]

32. See # 29 and # 9...

I think these incidents are the exception and not the rule, and one cannot say for certainty that range-users caused all these abuses. Burf (9) hit on something which is unfortunate for serious environmentalists and ecologists: The political dead-weight some organizations carry around trying to appease anti-hunters/animal rights people. These latter folks often take a rather extreme bent: It is difficult for some to go on highly-regulated deer culling hunts in Texas parks because someone decides to walk his dogs right by deer blinds, or drive into a restricted area, or get into arguments with hunters; cautionary literature was handed me by TPWD officials when I went on one such hunt at Inks Lake State Park, warning me of these animal rights extremists; sure enough, they spoiled two hunters' efforts in the unit next to me.

What is to keep these same folks from popping off some rounds at an "empty" house at 3 a.m.? It's easy to assign the blame to some yee-hah at the range.

BTW, didn't these ranges have a range officer on duty? Anyway, I support legislation allowing target shooting on federal lands, and it is to Obama's credit that he does as well.

[SteveM]

33. Restriction of hunters on public lands is a recipe for ecological degradation...

Hunters and fishers provide hundreds of millions of dollars every year to the upkeep of parks, wildlife management areas and other lands, both state and federal, with licenses, permits, fees and taxes. It is so incredibly blind for some animal-rights/anti-hunting groups to attack these outdoors people since the money they provide is essential to hold together public-use lands, and to preserve and expand endangered and threatened flora and fauna (most of which is NOT game for hunting). Is the Bambi Syndrome so important to some of these prohibitionists? Is there fantasy about how animals live so unassailable in their own minds? Is there usually-urban outlook so superior per force that they are willing to cripple public lands and species preservation for their own since of righteousness and morality?

I bet mainstream environmental organizations rue the day they got into bed with many animal rights groups.