PDA

View Full Version : Only bullseye targets allowed - against 1a / 2a?


Funtimes
06-29-2011, 9:00 PM
What do you guys think:

Would a government owned shooting range, open to the public, but banning targets that are not bullseye (no terrorist, zombie, animal, or human shaped targets authorized) be a violation of the 1A or 2A? They allow police and government agencies to shoot at them, and also IPSC / IDPA etc., but the general public can not shoot. I'm wondering how far the right to train and educate goes into a public shooting area, as well as equal treatment. The previous reasoning is that they don't want people shooting at human like targets because of violence.

-- There are not options to go to 'other' ranges. There is one, and only one, range available for non-profits to instruct at.
-- This range is operated by the City and County of Honolulu
-- Here is a crazy thought: What if gun ranges were allowed, but all the things you could shoot at were prohibited? I wonder if that could be some shady sidestep that could be pulled on us.

ZombieTactics
06-29-2011, 9:05 PM
I can't see how.

Paul S
06-29-2011, 9:11 PM
Their range...their rules....I shoot at a range which does not allow targets which have been made at home on your computer. Bring your own regular targets or buy theirs.

What targets are allowed at the range do not seem to me to be a First Amendment issue...nor have anything to do with the Second Amendment.

My opinion plus $1.75 gets you a cup of coffee at Denney's. :cool:

Funtimes
06-29-2011, 9:26 PM
added some different information that might ellicit different answers; is that a public range paul? One operated by your city and county government?

I would consider shooting pictures of terrorists, or say the brady campaign little girl target, to be expressive in nature. I also wondered how and if the recent decision on basically shooting down prohibitions on violence might play into it.

oni.dori
06-29-2011, 9:33 PM
It souns to me that, since they are government run, they are just trying to be "PC". It is kind of lame, but I don't see how it would really be able to be considered violating anyones rights (at least in a court of law).

Ubermcoupe
06-29-2011, 9:38 PM
You could challenge the human targets thing, would you win? no idea. :confused:

Sadly I think it would go like: "you don't like the rules, find somewhere else..."
:(
I'd try a different range??

In fact I don't prefer paper. I prefer cans, bowling pins, steel plates, and mannequins ;)

Funtimes
06-29-2011, 9:42 PM
We only have one public shooting facility on the island, so sadly, we can't just move along. What is really funny is that we can't even shoot pistols here at our public range without comitting a felony offense, but that is a different topic.

Additionally, even if we wanted to switch, there are only two other "private" ranges that are on the island. In one the owner doesn't allow us to instruct there as it takes away from his "firearm safety classes", not to mention the hourly fee's or the 26.00 he charges for a box of .40 caliber ammo (markups present on all his products). The other is prohibited by their leasing company from allowing firearms to be transported on their property. Basically we can't bring guns into their store. Laws prohibit us from just going out somewhere and shooting so its a huge headache.

Turo
06-29-2011, 9:44 PM
I've never seen a government owned/run range, at least in CA, but I'd say that there's pretty good case law that would protect the average citizen in this situation. Then again, someone could claim that you are advocating violence against a specific person if the target was a picture of someone specific. I'm thinking they'd pull the "advocating violence" card if your target was a picture of the current president, or someone else in a high office. :shrug:
If it were up to me, it would be a pretty cut and dry case of free speech/expression for an American to use whatever image he/she wanted as a target, up to and including a photo of a president or the American flag. I may not agree with the statement, but they have every right to say it.

ETA: I didn't get a chance to read the post right above mine before I posted. I didn't know you were in HI, but I would assume 1A rights still exist there. ;)

scarville
06-29-2011, 10:00 PM
"Their range; their rules" applies to private property. If it is government owned and operated then it is publically owned property and -- in theory -- the managment is limited by the same Constitution the rest of the government has to is supposed to obey.

I have no idea whether that means more than seagull guano in Hawaii.

Briancnelson
06-29-2011, 10:07 PM
Government owned means the 1st and 2nd amendment apply. I don't see how it would affect the 2nd amendment, since it does not infringe the right to bear arms, but rather, the right to shoot a specific target. You can get in perfectly good practice with a bullseye target.

Conduct can constitute speech, but speech can be subject to time, place and manner regulations. Whether or not shooting a target of a generic outline, or a terrorist, or a political figure, or a recognizable person, can be seen as protected speech conduct would be a case of first impression so far as I know.

I honestly don't know where the courts would come down on that one ultimately.

advocatusdiaboli
06-29-2011, 10:11 PM
We only have one public shooting facility on the island, so sadly, we can't just move along. What is really funny is that we can't even shoot pistols here at our public range without comitting a felony offense, but that is a different topic.

Additionally, even if we wanted to switch, there are only two other "private" ranges that are on the island. In one the owner doesn't allow us to instruct there as it takes away from his "firearm safety classes", not to mention the hourly fee's or the 26.00 he charges for a box of .40 caliber ammo (markups present on all his products). The other is prohibited by their leasing company from allowing firearms to be transported on their property. Basically we can't bring guns into their store. Laws prohibit us from just going out somewhere and shooting so its a huge headache.

Capitalism without any of the socialist equality and fairness BS. You like it remember? Why the long face then? Oh, yeah, right, when the guy profiting isn't you, THEN it's an issue right? Proof that the real debate is about selfishness on both sides of it: capitalism and socialism.

BTW, my private club doesn't allow human targets either. To avoid costly lawsuits and harassment which would only raise club costs and dues. You know LCAV would love to take clandestine pics and post them on the internet with captions like "rabid gun killers" don't you? I can do without them.

Oh, and JKG said it best...

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."

~John Kenneth Galbraith

oni.dori
06-29-2011, 10:23 PM
We only have one..What is really funny is that we can't even shoot pistols here at our public range without comitting a felony offense, but that is a different topic...Laws prohibit us from just going out somewhere and shooting so its a huge headache.


Ok, I'm pretty sure THAT violates some rights there, especially since Heller and McDonald.

fiddletown
06-29-2011, 10:32 PM
What do you guys think:

Would a government owned shooting range, open to the public, but banning targets that are not bullseye (no terrorist, zombie, animal, or human shaped targets authorized) be a violation of the 1A or 2A? ...The only answer to that question that matters would have to come from a court. The courts are open for business.

Funtimes
06-29-2011, 10:51 PM
Capitalism without any of the socialist equality and fairness BS. You like it remember? Why the long face then? Oh, yeah, right, when the guy profiting isn't you, THEN it's an issue right? Proof that the real debate is about selfishness on both sides of it: capitalism and socialism.

BTW, my private club doesn't allow human targets either. To avoid costly lawsuits and harassment which would only raise club costs and dues. You know LCAV would love to take clandestine pics and post them on the internet with captions like "rabid gun killers" don't you? I can do without them.

Oh, and JKG said it best...

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."

~John Kenneth Galbraith


I'm pretty sure you missed the entire main point of the thread. I don't make ANYTHING teaching, I teach for a non-profit... where is your capitalism in that? My instructors volunteer their time, money, and guns. We just started reimbursing for fuel and cleaning expenses. It wouldn't matter if this guys prices were jacked up, he doesn't let us instruct there. The point of that statement was to demonstrate to the previous poster that we do not have 'options' to go to 'other' ranges.

If there are NRA Training counselors viewing the thread, I was pretty sure that Personal Protection courses require outline targets.

advocatusdiaboli
06-29-2011, 11:09 PM
I'm pretty sure you missed the entire main point of the thread.

NO I didn't at all. You don't like things to cost you more than you'd like to pay. Well, welcome to the club. No one does.

The point of that statement was to demonstrate to the previous poster that we do not have 'options' to go to 'other' ranges.

You do have choices. You can travel off the island then. You just don't like the costs.

Paul S
06-29-2011, 11:38 PM
added some different information that might ellicit different answers; is that a public range paul? One operated by your city and county government?

I would consider shooting pictures of terrorists, or say the brady campaign little girl target, to be expressive in nature. I also wondered how and if the recent decision on basically shooting down prohibitions on violence might play into it.

No sir. The range I am speaking of is a commercial facility, firearms sales center and also provides additional training venues for Law Enforcement. It is a well run facility and I have found all the employees to be just super.

Our other local range North of town in the foothills doesn't have any rules on the paper targets. It does however frown on water jugs, soda cans etc.

And our Sheriff's department range (I can shoot there too since I'm a retired C/O) does not care what's printed on the paper target...unless it happened to be a picture of the High Sheriff and then I think they'd frown on that. :D

smarter
06-29-2011, 11:44 PM
Same rules apply at a county owned and operated gun range here in San Jose. Only bull eye targets only unless your LEO/Mil. Sucks for those of us trying to practice with IPSC targets.

Funtimes
06-29-2011, 11:57 PM
NO I didn't at all. You don't like things to cost you more than you'd like to pay. Well, welcome to the club. No one does.


You do have choices. You can travel off the island then. You just don't like the costs.

What the hell are you talking about costs lol? Additionally, your statement of travel sounds very similar logic and reasoning that the City of Chicago is utilizing to attempt to ban shooting ranges in their city. I mean Ezell could just go somewhere else right -- like to another county or state? Go troll somewhere else man.

This thread isn't about costs, it's about whether or not targets and their use could be considered expressive in nature; if courses require different targets, but you can't use, thus restricting training, would that be considered view point discrimination; and if "Leo/Mil" and orgainzations can utilize the same targets, in a public facility, but the public can't, does or could that violate equal application of laws and regulations. Could we be regulated out of things we can shoot at?

Here is a crazy thought: What if gun ranges were allowed, but all the things you could shoot at were prohibited? I wonder if that could be some shady sidestep that could be pulled on us.

mag360
06-30-2011, 12:10 AM
haha exactly like chicagos lawyer. "umm, yea, well they can travel outside of the cty to train"

judge "you aren't getting this, what if chicago had a rule requiring journalists to travel to get training"

"chicago doesn't have a restriction like that"

judge "exactly!"

haha what a great case.

anyways that is some stupid bs, no issues in sac with "bad guy" targets.

taperxz
06-30-2011, 12:36 AM
What the hell are you talking about costs lol? Additionally, your statement of travel sounds very similar logic and reasoning that the City of Chicago is utilizing to attempt to ban shooting ranges in their city. I mean Ezell could just go somewhere else right -- like to another county or state? What if I wasn't allowed to have *any* targets. I mean you can still shoot and train without using any targets - right?

This thread isn't about costs, it's about whether or not targets and their use could be considered expressive in nature; if courses require different targets, but you can't use, thus restricting training, would that be considered view point discrimination; and if "Leo/Mil" and orgainzations can utilize the same targets, in a public facility, but the public can't, does or could that violate equal application of laws and regulations.

Go troll somewhere else man.

OK question. Where do all the people shoot that go to the automatic gun ranges that are advertised by street vendors in waikiki? Very curious cause it seems like they target Japanese tourists!

My kid goes to UH Manoa so i am somewhat familiar with whats going on there. I don't think you can make a case for the type of target you use at the public range. I don't see how it can be a 1A issue because you are not making a statement. You are using a picture or diagram to shoot at. Does it really matter what your target looks like at the range as long as you are grouping your rounds? It may very well be a 1A issue if your were arrested for walking around with a human like target on your shirt because you were advocating the 2A. IANAL but this is the way i see it.

Funtimes
06-30-2011, 12:55 AM
OK question. Where do all the people shoot that go to the automatic gun ranges that are advertised by street vendors in waikiki? Very curious cause it seems like they target Japanese tourists!

My kid goes to UH Manoa so i am somewhat familiar with whats going on there. I don't think you can make a case for the type of target you use at the public range. I don't see how it can be a 1A issue because you are not making a statement. You are using a picture or diagram to shoot at. Does it really matter what your target looks like at the range as long as you are grouping your rounds? It may very well be a 1A issue if your were arrested for walking around with a human like target on your shirt because you were advocating the 2A. IANAL but this is the way i see it.

The places you go to "rent" guns are our shooting galleries. They don't teach our permit to acquire course. Another big issue is that Bishop Estates (the ones that own most of waikiki) won't let us or them carry guns through, on, or about their property. So the public can't train there. If we were to shoot there we would have to use their guns, their ammo, their targets, their employees etc. Those tourists pay crazzzzzy prices (I think its like 125 bucks for 5 guns and 50 rounds)!

In regards to targets:

Targets really do matter, which is why LEO and MIL do not train on bullseye targets. I've learned to utilize reference points for shot placement, and feel it is really effective way of judging your shots. Using the Ears, throat, armpits is pretty effective for aiming areas. So using these references points is great for defense or offensive shooting.

For example, if you needed to score a CNS hit on a human, it would be much more effective to aim above the ears instead of worrying about where you are on the head. Aiming at the throat area would almost certainly guarantee a upper chest shot (unless you were shooting high), and crossing arm pits is a very fast way to pick up a center area chest shot.

Most of my friends are military, most the instructors I work with are military. Sadly, most of us don't get to train on firearms anymore, because there is just no place to do it. I believe civilians should train just like Police, Military, or any other "tactical' group.

taperxz
06-30-2011, 1:00 AM
I don't know what town it is but the Marine base up from Kaneohe has no place to shoot for military? Nothing in Pearl? Just asking

Funtimes
06-30-2011, 1:05 AM
I don't know what town it is but the Marine base up from Kaneohe has no place to shoot for military? Nothing in Pearl? Just asking

I'm getting ready to approach the Comnav Reg commander to see about utilizing the military's range at Halawa; going to try and pitch free training to military spouses etc. There has been a big increase in "rape" prevention, hoping they might see firearms as form of this rape protection.

Kaenoehe does have rifle range open to public, but only on the last Thursday of the month from 12pm to 3pm. We just found the instruction a month ago and haven't tried it out all the way yet. The problem is it says you need need a military Range Safety Officer.

Puuloa has a rifle club, which is semi-open to the public (really long waiting list), but with all the Army deployments they *rarely* open it up to them for general use; this range doesn't allow pistol shooting AFAIK, but I would have to check with someone to be sure.

taperxz
06-30-2011, 1:10 AM
Hawaii has a long ways to go when it comes to 2A rights!! The size and unique nature of the islands makes it tough. Not to mention that Hawaiians are of the opinion that Hawaii is Hawaii and not really a part of the US. You know what i mean! Most of the locals dont want the guns there. You guys have an uphill battle until the supremes come down with something! Hawaii makes California look like Arizona!!

asme
06-30-2011, 1:13 AM
Just out of interest, is this the Koko Head range?

Funtimes
06-30-2011, 3:03 AM
Yeah asme it is. We are just trying to improve Kokohead so that it is a fully functional range. It has some ways to go to be really useful. It being open more would be great lol. Only open 12pm-3pm Th-F, and 8am-3pm Sat / Sun. Kokohead is an interesting piece of property in itself, because of the way it is chartered, it can only be used as a shooting range for the public.

Hawaii has a long ways to go when it comes to 2A rights!! The size and unique nature of the islands makes it tough. Not to mention that Hawaiians are of the opinion that Hawaii is Hawaii and not really a part of the US. You know what i mean! Most of the locals dont want the guns there. You guys have an uphill battle until the supremes come down with something! Hawaii makes California look like Arizona!!

One of the Hawai'i Chief Justices wrote a big thing about how Hawai'i should not follow Western Law because it goes against Hawaiian values, and they don't need things like 'western law' tainting how the Island works.

Wrangler John
06-30-2011, 4:23 AM
County owned and operated range that I was employed at allowed bullseye, IHMSA animal silhouette, varmint and specialty sight-in targets, but no human silhouette or picture targets.

Same with the private gun club on public land I shoot at these days.

This is a non issue. It has to do with public relations, part of the reason that filming of any type requires the range master's permission, so that provocateurs can't be filmed shooting at pictures of people, politicians or celebrities. Imagine the bad press that would create.

johnny_22
06-30-2011, 7:31 AM
Same rules apply at a county owned and operated gun range here in San Jose. Only bull eye targets only unless your LEO/Mil. Sucks for those of us trying to practice with IPSC targets.

I was able to use a Turkey target on Thanksgiving Eve. The ROs laughed about it. But, I had to put away my MNSL reduced IPSC targets.

I view it the same as why the NRA Basic Pistol only uses bullseye targets and no humanoid targets; don't scare people off at first.

ubet
06-30-2011, 8:17 AM
jesus HI, sounds even more screwed up than Ca.

OT, I wish HI wasnt part of the USA either, that way, we wouldnt have the dip**** in office that was "born" there. HI, can you please recede from the union!

Untamed1972
06-30-2011, 9:17 AM
At a city (ie gov't) owned I could see making a 1A claim.....especially if the targets are allowed in some circumstances. It's a note a safety issue, its just a piece of paper. And especially since self-defense is the "core of the 2A right" then wouldn't training for self-defense be considered proper and protected?

The question is "what is the compelling state interest" in restricting/prohibiting someone from shooting at a silhouette shaped target?

uyoga
06-30-2011, 12:16 PM
Where I see a little glimmer of light is in that the range (in this case a government owned entity) is differentiating between different classes or people similarly situated.

I can see a proscription in the use of targets even resembling anyone - living or dead - but a silhouette??