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

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

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...

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.

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.

“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. “

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.