NC Wildlife Resources Commission Seeks Comments On 5 Game Lands

The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission is seeking comments on the development of management plans for five of their game lands. Closest to me is the Cold Mountain Game Lands in Haywood County. Yes, it is the same Cold Mountain as in the book and movie. The four other game lands mentioned are way the hell and gone from me down in the eastern North Carolina.

Of particular interest about the Cold Mountain Game Lands is the Wayne Smith Shooting Range which is a free and open to the public range. It is also the closest range of its sort to the Asheville area. If you follow the links below, the draft management plan for Cold Mountain discusses the range in detail including potential plans for a 25-yard pistol range and a trap range. Among the concerns are noise mitigation and degradation of the facility from overuse. There is discussion of adding a fee for its use or limiting the amount of time one can stay and shoot at the range.

Wildlife Commission Invites Public to Comment on Five Game Land Plans
 

RALEIGH, NC —  After conducting a series of public meetings to gather input on developing management plans for game lands across the state, the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission has posted draft plans for five game lands on its website for additional public comment. 

The Commission is accepting comments through March 15 for the following game lands:

·         Bertie County, comprising 3,884 acres in Bertie County

·         Cape Fear River Wetlands, comprising 7,191 acres in New Hanover and Pender counties

·         Cold Mountain, comprising 3,631 acres in Haywood County

·         Neuse River, comprising 4,900 acres in Craven County

·         Van Swamp, comprising 5,505 acres in Beaufort and Washington counties

Comments can be e-mailed, with the game land name in the subject line and the individual tract within in the body of the email, to gamelandplan@ncwildlife.org. For more information on game lands, go to www.ncwildlife.org/gamelands.

About the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
Since 1947, the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission has been dedicated to the conservation and sustainability of the state’s fish and wildlife resources through research, scientific management, wise use and public input. The Commission is the state regulatory agency responsible for the enforcement of fishing, hunting, trapping and boating laws and provides programs and opportunities for wildlife-related educational, recreational and sporting activities.

Get N.C. Wildlife Update — news including season dates, bag limits, legislative updates and more — delivered free to your Inbox from the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission.

Friday Afternoon Dreaming

Every now and then you come across something that makes you say, "If I only had the money" or "When I win the lottery". I came across something like that today. I was getting a pop-up ad in Facebook for various pieces of property on www.landandfarm.com.

After looking at a couple of things in Tennessee, I put "Randolph County, NC" into the search function. It is in the central Piedmont of North Carolina and would put me closer to my granddaughter Olivia Grace. It is also the county in which I was born all those many years ago.

What I found was stunning to say the least. The "Ponderosa" has a 3 BR, 2 BA house on 131 acres and is located in Denton bordering on the Davidson County line.

Well, OK, that's nice. But what if I said it also had a pistol/shotgun range, a 100 yard rifle range, and a 600 yard rifle range?

Pistol Range

600 Yard Range

Indoor Bench for 100 Yard Range

The property which is a mix of loblolly pine and hardwoods is home to deer, turkey, dove, waterfowl, small game, and predators. There are four deer stands on the property. As you can see in second photo from the top, there are a number of fire and/or shooting lanes cut in the property. In addition to the workshop building, there is a walk-in cooler for aging your deer. There are also a number of springs plus the 6 acre pond.

The bottom line for all of this is $749,000. This is less than $6,000 per acre. It is almost like you are getting the house, workshop, and game cooler as an add-on bonus if you buy the land.

The listing is handled by Ben Wolfe of Wolfe Specialty Real Estate and Consulting. I don't know anything about this company nor the owner. The link to his website gives more details on the property.

Having my your own place to shoot with multiple ranges along with a place to hunt and fish whenever would be considered priceless to many including myself. That said, $749,000 is out of my price range if I ever want to retire.

But hey, a guy can dream on a Friday afternoon, can't he?

Action Alert From NSSF

The National Shooting Sports Foundation released an action alert at the end of last week. The Bipartisan Sportsman's Act which is part of an energy bill that needs to be passed will come up for discussion this week. Even if you don't hunt or fish the bill includes an item that should appeal to all shooters:  a provision for shooting range development.

From NSSF:

Bipartisan Sportsmen's Act
Your Immediate Action is Needed

The most important legislation in a generation for America’s hunters and target shooters is at a crucial stage. Senators and members of the US House of Representatives have just days to complete negotiations on the Energy Policy Modernization Act conference report that includes the Bipartisan Sportsmen’s Act.

Call Your U.S. Representative and both US Senators and politely insist that Congress act on the Energy Conference report that contains the Bipartisan Sportsmen's Act. Please CALL TODAY before Congress takes up the Continuing Resolution next week to fund the federal government past Dec. 9.

We do NOT want Congress to punt the Bipartisan Sportsmen’s Act into the next congress that begins in January. We have come too far to go back to “square one” and begin again.

Please call today to help protect and preserve our cherished outdoor traditions.

House Switchboard: 202-224-3121

Look up your U.S. Representative: http://nssf.it/CongLookup

SAF Files Amicus Brief In NC Gun Range Zoning Case

The NC Court of Appeals upheld Franklin County's Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) in a split decision in 2014. Their ruling upheld a Superior Court ruling denying the plaintiffs the ability to build a shooting range.

Aaron Byrd and Eric Coombs had sought to build a shooting range on property they owned in the county. The county's Planning Director has first told them they couldn't do it because the UDO didn't list it as an approved use. The Director later amended his decision to say that Byrd and Coombs could have a range if they applied for a special use permit under the Open Air Games classification. They applied to the Franklin County Board of Commissioners for this special use permit in December 2012 and were denied.

Shortly thereafter, Byrd and Coombs were issued notices that they were in violation of the zoning code and they must "cease and desist" all activities related to the shooting range. They appealed the Code Officer's notices to the county's Board of Adjustment. (As an aside, I served on the Town of Wayneville's Board of Adjustment for 19 years.) The Board of Adjustment is a quasi-judicial board whose rulings can be appealed to the Superior Court. They were turned down here and made a timely appeal to Superior Court. As noted in the first paragraph, the Superior Court upheld the ruling of the Board of Adjustment.

Byrd and Coombs contend that since the UDO made no mention of regulating shooting ranges, then they don't need approval from the county to build their range. Moreover, they said that classifying a shooting range as an Open Air Game was in error. Finally, they argued that an earlier Court of Appeals case, Land v. Village of Wesley Chapel, has set the precedent in their favor.

The opinion of the Court of Appeals stated they agreed that the classification of the shooting range as an Open Air Game was erroneous. They they went on to say this:

However, we disagree with Petitioners that the UDO does not regulate shooting ranges at all, but it does in fact prohibit shooting ranges anywhere in the County by providing that “[u]ses not specifically listed in the Table [] are prohibited.” Accordingly, we hold that the superior court did not err in affirming the County’s order that Petitioners cease and desist from operating a shooting range on the Property.

Judge Robert Hunter dissented from this opinion in part saying that he thought the Land case precedent on shooting ranges ruled in this case. It should be noted that Judge Hunter wrote the opinion in the Land case. He said the Land case "cited long-standing precedent in rejecting the notion that a zoning ordinance may prohibit uses not explicitly allowed."

Byrd and Coombs have now appealed this decision to the NC Supreme Court. On Friday, the Second Amendment Foundation filed an amicus brief on behalf on the plaintiffs. The SAF's amicus brief was submitted by Raleigh attorney Camden Webb of Williams Mullin.

The Second Amendment Foundation amicus brief notes that this case does not only involve a judicial interpretation of the county's UDO but "implicates an important Constitutional question." The Court of Appeals by saying that the UDO prohibits shooting ranges in Franklin County is allowing "the impermissable infringement of the Second Amendment rights of the people of Franklin County, North Carolina."

After discussing Heller, McDonald, and the appropriate level of scrutiny, the brief goes on to discuss the 7th Circuit's ruling in the Ezell case. There the court said the the City of Chicago's banning of all shooting ranges within the city limits was unconstitutional saying, in part, "the core right wouldn't mean much without the training and practice to make it effective." The brief argues that the 7th Circuit's reasoning should apply in this case. The brief further argues that the county did not establish a close fit between the banning of a range and the public good or interest that it serves. Given the county is primarily rural, they say the "complete prohibition of a shooting ranges in such a county simply cannot pass constitutional muster."

I'm glad the Second Amendment Foundation filed an amicus brief in this case. The precedent set by the Ezell case must be strongly defended and this brief does that. Alan Gottlieb noted that the SAF had to sue Chicago over this same issue.

For WNC Shooters

The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission announced a temporary closing of Wayne E. Smith Shooting Range in Haywood County. The temporary closing is for annual maintenance. The range is in the shadows of Cold Mountain (yes, THAT Cold Mountain). As it is the closest (free) public range, I've shot there a number of times.

From the WRC:

WAYNESVILLE, N.C. — The N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission will close the Wayne E. Smith Shooting Range on Cold Mountain Game Land in Haywood County April 13-17 for routine maintenance and repairs.

Commission staff closes the range for one week each spring to clean the grounds, shore the backstop, grade the shooting lanes, and then seed, fertilize and lime the lanes. Staff also will repair and grade the parking area and entrance road, as well as repair or replace shooting benches as needed. The range is scheduled to reopen on April 18.

The Wildlife Commission does not staff the Wayne E. Smith Shooting Range, but it is open to the public free of charge during daylight hours Monday through Saturday. No shooting is allowed on Sundays. Shooters are allowed to use pistols, rifles, shotguns and muzzleloaders on the range, which features five shooting lanes.

The range does not have an address, but it is located near Waynesville in Haywood County, about two miles past Lake Logan off of Hwy 215, when traveling from Hwy 276. GPS coordinates are: -82 56.385, 35 22.841.

For more information about public and private shooting ranges across North Carolina, see the Wildlife Commission's online interactive map. For more information about the Wayne E. Smith Shooting Range on Cold Mountain Game Land, contact Land Management Biologist David Stewart at 828-648-0008.

The only correction I might make to this is that the range, in my opinion, is closer to Canton than Waynesville.

NC Wildlife Resources Commission Is Doing Good Things About Ranges

Having a place to shoot is one of the critical items facing the gun culture. With increasing urban and suburban development, it is getting harder and harder to find a place to shoot. Many states' fish and game commissions are working to fill the void and the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission is no exception.

On the heels of rehabbing a closed shooting range in the Uwharrie National Forest and partnering with the NRA and county officials in Cleveland County on another, comes the announcement that they are seeking to open a new range in Burke County. This range will be in the Pisgah National Forest.

From their press release:

MARION, NC - The N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission will hold an informational meeting on June 19 to discuss constructing a shooting range on the Linville Tract of the Pisgah Game Land in Burke County.

The meeting, which is scheduled from 6:30-8:30 p.m., will be held in Rm. 104 at McDowell Technical Community College, located at 54 College Drive in Marion.

The proposed range will be located near the intersection of N.C. 126 and Wolf Pit Road, north of Lake James, in Burke County. It will include a 25-yard pistol range and a 100-yard rifle range.

The proposed range is part of an initiative by the Wildlife Commission to develop and enhance public shooting facilities across the state. The Commission recently partnered with the U.S. Forest Service to renovate and improve the Flintlock Valley Shooting Range in Uwharrie National Forest in Montgomery County.

If my numbers are correct, this would make the third fourth outdoor shooting range managed by the Wildlife Resources Commission.

Comment Of The Day

The comment of the day comes from Paul Erhardt, Editor, of the Outdoor Digital Wires Network. In a discussion about shooting ranges and the need for new and expanded ranges, Paul has this to say in his Between the Berms column:

Ranges are not simply places to shoot. They are the entertainment interface for firearms. Buying a gun is cool. But if all you do is sit around you house looking at it, drooling and bragging online about the shiny new super-blaster you bought, then you are just collecting guns...and dust.

Taking that gun to the range, shooting with others, even entering competitions, is where we fully exercise our Second Amendment rights. And not only do we exercise them to their fullest, we strengthen our rights.

Ranges are where we turn a new gun owner into a gun enthusiast of the highest order. The role of the range is therefore critical.

 I never thought of a shooting range as "the entertainment interface for firearms" but that is exactly what they are. I remember the first range I ever went to with my best friend in high school. It was little more than a clearing in a power easement with a 100 yard range. I don't remember if it even had any benches. But it was place to shoot and you could plink away to your heart's content. It is where I learned shooting could be fun.

NC Wildlife Resouces Commission Backs More Public Ranges

Gordon Myers, Executive Director of the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, testified last week before the U.S. House of Representatives’ Natural Resources Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans, and Insular Affairs. They were holding hearings on HR 3065 - the Target Practice and Marksmanship Training Support Act. Mr. Myers was testifying in favor of the bill on behalf of the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies.

From the release put out by the NCWRC:

H.R. 3065, named “Target Practice and Marksmanship Training Support Act,” promotes construction and maintenance of public shooting ranges. The bill was introduced in the House by Reps. Heath Shuler (D-N.C.) and Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) as a companion bill to a similar piece of legislation introduced in the Senate.

HR 3065 provides incentives for states to develop much-needed shooting ranges on federal and nonfederal lands by increasing the amount each state could spend of its Pittman-Robertson grant funds on shooting ranges. Because these funds are allocated to states on a formula basis, changing the reimbursement rate would not result in increased federal spending.

Further, this bill does not require a state to use the money on ranges. Instead, it provides incentives. All of these incentives would enhance the ability of states to build and maintain shooting ranges. Based on Fiscal Year 2011 apportionments, North Carolina would be eligible to allocate an additional $700K of its apportioned funds to build or upgrade shooting ranges in our state.

“It seems fitting that this legislation is being considered as wildlife agencies, industries, and conservation groups have come together this year to mark a hallmark partnership that has led to 75 years of quality hunting, shooting, and wildlife-related recreation,” Myers said. “The Pittman-Robertson Act is the cornerstone and the life blood of one of the most significant and successful partnership approaches to fish and wildlife conservation in our nation’s history.

“More and more governmental lands are being closed, and fewer and fewer outdoor ranges are being built. The effects of this pattern are amplified by increased urbanization. It is simply harder and harder to find a place to shoot.”

Myers explained the need to address emerging patterns that hinder successful implementation of this conservation model. The shortage of shooting ranges is detrimental to the future of recreational shooting. It is jeopardizing the ability to practice the safe handling of firearms, and it is diminishing opportunities to participate in our nation’s longstanding user-pay, public-benefit conservation model.

“In North Carolina, one of the principle impediments to shooting range development is the initial capital cost attributed to land acquisition, facility design and construction,” Myers said. “H.R. 3065 includes a combination of key incentives that significantly reduce these barriers.

“Shooting sports are a part of our heritage. Further, recreational shooting is growing in numbers. To accommodate this growth, as well as to ensure that hunters continue have places to shoot and practice firearms safety, and that ranges are available to train law enforcement and members of our military, we need to provide and maintain the infrastructure necessary to support these activities.”

Currently the Wildlife Resources Commission has only one range. This is located at the Cold Mountain Game Land in Haywood County. This is the same Cold Mountain featured in the book and movie of the same name. Given that the range is a 15-20 minute drive from my house I am one of the lucky ones. It is a nice range and it is free. The only downside is that you can't shoot on Sundays.

Hearings On Target Range Bill Today

The NSSF sent out an alert yesterday that the Senate Environmental and Public Works Subcommittee will hold hearings on S. 1249 - the Target Practice and Marksmanship Training Act of 2012 - which is sponsored by Sen. Mark Udall (D-CO).

The Senate Environment and Public Works subcommittee will hold a hearing tomorrow, Tuesday, April 24, at 10:15 a.m., on several bills important to sportsmen and sprotswomen, including NSSF's priority this legislative session--S. 1249, the Target Practice and Marksmanship Training Support Act. The bill, introduced by Senator Mark Udall (D-CO), would allow states to expand their use of Pittman-Robertson funds to develop or expand public target shooting facilities. Amending the restrictions on Pittman-Robertson funds for this purpose is long overdue. More public shooting ranges are needed throughout the country to accommodate the rapidly growing number of target shooters who contribute to P-R funding through purchases of firearms and ammunition. Learn more about this bill and write your senators to support it.

 You can read the full text of the bill here and read more about it here and here.

Text Of S. 1249 - Targert Practice And Marksmanship Training Support Act - Finally Released

The Target Practice and Marksmanship Training Support Act of 2011 was introduced by Sen. Mark Udall (D-CO) on June 22nd.

Former Rep. Betsy Markey (D-CO-4) introduced a very similar bill in the 111th Congress. That bill, H. 3781, never made it out of committee.

This bill has the support of the National Shooting Sports Foundation which is a bit change from earlier years. As Michael Bane said in a blog post, this is a recognition that Gun Culture v. 2.0 will be the future of the shooting sports. He also notes that our enemies know that if they can deprive us of a place to shoot, they can limit our growth.

This is HUGE! One of the baseline strategies of our enemies — perhaps the only one that has been working, BTW — has been to deprive us of places to shoot. A significant amount of revenue flowing into range development, coupled with pushing federal land management agencies to allow land for ranges (a big issue here in Colorado), is a very important start.

This is a good bill that deserves our support. Increasing places to shoot - especially free or low cost ones - is critical if we want to introduce new people to shooting. The days of shooting in your back yard are over in most places throughout the United States. While the bulk of open lands are in the western United States, there are quite a  number of National Forests east of the Mississippi. Moreover, the bill would allow support for public ranges on non-Federal land so state, county, and municipal lands could also be used for ranges.

The text of S. 1249 was finally released and can be seen below.

112th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. 1249

To amend the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act to facilitate the establishment of additional or expanded public target ranges in certain States.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

June 22, 2011

Mr. UDALL of Colorado (for himself, Mr. RISCH, Mr. TESTER, and Mr. BENNET) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works

A BILL

To amend the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act to facilitate the establishment of additional or expanded public target ranges in certain States.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Target Practice and Marksmanship Training Support Act'.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS; PURPOSE.

(a) Findings- Congress finds that--

(1) the use of firearms and archery equipment for target practice and marksmanship training activities on Federal land is allowed, except to the extent specific portions of that land have been closed to those activities;

(2) in recent years preceding the date of enactment of this Act, portions of Federal land have been closed to target practice and marksmanship training for many reasons;

(3) the availability of public target ranges on non-Federal land has been declining for a variety of reasons, including continued population growth and development near former ranges;

(4) providing opportunities for target practice and marksmanship training at public target ranges on Federal and non-Federal land can help--

(A) to promote enjoyment of shooting, recreational, and hunting activities; and

(B) to ensure safe and convenient locations for those activities;

(5) Federal law in effect on the date of enactment of this Act, including the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 669 et seq.), provides Federal support for construction and expansion of public target ranges by making available to States amounts that may be used for construction, operation, and maintenance of public target ranges; and

(6) it is in the public interest to provide increased Federal support to facilitate the construction or expansion of public target ranges.

(b) Purpose- The purpose of this Act is to facilitate the construction and expansion of public target ranges, including ranges on Federal land managed by the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management.

SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF PUBLIC TARGET RANGE.

In this Act, the term `public target range' means a specific location that--

(1) is identified by a governmental agency for recreational shooting;

(2) is open to the public;

(3) may be supervised; and

(4) may accommodate archery or rifle, pistol, or shotgun shooting.

SEC. 4. AMENDMENTS TO PITTMAN-ROBERTSON WILDLIFE RESTORATION ACT.

(a) Definitions- Section 2 of the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 669a) is amended--

(1) by redesignating paragraphs (2) through (8) as paragraphs (3) through (9), respectively; and

(2) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following:

`(2) the term `public target range' means a specific location that--

`(A) is identified by a governmental agency for recreational shooting;

`(B) is open to the public;

`(C) may be supervised; and

`(D) may accommodate archery or rifle, pistol, or shotgun shooting;'.

(b) Expenditures for Management of Wildlife Areas and Resources- Section 8(b) of the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 669g(b)) is amended--

(1) by striking `(b) Each State' and inserting the following:

`(b) Expenditures for Management of Wildlife Areas and Resources-

`(1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (2), each State';

(2) in paragraph (1) (as so designated), by striking `construction, operation,' and inserting `operation';

(3) in the second sentence, by striking `The non-Federal share' and inserting the following:

`(3) NON-FEDERAL SHARE- The non-Federal share';

(4) in the third sentence, by striking `The Secretary' and inserting the following:

`(4) REGULATIONS- The Secretary'; and

(5) by inserting after paragraph (1) (as designated by paragraph (1) of this subsection) the following:

`(2) EXCEPTION- Notwithstanding the limitation described in paragraph (1), a State may pay up to 90 percent of the cost of acquiring land for, expanding, or constructing a public target range.'.

(c) Firearm and Bow Hunter Education and Safety Program Grants- Section 10 of the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 669h-1) is amended--

(1) in subsection (a), by adding at the end the following:

`(3) ALLOCATION OF ADDITIONAL AMOUNTS- Of the amount apportioned to a State for any fiscal year under section 4(b), the State may elect to allocate not more than 10 percent, to be combined with the amount apportioned to the State under paragraph (1) for that fiscal year, for acquiring land for, expanding, or constructing a public target range.';

(2) by striking subsection (b) and inserting the following:

`(b) Cost Sharing-

`(1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (2), the Federal share of the cost of any activity carried out using a grant under this section shall not exceed 75 percent of the total cost of the activity.

`(2) PUBLIC TARGET RANGE CONSTRUCTION OR EXPANSION- The Federal share of the cost of acquiring land for, expanding, or constructing a public target range in a State on Federal or non-Federal land pursuant to this section or section 8(b) shall not exceed 90 percent of the cost of the activity.'; and

(3) in subsection (c)(1)--

(A) by striking `Amounts made' and inserting the following:

`(A) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in subparagraph (B), amounts made'; and

(B) by adding at the end the following:

`(B) EXCEPTION- Amounts provided for acquiring land for, constructing, or expanding a public target range shall remain available for expenditure and obligation during the 5-fiscal-year period beginning on October 1 of the first fiscal year for which the amounts are made available.'.

SEC. 5. LIMITS ON LIABILITY.

(a) Discretionary Function- For purposes of chapter 171 of title 28, United States Code (commonly referred to as the `Federal Tort Claims Act'), any action by an agent or employee of the United States to manage or allow the use of Federal land for purposes of target practice or marksmanship training by a member of the public shall be considered to be the exercise or performance of a discretionary function.

(b) Civil Action or Claims- Except to the extent provided in chapter 171 of title 28, United States Code, the United States shall not be subject to any civil action or claim for money damages for any injury to or loss of property, personal injury, or death caused by an activity occurring at a public target range that is--

(1) funded in whole or in part by the Federal Government pursuant to the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 669 et seq.); or

(2) located on Federal land.

SEC. 6. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING COOPERATION.

It is the sense of Congress that, consistent with applicable laws and regulations, the Chief of the Forest Service and the Director of the Bureau of Land Management should cooperate with State and local authorities and other entities to carry out waste removal and other activities on any Federal land used as a public target range to encourage continued use of that land for target practice or marksmanship training.

The Chicago Range Ordinance

I have embedded below the Chicago Range Ordinance that will be presented to the Chicago City Council this morning by Mayor Rahm Emanuel. It was passed unanimously -though grudgingly - by the Committee on Public Safety yesterday. Newspaper articles in both the Chicago Tribune and the Chicago Sun-Times have referred to portions of the ordinance and some of the restrictions. Rather than going by what a reporter on deadline says about the bill, I think it is better to have the entire ordinance out there for all to see in its original form.

The move to introduce, pass, and implement this ordinance is a rush job as the City of Chicago freely admits. Jeff Levine of the City of Chicago's Law Department had this to say:

But Levine said the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals could rule on the lawsuits at any time, making it important for the city to get its own firing range rules on the books. The city hopes the appellate judges will opt not to intervene if Chicago has a firing range law in place, Levine said.

As Sebastian noted last night, Alan Gura does not think this ordinance should moot Ezell v. Chicago.

Chicago Range Ordinance 07-11

Gun Ranges In The City Of Chicago

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel was true to his word that a bill would be introduced today to amend the Chicago Gun Law regarding shooting ranges. The item below is the only item on the agenda for the City Council's Committee on Public Safety this afternoon at 2pm CDT.

ORDINANCE

(DIRECT INTRODUCTION)

An ordinance amending Chapters 8-20 and 8-24 and related
provisions of the Municipal Code.

Translating these Municipal Code references, Chapter 8-20 deals with Weapons and Chapter 8-24 deals with Firearms and Other Weapons. Within Chapter 8-20 is Section 280 which prohibits "shooting galleries and target ranges" while Chapter 8-24 deals with discharging a firearm within the City of Chicago.

As I and others have noted, passage of such an amendment to the Municipal Code of the City of Chicago could moot the Second Amendment Foundation's case - Ezell v. Chicago -that challenges the prohibition on shooting ranges within the City of Chicago. An appeal of Judge Kendell's denial of a preliminary injunction is pending a decision by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. The appeal hearing was held in April and seemed quite favorable to those supporting gun rights and shooting ranges.

More On S. 1249 - Target Practice and Marksmanship Training Support Act

While the text to Senator Mark Udall's S. 1249 is still not available, I was able to find his release on the bill which gives a broad outline. All in all it looks like a good bill.

Here in western North Carolina we are surrounded by Federal lands with two National Forests, one National Park, and TVA maintained land. In many of the counties, the amount of Federally owned land reaches 90%. Even with all that Federal land, there is one public range maintained by the NC Wildlife Resources Commission and three (and maybe a fourth) maintained by the USFS in Nantahala National Forest. There are none that I can find in Pisgah National Forest which borders the largest city in western North Carolina - Asheville.

Posted: Wednesday, June 22, 2011

Today, Mark Udall re-introduced legislation to help states construct and maintain safe public shooting ranges. The bill, the Target Practice and Marksmanship Training Support Act, would help ensure that there are enough accessible ranges where hunters and marksmen can safely practice recreational shooting.

Under current law – the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act – an excise tax is collected on sporting equipment and ammunition, which states can use for activities such as wildlife restoration and hunter education programs. However, it has limited effectiveness in establishing and maintaining shooting ranges, which are declining in number. Udall’s Target Practice and Marksmanship Training Support Act, co-sponsored by Senators Jim Risch, Michael Bennet and Jon Tester, would amend the law to give states more flexibility to use existing funds to create and maintain shooting ranges.

“The number of places in our communities and on public lands where Colorado sportsmen and women can safely shoot and target practice has steadily dwindled,” Udall said. “This bill would give states more flexibility to use federal dollars – that have already been allocated to them – to create safe, new public places to shoot. It would be a triple win for sporting and conservation communities: states can create higher quality and safer shooting ranges, more Coloradans can take up the sport, and it would generate more money for future conservation and hunter education efforts.”

Udall’s bill would:
• Increase the amount of money states can contribute from their allotted Pittman-Robertson funds to 90 percent of the cost to improve or construct a public target range from the current limit of 75 percent. This would reduce local and state matching requirements from 25 percent to 10 percent.

• Allow the Pittman-Robertson funds allotted to a state to remain available and accrue for five fiscal years for use in acquiring land for, expanding, or constructing a public target range on federal or non-federal land. Under current law, states must use these funds within one year.

• Limit the legal liability exposure to the federal land management agencies regarding the management and use of federal land for target practice or marksmanship training.

• Encourage the federal land management agencies to cooperate with state and local authorities to maintain target ranges on federal land so as to encourage their continued use.

Range Protection Bill Passes NC State Senate

SB 560 - the Sport Shooting Range Protection Act - passed the North Carolina Senate yesterday by a 36-13 vote. According to Grass Roots NC, the rules were suspended which allowed a single vote for both the 2nd and 3rd readings of the bill. It now goes to the NC State House. More importantly, it was passed prior to the crossover deadline of June 9th which means the bill can still be considered for passage anytime between now and next year. It does not have to pass the House before the probable adjournment of this session in July.

The breakdown of the vote is below.

Ayes: Senator(s): Allran; Apodaca; Berger, D.; Berger, P.; Bingham; Blake; Brock; Brown; Brunstetter; Clary; Daniel; Davis; East; Forrester; Garrou; Goolsby; Gunn; Harrington; Hartsell; Hise; Hunt; Jackson; Jenkins; Kinnaird; Meredith; Newton; Pate; Preston; Rabon; Rouzer; Rucho; Soucek; Stevens; Tillman; Tucker; Walters

Noes: Senator(s): Atwater; Clodfelter; Dannelly; Graham; Jones; Mansfield; McKissick; Nesbitt; Purcell; Robinson; Stein; Vaughan; White

Exc. Absence: Senator(s): Blue

Those voting against the bill were all Democrats while the majority in favor was a mixture of both Democrats and Republicans.

The bill as passed was amended in committee to specify that to be considered in continuous operation the range had to relocate within the same county. If it moved to another county, it was now subject to the ordinances in effect when the property was purchases.

SECTION 1. G.S. 14‑409.46 is amended by adding two new subsections to read:

"(f) For the purposes of this Article, a sport shooting range that relocates to another location within the same county due to condemnation, rezoning, annexation, road construction, or development:
(1) Is still considered to be continuously in existence since beginning operation at its previous location; and
(2) Is not considered to have undergone a substantial change in use as the result of the location.
(g) A sport shooting range that is exempted from liability under this Article and that relocates to a new location in a different county shall comply with ordinances in effect at the new location as of the date property is purchased to establish the range at the new location."

Range protection is important. The days of shooting in your backyard so long as you lived outside the city limits are all but over in a lot of places. Even in rural areas in states with strong range protection laws, the establishment of a new range is not an easy task as seen in this story from Missouri. Attacking shooting ranges is a backdoor attack on the Second Amendment as the Ezell case in Chicago makes clear.

NC Senate Holds Hearings On Shooting Range Bill Tomorrow (Updated)

The NC Senate Judiciary II Committee will hold hearings tomorrow at 10am on SB 560 - Sport Shooting Range Protection. This bill would make the legal presumption that shooting ranges that relocated due to urban and residential encroachment is still considered to be in continuous use and is not considered to have undergone a substantial change in use.

This bill has already had a favorable report from the Senate Committee on State and Local Government.

To read the bill and see the impact of residential encroachment, go to this post.

If you are a North Carolina resident, I'd suggest contacting the members of the Judiciary II Committee to express your support for this bill.

North Carolina is urbanizing at a fast rate. The state was one of the fastest growing in population in the Southeast over the last 10 years according to census statistics. This will be putting more pressure on ranges located near towns and cities to possibly relocate. This bill would help protect those ranges and our shooting opportunities.

UPDATE: From GRNC on the hearings:

GRNC Range Protection Bill Advances

SB 560, "Sporting Shooting Range Protection," received its second committee hearing today, this time before the Senate Judiciary II Committee, and came within a hair of getting a favorable report, which would send it to the Senate floor. SB 560 is GRNC's bill for closing loopholes in the existing range protection law by offering "grandfather" protection against noise and environmental complaints for any range forced to relocate due to rezoning, annexation or development.

Bill sponsor Sen. Andrew Brock (R-Davie, Rowan, GRNC ****) did an outstanding job of presenting the bill; committee chairman Buck Newton (R-Nash, Wilson, GRNC ****) did an exemplary job of trying to move the bill despite a busy calendar; and Sen. Austin Allran (R-Catawba, GRNC ****) offered a prompt motion for favorable report.

Unfortunately, limited time and persistent questioning by anti-gun committee members Charley Dannelly (D-Mecklenburg, GRNC 0-star) and Floyd McKissick (D-Durham, GRNC *) forced Chairman Newton to defer a vote on the bill until Thursday.

SB 560 - Greater Protection For North Carolina Shooting Ranges

State Senator Andrew Brock introduced SB 560 on Tuesday in the North Carolina Senate. The bill says, in effect, that a range that moved from its present location to a new location due to annexation, road construction, zoning changes, etc. would still be considered in continuous operation.

*S560-v-1*
A BILL TO BE ENTITLED
AN ACT TO PROVIDE THAT A SPORT SHOOTING RANGE THAT RELOCATES DUE TO CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES IS STILL CONSIDERED TO BE CONTINUOUSLY IN EXISTENCE SINCE BEGINNING OPERATION AND NOT TO HAVE UNDERGONE A SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE IN USE.

The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts:
SECTION 1. G.S. 14-409.46 is amended by adding a new subsection to read:
"(f) For the purposes of this Article, a sport shooting range that relocates due to condemnation, rezoning, annexation, road construction, or development:
(1) Is still considered to be continuously in existence since beginning operation at its previous location; and
(2) Is not considered to have undergone a substantial change in use as the result of the location."
SECTION 2. This act is effective when it becomes law.

The importance of this bill is due to the protections granted in NCGS § 14‑409.46 - Sport shooting range protection. If a range was continuously operated from 1994 onwards without any substantial changes in the use of the range and was in compliance with any noise ordinances at the time the range began operation, then it cannot be sued over noise issues.

With the increasing population growth and increasing suburbanization of North Carolina, ranges that used to be far from residential location are suddenly finding themselves surrounded by housing subdivisions. This protection would be very useful if they do decide to move due to development.

That certainly is the case with the Asheville Rifle and Pistol Club south of Asheville near the French Broad River. There is a new housing development in the last 5 or so years that is just over the ridge from the 200-yard rifle range. See the picture below which is a screen capture from Google Maps. You have to wonder if the developer or the people buying the houses were aware that a rifle range was just over the ridge when they purchased either the land or the homes.