PDA

View Full Version : Laws Relating to Targets


Vic
08-17-2008, 2:01 PM
Is there any links to laws relating to what is allowed on a target? (target practice type of targets)

Thank You!

mister dize
08-17-2008, 2:08 PM
My completely uneducated guess is that there are no laws pertaining to what can be drawn on a piece of paper that you're going to perforate with bullet holes.

I have been to ranges that don't allow silhouettes, and I have been to ranges that will sell you the "bad guy with a revolver holding a woman hostage" target.

hoffmang
08-17-2008, 2:13 PM
There are not laws about targets in California. I believe that there are limits on targets in Massachusetts though, so its not unheard of.

-Gene

Synergy
08-17-2008, 2:13 PM
Some PC ranges wont allow "person" targets such as a picture of Osama or Hillary. Private property, their range, their rules. Out in the woods or desert shoot what you want.

aileron
08-17-2008, 3:18 PM
If you stick something on your target that goes BOOM! when you shoot it. Probably illegal. ;)

Mssr. Eleganté
08-17-2008, 3:39 PM
I know that koala anus targets are legal in this State, but that doesn't make them any less disturbing.

cough, mj1, cough :p

Riodog
08-17-2008, 4:22 PM
I know that koala anus targets are legal in this State, but that doesn't make them any less disturbing.

cough, mj1, cough :p

Waddyahave against Koala anus'. Cute and fuzzy is all I can see.:D
Rio

Paladin
08-17-2008, 7:40 PM
I have been to ranges that don't allow silhouettes . . .

I was thinking about this a few weeks ago.

Heller says that our 2nd A individual RKBA is based upon the ancient right to self-defense.

Yet shooting ranges -- which depend upon an individual RKBA to stay in business -- ban the very targets most suitable for self-defense training.

"Illogical! Illogical! Does not compute."

Maybe we should try to persuade some ranges to change their policies, or start boycotting them for preventing us from practicing for self-defense, the core of our 2nd A RKBA.

nobs11
08-17-2008, 8:26 PM
Maybe we should try to persuade some ranges to change their policies, or start boycotting them for preventing us from practicing for self-defense, the core of our 2nd A RKBA.

You are fighting the wrong people. Many ranges in this state are struggling and do not need negative publicity. A fire starts somewhere in the forest and everyone starts blaming the range without checking the facts. If you talk to the board members of most ranges, they are hardcore 2A supporters but they also have to be mindful of how the non gun owning public perceives them. All you will do if you boycott a range run by pro-2A people is drive them out of business hastening the demise of your 2A rights.

chris
08-17-2008, 8:45 PM
I know that koala anus targets are legal in this State, but that doesn't make them any less disturbing.

cough, mj1, cough :p

ok where did you get that target. do you have picture you could link that would be funny to see.

1911su16b870
08-17-2008, 8:50 PM
Tin Foil Hat comment. :TFH: I would not be publicly shooting any targets of politicos or ex-significant others, bosses etc. :TFH:

ZombieKiller
08-17-2008, 8:59 PM
"bad guy with a revolver holding a woman hostage" target.

Tactical Encounter #3 !!!!

My favorite!!!!

And yes.....I always shoot the lady first.

hoffmang
08-17-2008, 11:32 PM
Many ranges are protecting our rights. Not having human silhouettes means there are no evening news b-rolls to scare the plebes... I don't like that little political issue, but I understand it.

-Gene

Paladin
08-17-2008, 11:40 PM
I can regularly get to shoot B27s if I want to. I'm thinking of others here who might not be as privileged.

I never heard of a range catching significant flak for using them. If someone has a link to a news article providing support for that position, I'd appreciate it.

Otherwise, I think their prohibition may be out of blind fear of the public, rather than based upon facts. Or, they may be cowering to the local CLEOs who don't want mere serfs to be able to train as effectively as the "knights of the realm." (They often speak out against serfs owning the modern equivalent of crossbows (AWs) too. "The more things change, the more they stay the same.")

Meplat
08-18-2008, 4:37 PM
He said it was disturbing, let's just cut our losses on this one.


ok where did you get that target. do you have picture you could link that would be funny to see.

LOW2000
08-18-2008, 6:37 PM
The USSS (note Arfcom usage of SSS), are not to be ****ed with.

From http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa040398.htm :



What Constitutes a "Threat?"

According to this law -- 18 USC Sec. 871 -- which reads, in part:

"...Whoever knowingly and willfully deposits for conveyance in the mail or for a delivery from any post office or by any letter carrier any letter, paper, writing, print, missive, or document containing any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States, the President-elect, the Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President of the United States, or the Vice President-elect, or knowingly and willfully otherwise makes any such threat against the President, President-elect, Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President, or Vice President-elect, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both."

That covers a lot of deeds and statements. It gives the Secret Service a lot of latitude when conducting an investigation. There is a very good reason for this. Few jobs are more dangerous than President of the United States.



Threat or Criticism
Where is the line drawn? When does a critical remark become a threat? On one extreme is the off-hand comment, the letter to a friend, the email to a co-worker, or message posted in a newsgroup. On the other, the twisted psychotic plot. Clearly, the circumstances of delivery make a great deal of difference. A "letter to the editor", or speech intelligently attacking the President's every action and policy is our right and should never be construed as a physical threat. Screaming obscenities in the President's face, sending threatening mail to the White House, or publicly stating a desire to see the President harmed are not only acts of shameful disrespect, they should always be considered threats under the law.

leitung
08-18-2008, 7:15 PM
I believe for LEO training you cannot use black targets anymore.. other than that... I know nothing..

yellowfin
08-18-2008, 7:56 PM
Numerous CCW issuance policies make common citizens into targets.

Shotgun Man
08-18-2008, 8:17 PM
I believe for LEO training you cannot use black targets anymore.. other than that... I know nothing..

"Black targets" what does that mean? Do you mean you cannot have a character target of a black person?

c good
08-18-2008, 8:26 PM
LEO targets are no longer allowed to have features distinctive to any particular ethnic group. ie. Fros type of hair. Yes, they used to exist. Just generic featured targets, read: (Caucasian) are now allowed. It won't be long until they have to be characters out of South Park....The Cartoon..not neighborhood:D I hate P.C. Bologna! c good