Illinois Governor Vetoes Three Pro-Rights Bills: Governor Blagojevich has vetoed bills that would have required the state police to destroy records of background checks for firearm purchases after 90 days, eliminated the waiting period for firearm trade-ins and blocked localities from enacting stricter restrictions on the transport of firearms than those in state law. http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-gun01.html --- Zell Miller on S 397: Commentary appears to be an op-ed piece initially published in the Boston Globe, explaining the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=18973 Another Good Commentary: http://www.lenconnect.com/articles/2005/07/31/news/news06.txt --- It's OK To Let Kids "Play" With Guns: Article casts the 2005 NSSA Junior World Skeet Shoot in a very favorable light. http://www.djournal.com/pages/story.asp?ID=198546&pub=1&div=Sports --- From Gun Week: Obscure Reg Threatens Forest Lands Shooting by Dave Workman Senior Editor Enforcement of an obscure federal forest regulation to close a traditional shooting area outside Boulder, CO, has opened a veritable Pandora's Box of alarm that this regulation could one day be used, under a "zero tolerance" scenario, to virtually shut down hunting and shooting on large tracts of national forest lands. Officials with the US Forest Service (USFS) offered assurances to Gun Week that such a situation could never happen, and at press time were researching the history of the questionable regulation, which prohibits shooting of any kind within 150 yards of a residence, building, campsite, developed recreation site or occupied area, or National Forest System road or adjacent body of water. However, critics are concerned that the language in the regulation could be so open to interpretation that anything is possible, if not now, perhaps in the future. One Colorado resident has contacted the office of US Sen. Wayne Allard (R-CO). Gun Week spoke with Allard's office and learned that the senator's staff is digging into the situation. The problem surfaced when Colorado resident Michael Bane, host and co-producer of the program Shooting Gallery, and producer of Cowboys and American Rifleman TV on the Outdoor Channel, discovered that an informal shooting area near his home outside Boulder had been posted by the Forest Service as closed to shooting. That area, said Bane, is located just off a county road. It has historically been used for casual target shooting. Boulder District Ranger Christine Walsh told Gun Week that there is a subdivision near the shooting site, and that the district had received "a number of complaints from people in the subdivision." "We went up and measured where this area was (in relation to the road)," she said. That measurement turned out to be critical because the shooting area is directly off the right-of-way of a county road. Because of that, shooters using the site ran headlong into the federal regulation, 36 CFR 261.10(d), which reads: "Discharging a firearm or any other implement capable of taking human life, causing injury, or damaging property (is prohibited) as follows: "1. In or within 150 yards of a residence, building, campsite, developed recreation site or occupied area, or "2. Across or on a National Forest System road or a body of water adjacent thereto, or in any manner or place whereby any person or property is exposed to injury or damage as a result in such discharge. "3. Into or within any cave." USFS, said Walsh and other officials, defines a road as an "occupied area." That alarms critics, who are also concerned that the term "campsite" is not well defined. Especially in the West, during the hunting seasons, one can find impromptu campsites all over national forests. Susan Recce with the National Rifle Association (NRA) told Gun Week that the way the regulation is currently written, it could open the door to "mischief." A few years ago in Arizona, a similar situation developed when the Tucson Rod and Gun Club ran into trouble with its shooting area on Coronado National Forest. Recce and NRA Director Todd Rathner, a Tucson resident, indicated that this matter still has not been resolved. Another NRA director, Don Saba, also of Tucson, told Gun Week that the club is now looking for another range site. Information on that search is available at: www.trgc.org. In a letter to Allard, Bane asserted that the district ranger "has taken it upon herself to close all the shooting areas within her jurisdiction, which at this point represents every available/accessible shooting range on USFS land in Boulder County." Bane also contended that Walsh is "playing fast and loose" with USFS rules and regulations. Walsh denied that, insisting that only one area has been closed to shooting. "The entire rest of the district is still open to shooting," Walsh said. "The shooting public wants to be safe." John Bustos, public affairs officer for the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests, also assured Gun Week that the bulk of national forest land in the region remains open to recreational shooting. "Shooting is a legitimate use on national forest land," Bustos said. "And that's with a caveat that we need to protect public safety." Roadless Areas Only? This restriction--which has gone virtually unnoticed for years; 36 CFR 261.10 was created in 1977 during the Carter Administration--alarms Dave Gill, vice president of the Colorado Sport Shooting Association (CSSA). Until the Boulder closure, he was not aware the regulation existed. "Are we only supposed to have shooting areas in roadless areas," Gill wondered. "I had not been aware of (the regulation) until . . . I heard that it had been used as the grounds for closing some shooting area. If the road provides access to a shooting area, how on earth do you get to the shooting area?" As far back as 1994, it appears the USFS saw a problem with the regulation. A proposal to amend it, or at least clarify its meaning, was published in the Federal Register on Feb. 16, 1994. The proposed rule change was explained thusly: "Paragraph (d) would be revised to remove the prohibition against the discharge of a firearm across or on a Forest development road unless 'any person or property is exposed to injury or damage.' "The blanket prohibition against any discharge has created a significant problem in several Forest Service regions as a 'Forest development road' includes closed roads, traffic service level 'D' roads, and other similar roads that have little or no vehicular use. Because of the limited traffic, hunting along these roads is not considered to be a safety problem. The proposed revision would add a prohibition against the discharge of a firearm from a vehicle and then make clear that the current prohibition against discharging a firearm 'in any manner or place whereby any person or property is exposed to injury or damage as a result of such discharge or use,' applies to any location in the National Forest System." There was no indication in the Federal Register or in the current structure of the regulation that the rule change had been adopted. USFS spokesman Joe Walsh in Washington, DC, told Gun Week that he is researching this proposed change to find out what became of it. He noted that this proposal might address many of the concerns raised about the regulation. Washington Forest Widespread, strict enforcement of the rule would not only create problems for Colorado shooters. Gun Week was told by a staffer in Washington state's Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest that if this regulation were strictly enforced, "It would be very difficult to comply with the CFR" anywhere west of the Cascade Mountain range, which splits the Evergreen State roughly in half. The reason for that is because the national forest has such a network of roads that in many cases, it is virtually impossible to get beyond 150 yards from a road, unless one hikes into a roadless or wilderness area. Defining a road as an "occupied area" apparently dates back to the 1990s with a verbal decision made by an unidentified federal magistrate, the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie staffer told Gun Week. However, he admitted, "we don't have any written documentation of that." He said, though, that if at some point the USFS adopted a "zero tolerance" policy and enforced the regulation as written, "A person would have to load up their gear, hike up a closed road or trail (to shoot). It could be done but it would be difficult." Ann Melle, USFS deputy director of law enforcement, reluctantly acknowledged that under the right scenario, "of course it (a full shooting prohibition) could happen." However, she insisted, "My experience with that is that (a local ranger or enforcement officer) would make an assessment if what (a) person was doing is unsafe. That's when that regulation is applied. I would encourage your readers not to panic. . . ." Melle stressed that she knows of no plan to enact widespread closures of federal forest land to shooting or hunting, using this regulation as the reason. Acknowledging the obvious impact such enforcement would have on disabled hunters and recreational shooters, she said that field enforcement officers are encouraged to approach shooters and hunters with common sense. The emphasis, she explained, is to educate the public that "anybody who carries a weapon and discharges (that) weapon is responsible for doing it in a safe manner." "What we ask our people to do," Melle said, "is obviously use your discretion, maybe give 'em a verbal or written warning and acquaint them with the regulation; Remember the intent and educate people. . . . There's an obvious intent of this regulation. Deal with the situation you have." Safety Concerns The regulation was written out of concern for public safety, she said. While she could not say who decided to set the shooting distance at 150 yards, Melle said, "This is the number we came up with and how we're applying it on national forest lands." During fall hunting seasons, the rule may not be enforced strictly, though various state fish and game agencies have similar restrictions, but they only appear to apply to the road right-of-way. Once a person is off the right-of-way, state regulations generally allow them to fire a gun. In Washington, for example, "Discharging a firearm from, across, or along the maintained portion of any public highway, regardless of surface, is prohibited, except for hunters with disabilities." Washington game regulations define a public highway as "any road, regardless of surface, maintained by public funds." In Montana, where a source with the Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks told Gun Week she was unaware of the federal restriction, the state law says people "Cannot shoot on, from or across any public highway or the shoulder berm, barrow pit, or right-of-way of any public highway" that is open to vehicle travel. The "barrow pit" in this case might constitute the ditch alongside the road, and some roads do not have formal berms. In Colorado, "Hunting with rifles, handguns or shotguns firing a single slug, or archery equipment is prohibited within an area fifty (50) feet on each side of the center line of any state highway or municipal or county road as designated by the county. In the case of a divided road or highway this shall include the entire median area and the fifty (50) feet shall be measured from the center line of both roads." It is incumbent on hunters to know their own state's regulation regarding discharge of firearms along public roads, including forest roads. However, another part of the regulation causing some alarm is the section that prohibits shooting "on a National Forest System road or a body of water adjacent thereto. . . ." Angela de Rocha, communications director for Allard, wondered, "How could you hunt ducks?" Yet another person concerned about the regulation, and unaware of its existence until he was contacted by Gun Week, is Robert Funkhouser, head of the Western Slope No-Fee Coalition, an activist group battling public lands use fees. His immediate concern is that enforcement of this regulation provides the bureaucracy another avenue to limit or discourage public use of public lands. Allard Letter In his message to Allard, Bane complained that the Boulder-area shooting site was posted in early June. "I've been shooting on that range for more than six years," Bane wrote, "and I sought permission of both local law enforcement and the forest rangers before doing so, even though the area was widely used for recreational shooting. "The range area. . . has been a shooting range for at least three decades (according to local police)," he continued. "To the best of my knowledge . . . there have been no complaints nor any accidents or problems with the range. I have extensive experience with firearms and range safety, and in my time on the range I never observed a shooter behaving in an unsafe manner." CSSA's Gill is equally furious. "We've heard from a number of our members who are upset that traditional areas where they have been enjoying recreational shooting for years have been closed and closed without discussion. We don't have sufficient public ranges, we don't have sufficient private ranges. We need to have places to shoot. "Our government," he added, "has been diligent in collecting fees and taxes from us and they have not been anywhere near as diligent in providing for our needs. We seem to be someone to suck the blood out of and not provide services for. We are not happy, we are a discriminated against minority." Gill also said sportsmen in Colorado are just as likely to run afoul of the 150-yard restriction as are hunters and shooters in Washington and other states. What's more, he's not convinced that it is fair to consider some USFS roads as legitimate roads. "Out here," he observed, "the forest service roads are not passable by anything but a four-wheel-drive vehicle." He also noted, "You could be within 150 yards of a Forest Service road and not even know it's there." Of greater concern to Tucson, AZ, attorney and gun rights activist David Hardy, who operates a pro-gun website called ArmsAndTheLaw.com, are the terms "campsite" and "occupied area." "Those two things sort of jump out at me," he said. "It is not clear whether your own campsite is included (in the definition). And what is an occupied area? Is it one person standing there, or three people in a group?" Hardy said if the regulation is enforced strictly, it would be bad news for disabled hunters and shooters. "That would effectively stop him from shooting or hunting on national forest land," Hardy said. He said USFS "ought to tighten (the language) up quite a bit." Planned Closure? Despite the assurances of Melle at USFS, both Gill and Bane are convinced the agency has more on its agenda than just protecting public safety through enforcement of the regulation. "I suspect this has been in the works internally for a long time," Gill said. Added Bane: "I think that's the intent; you can do a 'test run' in the Front Range (the east slope of the Rockies in Colorado) and then you can kind of see if it works." In his letter to Allard, Bane asserted, "There has been intense lobbying by mountain biking groups to shut down shooting in the area. However, Boulder Country is honeycombed by mountain biking, horse riding and hiking trails, and the recreational shooting areas are relatively few and far between. The national forests are clearly designated 'mixed use,' and recreational shooting is an accepted use. "The closings," Bane said, "were made without solicitation of public comment, without seeking counsel of professional shooters or range administrators who are experts on safety issues, or without making any effort to accommodate shooters in another area. One of the shooting areas in Left Hand Canyon was completely given over to motorized off-road vehicles, so preservation of wild areas is hardly a motive. USFS has made every effort to accommodate hikers, bikers, equestrian users, disabled sportsmen, kayakers--everyone but shooters. "It is my professional opinion," Bane stated, "that this is a concerted anti-gun initiative, and it is working extremely well!" Melle urged hunters and shooters to approach their local ranger districts in an effort to seek common ground and accommodation, rather than declare open political war. She noted that USFS has a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the NRA, and that the agency, which is part of the Department of Agriculture, is eager to work with the firearms community. There are actually two MOUs, one relating to hunting on public land and the other addressing recreational shooting. Some years ago, late in the Clinton Administration, a "roundtable" group with representation from USSF, NRA, Interior Department, Bureau of Land Management, Isaac Walton League and the shooting industry was created to address such concerns. One catalyst for this was the closure of a shooting area on national forest land in Arizona traditionally used by the Tucson Rod & Gun Club. NRA's Recce told Gun Week that the effort had a good start, but things have gradually deteriorated. A lot of that has to do with people changing positions or moving on to other assignments, she said. "We had some success in solving the problems," she recalled. "That worked well for a few years but then the wheels started coming off the round table. I don't think you had the importance put on it by agency directors." She is currently working to combine the hunting and recreational shooting MOUs, but admitted it will take time. Meanwhile, USSF's Melle encourages shooters and hunters to not become alarmed. " Rather than fire off a Second Amendment letter to your congressman," Melle suggested, "here's what you can constructively do in your area." Using the shooting sports roundtable as an example, she suggested that shooters and hunters should work at the local level within various ranger districts to deal with shooting sports issues. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This article is provided free by GunWeek.com. For more great gun news, subscribe to our print edition. -- Stephen P. Wenger Firearm safety - It's a matter for education, not legislation. http://www.spw-duf.info .