Of Arms and the Law
Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home
Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography

ISOcover150x200sm.jpg

I've released my documentary film on the history of the right to arms, "In Search of the Second Amendment." It stars twelve professors of constitutional law, plus Steve Halbrook, David Kopel, Don Kates, and Clayton Cramer. You can order the DVD here. And here's the Wikipedia page on it. SUPREME COURT SPECIAL: additional orders only $10 each.


2nd Amendment Discussions
1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
TheSurvivalistBlog.net
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Survivalist Blog
The BitchGirls
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Visitors since April 1, 2005: Free Web Counter
Free Hit Counter

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 3.15
Site Design by Sekimori

« House votes against part of DC gun ban | Main | Interesting webpage on homicide »

Are all federal shooting ranges open to the public, by law?

Posted by David Hardy · 6 July 2005 10:51 AM

Alan Korwin again comes up with a fascinating legal question, in PhoenixNews.com....

Under 10 USC 4309, it appears that all Federally-owned shooting ranges are open to the public (under such regulations as may be applied by the agency). From the face of the statute, it appears that even military ranges must be open (although the military has first dibs on their use). And further that ONLY military ranges may charge fees.

I've verified that the statute is on the books and is as he says, haven't had a chance to look up its history and context yet.

· contemporary issues

Comments

It says "may" be used. As i read that, it's up to the appropriate authority whether to allow it or now. it's not a "shall" clause. although that would be great

Posted by: albo at July 6, 2005 11:27 AM

You know how gun-controlling D.C. is?
When I lived in Northern Virginia in the 1970's, I practiced weekly on a pistol range at Bolling Air Force Base in D.C. It was free, and I just had to show a non-DC driver's license to get on the base with my pistol. Might not be so open these days...

Posted by: Duke at July 6, 2005 11:44 AM

It also says "rifle ranges" -- a possible semantic hurdle, if the controlling authority wanted a reason to deny access. That range in the basement of the courthouse is probably designated as a pistol range.

Posted by: Russ at July 6, 2005 11:51 AM

I shoot Highpower Rifle matches and several...or MOST military ranges have denied use of facilities to civilian clubs, even clubs who had shot at the ranges for decades. This would be a pretty interesting development.
Plus, like flying with a firearm, we NEED to make these folks accomodate us, whether we need the range or not. They need to keep in mind that the civilians have some small status in America, and aren't just faceless sheep.

Posted by: robert at July 6, 2005 12:31 PM

“and by persons capable of bearing arms” Ouch! Kind of kicks those collective rights people in the head. Notice it does not say, “and by the state militias or the people capable of bearing arms. “

Posted by: Rudy DiGiacinto at July 6, 2005 12:38 PM

Ya. Agree with previous poster, that "may" is significant.

At my base.. the range is HEAVILY used almost 24/7.. and we have to close it twice a year to remove lead from the berm. The berm gets so full of lead that we start get get unsafe richoets.

Even if we could charge (and 4309 says we can) we just can't support our own mission, and also all the civilians who would like to shoot.

Posted by: Trainder at July 6, 2005 03:05 PM

I pursued this as an aside while a law enforcement range officer some years back. The operative word is "may". Between the exigencies of existing training commitments, administrative difficulties, and general safety issues, it just doesn't get to happen. This is not necessarily a deep dark anti-2A plot, just the way things are. Even the military has a big problem getting live fire done, not to mention the closing of a lot of ranges over the years.

There is some use of military ranges for military/civilian high power rifle shooting but it is tenuous.

The reverse is actually more the case--police use of privately owned facilities (i.e., gun clubs) for qualifications.

Range availability in most areas of the country is a critical problem.

Posted by: Thomas Casey at July 6, 2005 04:16 PM

The use of the words "may use" in this case is permissive. Essentially the same thing as "shall be able to use". Note that saying "shall use" doesn't make any sense, because that would seem to require the use of a military range if you own a rifle. Since CMP has always been about rifle (read "battle") marksmanship anyway, it's not surprising that pistol shooting wasn't considered.

Posted by: Don Leighton at July 7, 2005 06:01 AM

The "may" vs. "shall" question is answered in the statute's last graf, which says the people operating the range "shall" draw up regulations to implement the law.




10 USC 4309(c)
"(c) Regulations. -- Regulations to carry out this section with respect to a rifle range shall be prescribed, subject to the approval of the Secretary concerned, by the authorities controlling the rifle range."

Posted by: Alan Korwin at July 30, 2005 10:11 AM

d.c. gov't is so anti-gun, they make me pay for a license to qualify private security officers (over 8,000) who carry a firearm for required employment, but will NOT allow me the permit to build a private range for me to qualify them in d.c. Instead, I am forced to go to Maryland or Virginia, to range-qualify my clients. I say to them over and over, the HANDGUN may be illegal in the hands of regular civilians, but NOT in the hands of persons whom you have LICENSED to carry a handgun for their employment. WHY license me to qualify to help them shoot, then tell me I cannot have a place, to shoot their handgun? Must I sue the District, to MAKE them respect the firearm instructor's license they REQUIRE me to have, to conduct my livelihood? Comments, please. DOC.

Posted by: Doc Lucas at September 7, 2007 04:20 PM

Military Ranges are located off the main post so that civilians can use them. They have to understand that there wont be a range officer on duty most of the time. Although some post require making an appointment to ensure someone is there.

Posted by: Steve Adams at December 8, 2008 12:05 PM

Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)