PDA

View Full Version : Puerto Rico trying to limit shooting at ranges


Trojans
10-13-2010, 8:04 AM
http://volokh.com/2010/10/12/puerto-rico-law-limiting-use-of-shooting-ranges/

An official with Puerto Rico’s Justice Department has announced that the Department will propose changes in the island’s firearms laws, to bring them into line with Heller and McDonald. However, two of the proposed changes appear to be unconstitutional:

Torres said the measures will include a requirement that shooting ranges keep logs of how much ammunition their members use and cap the number of bullets each client can fire in target practice at 500 per year....

The House legislation under analysis would require gun clubs to maintain logs that include information relative to the quantity and caliber of the ammunition that shooters use onsite. It would revoke licenses from any such business that does not comply with the legislation....

The measure will also limit the quantity of weapons that a person can possess to take to a gun club.

The round-by-round registration requirement would be enormously burdensome to shooting ranges, and beyond the practical ability of many clubs to implement. The ban on target practice (beyond 500 rounds per year) is contrary to public safety; firearms owners should be encouraged to practice with their firearms, so that they will be more skilled in using them for self-defense, hunting, or any lawful purpose. While courses to achieve basic competence may only involve firing a few dozen rounds, more advanced courses, which might take several days, can easily exceed 500 rounds per person. Moreover, going the range on one’s own once a month, and firing, say 100 rounds at each practice session, is a good way to improve one’s abilities.

The First Amendment equivalent would be a limit on hour many hours a year a person could spend reading at a private library.

A similar issue is being litigated in Chicago, where a new law mandates that gun owners have safety training, including range time, but prohibits the operation of shooting ranges within the city–even though indoor ranges are well-established and safe throughought the rest of the nation, including in New York City.

yellowfin
10-13-2010, 8:07 AM
Exactly what would they hope to gain by limiting number of rounds shot?

J-cat
10-13-2010, 8:17 AM
To prove once again their skulls contain zero brains.

NiteQwill
10-13-2010, 8:21 AM
A round limit per year? What kind of retards would even think of such a scheme?

OleCuss
10-13-2010, 8:40 AM
A round limit per year? What kind of retards would even think of such a scheme?

You have to protect the environment! All that lead is poisoning Mother Earth.

Also, if you can only fire 500 rounds per year you only need a few visits per year - and only a few ranges. Owning one of those ranges will be quite lucrative and you can bet that the permits for those ranges will make a few politicians rich.

Also, consider that if you wanted to make 10 visits to the range throughout the year you'll only fire a total of 50 rounds per visit and that means that you'll be in and out of the range relatively quickly and it is likely that the range can handle more customers per day - with correspondingly higher numbers of fees paid.

Yup, the few range owners will do very nicely and it wouldn't surprise me if current or prospective range owners have pressed for this kind of law. Even more likely if they are going to require memberships in order to use a range.

Stonewalker
10-13-2010, 8:56 AM
Wow. I need to read up on Puerto Rico's history and the US' involvement. I still don't really understand our relationship. Clearly that stuff is unconstitutional. Do they have their own legislature? Do they function like a state?

Colt-45
10-13-2010, 8:59 AM
OMFG.......

:rolleyes:

Sounds like they need a visit from the man:gura: himself.

tiki
10-13-2010, 9:03 AM
They aren't trying to make it more profitable, they are trying to make it less fun. By making it a hassle to shoot and by limiting the amount of shooting that can be done, they get rid of the enthusiasts. You know, those crazy people that love the hobby and do crazy things like shoot more than 500 rounds a year, form rights groups, write letters, show up at court hearings and donate money to organizations that fight for their rights.

Tom Slick
10-13-2010, 9:10 AM
Wow. I need to read up on Puerto Rico's history and the US' involvement. I still don't really understand our relationship. Clearly that stuff is unconstitutional. Do they have their own legislature? Do they function like a state?

They are basically their own country but get to pick and choose benefits from the US.

robcoe
10-13-2010, 9:53 AM
Exactly what would they hope to gain by limiting number of rounds shot?

more innocent bystanders killed because people dont have enough practice(seriously I shoot 500 rounds in ONE range trip), then a few stray bullets later they start passing new laws restricting guns because obviously the public is not competent with weapons.

N6ATF
10-13-2010, 9:55 AM
:iamwithstupid:

nicki
10-13-2010, 10:31 AM
Unlike Ca, they are a Federal territory like DC except they don't have to file Income tax on April fools day.

Guess Alan Gura will have to brush up on his spanish and take a carribean vacation.

The Puerto Ricans who thought of this lame idea probably got the idea from Mexico since Mexico limits the amount of ammo a person can buy for those who actually are one of the few who legally own arms.

Legal ownership of arms is restricted in most countries in the carribean.

Nicki

dantodd
10-13-2010, 10:49 AM
They aren't trying to make it more profitable, they are trying to make it less fun. By making it a hassle to shoot and by limiting the amount of shooting that can be done, they get rid of the enthusiasts.

^^^^^ THIS ^^^^^

Kill the gun culture and you kill gun ownership and proficiency.

gun toting monkeyboy
10-13-2010, 11:51 AM
As far as I know, the BOR still applies there. They are going to have to beat the snot out of their political hacks in Federal court. I am sure they have people there who are as pissed about this idea as we would be if they tried it here. At this point, the best thing we can do for them it to win our cases and continue fighting the antis here. Our victories in Federal courts can then be used as ammunition by our fellow gun owners there, correct? So keep supporting CGF, SAF, and anybody else that is working on these cases.

-Mb

OleCuss
10-13-2010, 11:57 AM
I'm kinda curious. . .

Heller incorporated the 2nd Amendment against D.C. and McDonald did the same for the states. Is the 2nd Amendment incorporated against Puerto Rico and the territories?

dantodd
10-13-2010, 12:15 PM
I'm kinda curious. . .

Heller incorporated the 2nd Amendment against D.C. and McDonald did the same for the states. Is the 2nd Amendment incorporated against Puerto Rico and the territories?

PR and the territories are directly controlled by the feds so they didn't need to be incorporated by McDonald they were covered completely by Heller.

Aldemar
10-13-2010, 12:19 PM
How are they supposed to verify the number of rounds you bring in?

Oh, that other bag? That's my lunch. :D

Maltese Falcon
10-13-2010, 12:28 PM
PR and the territories are directly controlled by the feds so they didn't need to be incorporated by McDonald they were covered completely by Heller.

Looks like the Constitution is NOT FULLY the law of the land there...Maybe a gray area. An incorporated territory of the United States is a specific area under the jurisdiction of the United States, over which the United States Congress has determined that the United States Constitution is to be applied to the territory's local government and inhabitants in its entirety (e.g., citizenship, trial by jury), in the same manner as it applies to the local governments and residents of the U.S. states. Incorporated territories are considered an integral part of the United States, as opposed to being merely possessions.[1] All territory under the control of the federal government is considered part of the "United States" for purposes of law.[2] From 1901 to 1905, the U.S. Supreme Court in a series of opinions known as the Insular Cases held that the Constitution extended ex proprio vigore to the territories. However, the Court in these cases also established the doctrine of territorial incorporation. Under the same, the Constitution only applied fully in incorporated territories such as Alaska and Hawaii, whereas it only applied partially in the new unincorporated territories of Puerto Rico, Guam and the Philippines.[3][4] In the contemporary sense, the term "unincorporated territory" refers primarily to insular areas. There is currently only one incorporated territory, Palmyra Atoll, which is not an organized territory. Conversely, a territory can be organized without being an incorporated territory, a contemporary example being Puerto Rico. .

gunn
10-13-2010, 12:57 PM
Looks like the Constitution is NOT FULLY the law of the land there...Maybe a gray area.

An incorporated territory of the United States is a specific area under the jurisdiction of the United States, over which the United States Congress has determined that the United States Constitution is to be applied to the territory's local government and inhabitants in its entirety (e.g., citizenship, trial by jury), in the same manner as it applies to the local governments and residents of the U.S. states. Incorporated territories are considered an integral part of the United States, as opposed to being merely possessions.[1] All territory under the control of the federal government is considered part of the "United States" for purposes of law.[2] From 1901 to 1905, the U.S. Supreme Court in a series of opinions known as the Insular Cases held that the Constitution extended ex proprio vigore to the territories. However, the Court in these cases also established the doctrine of territorial incorporation. Under the same, the Constitution only applied fully in incorporated territories such as Alaska and Hawaii, whereas it only applied partially in the new unincorporated territories of Puerto Rico, Guam and the Philippines.[3][4] In the contemporary sense, the term "unincorporated territory" refers primarily to insular areas. There is currently only one incorporated territory, Palmyra Atoll, which is not an organized territory. Conversely, a territory can be organized without being an incorporated territory, a contemporary example being Puerto Rico.


So if a draconian law applies to Puerto Rico, and they are their own country, why should we care (more than just with sympathy)?

Does any precendent set in PR affect how the laws are interepeted in the 50 states? If not, our team should be concentrating on US firearms lawsuits. God knows there are enough of them.

-g

OleCuss
10-13-2010, 1:51 PM
So if a draconian law applies to Puerto Rico, and they are their own country, why should we care (more than just with sympathy)?

Does any precendent set in PR affect how the laws are interepeted in the 50 states? If not, our team should be concentrating on US firearms lawsuits. God knows there are enough of them.

-g

Freedom inspires freedom. If we further liberty throughout the 50 states eventually the people of Puerto Rico will at least consider liberty for themselves.

stix213
10-13-2010, 1:52 PM
500 rounds sounds like 1 good day, not a year's worth

SKSer
10-13-2010, 1:59 PM
you dont see the logic in this... come on guys....its the same reason why we shouldnt have barrel shrouds...duh. Im also going to talk to them about Pistol grips, we wouldnt want anyone shooting rapid fire from the waist now.

ke6guj
10-13-2010, 2:02 PM
So if a draconian law applies to Puerto Rico, and they are their own country, why should we care (more than just with sympathy)?

Does any precendent set in PR affect how the laws are interepeted in the 50 states? If not, our team should be concentrating on US firearms lawsuits. God knows there are enough of them.

-g

but Puerto Rico isn't its own country, it is a territory of the US. Its laws are controlled by the US Constitution. Its court system is part of the US federal court system.

OleCuss
10-13-2010, 2:19 PM
but Puerto Rico isn't its own country, it is a territory of the US. Its laws are controlled by the US Constitution. Its court system is part of the US federal court system.

Do remember, however, that the states did not have to abide by the 2nd Amendment until SCOTUS incorporated it against them by virtue of the 14th Amendment in the McDonald decision. If Heller and/or McDonald did not incorporate the 2nd Amendment against Puerto Rico then Puerto Rican government is not required to follow that although the Federal government would still be required to follow the 2nd Amendment in Puerto Rico to the extent that it mattered.

And yes, I know that you know all that.

Wherryj
10-13-2010, 2:20 PM
A round limit per year? What kind of retards would even think of such a scheme?

I'll bet that Mayor Daley is kicking himself for not having thought about this first...

packnrat
10-13-2010, 2:57 PM
seeing as how puerto rico is NOT part of the United States of America. it is a third word country hanging on to our fed welfare tax dollars. they can do what they want in there country
and the people of that island have spoken a number of times to NOT be the 51 state of the United States.

dantodd
10-13-2010, 3:14 PM
seeing as how puerto rico is NOT part of the United States of America. it is a third word country hanging on to our fed welfare tax dollars. they can do what they want in there country
and the people of that island have spoken a number of times to NOT be the 51 state of the United States.

WTH is this diatribe?

Colt
10-13-2010, 3:37 PM
you dont see the logic in this... come on guys....its the same reason why we shouldnt have barrel shrouds...duh.

I've heard of barrel shroud - it's a shoulder thing that goes up...

bigstick61
10-13-2010, 5:38 PM
Seems like the territories/colonies/commonwealths/etc. are always the forgotten places as far as gun rights and other issues are concerned. It's too bad.

Jared1981
10-13-2010, 8:20 PM
All fundamental rights apply to ALL territories. The Bill of Rights applies in Guam, Puerto Rico, Northern Marinas Islands and everywhere else.

Puerto Rico is in the 1st circuit, U.S. Virgin Islands is in the 3rd circuit, and all the pacific territories are in the 9th circuit.

Torres v Puerto Rico 1979 Supreme Court was one of many cases that dealt with this. This case in particular dealt with the 4th Amendment.

CCWFacts
10-13-2010, 9:11 PM
Exactly what would they hope to gain by limiting number of rounds shot?

The answer is obvious when you think from their perspective: they want the shooting culture to die out. If people can't go the range more than a few times a year, that's a step in the right (for them) direction. Once shooting culture and tradition dies out, the gun banners win.

NiteQwill
10-13-2010, 9:34 PM
seeing as how puerto rico is NOT part of the United States of America. it is a third word country hanging on to our fed welfare tax dollars. they can do what they want in there country
and the people of that island have spoken a number of times to NOT be the 51 state of the United States.

WTH?

Have you been to Puerto Rico? It is FAAAAAAAR from a 3rd world country.