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
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


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
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
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
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.8
Site Design by Sekimori

« Review of book on Justice Scalia | Main | New article by Brannon Denning & Glenn Reynolds »

Comments sought on Clark County NV range

Posted by David Hardy · 5 January 2010 08:27 AM

BLM has issued a second Environmental Assessment for the planned Clark County shooting range in southern Nevada; here's the EA. Comments are open until January 29. A quick skim of the EA leaves me with the question of why they had to do it. It sounds as if the statute was clear; give this specific land to the county for this purpose, at no cost. You don't need to analyze a direct and clear order, and several of the alternatives set out in the EA have an analysis that ends with "we can't do it anyway because it would violate the statute." The things that would be subject to analysis are whatever the federal money was spent for, but I don't see much analysis there.

That, and the land was conveyed years ago, and the money already spent... making environmental study a bit late....

3 Comments | Leave a comment

Eric | January 5, 2010 10:39 AM | Reply

"A quick skim of the EA leaves me with the question of why they had to do it."

My cynical mind says "because it delays establishing the range until someone can find another way to stop it..."

Paul | January 10, 2010 7:15 PM | Reply

LEAD contamination!!
Last I checked we get lead from the earth using a process known as mining. We then put it back
in the earth (very fast) using bullets. I don't see the problem.

Art Fransen | January 11, 2010 3:14 PM | Reply

I was just wondering if anyone involved with or concerned about this project is aware of the following? Super Trap, Inc. (STI)at www.supertrap.com is a rifle and pistol shooting range builder/contractor who can not only contain but can verifiably immobilize all lead in STI's shooting range backstops to well below the EPA threshold of 5ppm to lower than 3ppm with ELIxIR®. STI creates a situation wherein lead issues (physical harm from ricochets and health issues from lead exposure)are simply a thing of the past! STI's range backstop can also be treated with Gel-Cor® for a Class "A" Fire Rating! Lastly, lead in STI's backstops can be mined for a profit to the Owner!

Leave a comment