Note on my treatment at OT (positive)
I've been a member of OT now for about two or three months. I've noticed that there is a tendency for folks to say bad things when they have a bad experience, but not when they have no complaint. As a result, the disgruntled customers have the loudest voice. I just wanted to throw a little weight on the positive side. I've really enjoyed the range and the people who work at OT. I've always been treated respectfully, and the staff have always been willing to help me, including the time my pistol jammed. Thanks, OT. I'm glad you are there.
Thank You --- You are correct we get way more bad than good, so it is great to hear on this board some good feedback. Please don't hesitate to tell the RSO's if they are doing a good job as well. After getting loaded firearms pointed at you, a positive statement really gets your head back in the game.
I've always been a fan of this range because of the things they allow, including double taps and rifles with proper permits, and the events they host such as CCC shoots, action/IPSC/USPSA style shoots, etc. Their customer service is consistently top-notch, with the staff always treating me with courtesy, respect, and dare I say, friendliness. I know it can get hairy on the weekends sometimes, but that's not their fault - if anything it's just a indicator of how awesome they are. The RSO's have promptly responded to any safety concerns that I notice, and most of the time they're already on it because they keep a watchful eye on the CCTV feeds. Keep up the good work!
I know there have been a few complaints posted on Yelp and here on Calguns occasionally. But without fail, in each and every one of those comments, I can point out a good reason why their experience ended up the way it did. (Safety violations, mainly) These complaints were presumably written in the light most favorable to the complainer with the bad details conveniently omitted or "forgotten," yet I would not hesitate to place most, if not all, of the blame on the customer who felt was wronged in those instances. That's how bad and obvious they are. I'm tempted to go on yelp to respond to those complaints as a fellow customer and shooter, as *I* would not want them anywhere near me when they're in possession of a firearm.
I'm hardly the fan boy, but I would also be frustrated having to deal with safety issues all day only to have those very same dangerous people blame me for getting called out on it. Fundamentally I think it's a misunderstanding of how serious firearm safety is, and how seriously it is taken by those who have more than a passing familiarity.
My experiences with On Target have always been pretty good. I also love that they're only about 2 miles from me, and and I love their later-than-most shops hours too. Tek is always helpful and there's another guy there that popped a new set of night sights onto my glock for me in about 5 minutes while I watched. Good stuff, On Target will see me renting lanes from them for a while.
Now that I've said such positive things, when will you guys let me shoot shotgun there? Hehe;)
another +1 from me. I like OT and they are my primary range.
WIsh there was one up this way :(
Some on Staff also have a great knowledge of AR's too. For a long time there was a prejudice against AR's with BB's by management, probably to avoid possible DOJ drama, but the staff has (had) a lot of Marines, and they know their AR15's. The only shop that beats their staff knowledge is Rifle Gear and OC Armory. I too would be wary of any gray areas if I ran a range and owned the underlying property to avoid a seizure proceedings...but the law is not gray now, its very brilliantly black and white.
Now that Turners is selling AR's, and the present Cali AG has stated in her pleadings in a recent case that bullet buttons render a gun legal, perhaps On Target may now embrace the black rifle officially. On Target would sell a ton of them because as we all know, once you shoot one, you have to own one. And On Target has more traffic than any other gun store in SoCal, and can use the range to "hook" a client immediatly on an AR.
So check it out Gregg....And I paraphrase here..
KAMALA D. HARRIS
Attorney General of California
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
Deputy Attorney General
State Bar No. 142541
455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000
San Francisco, CA 94102-7004
Telephone: (415) 703-1376
Fax: (415) 703-1234
Attorneys for Defendants California Department
thority, the First Amended Complaint must be dismissed due to these defects.
SUMMARY OF RELEVANT FACTS
This case concerns whether the California Attorney General and the California Department
of Justice have a statutory duty to issue a bulletin regarding California’s Assault Weapon ban.
They do not have such a duty.
Mark Aaron Haynie, The Calguns Foundation, Inc., and The Second Amendment
Foundation (“Plaintiffs”) have filed an action seeking injunctive relief relating to California’s
Assault Weapons Control Act (Cal. Penal Code §§ 12275, et seq., hereafter “AWCA”) Plaintiffs
maintain that the Attorney General and the California Department of Justice (“Defendants”) have
failed to perform their duty under state law to inform local law enforcement about which weapons
are subject to the AWCA and which weapons are exempt from it. Plaintiff Haynie was arrested
in Alameda County for allegedly violating the AWCA , when Pleasanton Police thought that his
Colt AR-15 was a banned weapon. FAC ¶ 12. However, the rifle possessed by Haynie was
equipped with a “bullet button,” a device which required the use of a tool to remove the
magazine, taking the weapon out of the statutory definition of an assault weapon. FAC ¶15.
Therefore , charges were never filed, and Pleasanton stipulated to Plaintiff Haynie’s factual
innocence and agreed to pay for Haynie’s bail bond costs. FAC ¶¶18-22.
In Plaintiffs’ view, the Defendants have failed to properly inform local law enforcement
that weapons equipped with a “bullet button” are legal weapons to possess. Plaintiffs concede
that the Assault Weapons Identification Guide published by the California Department of Justice
indicates that weapons where a tool, such as a bullet, is needed to remove the magazine the
weapon is not considered a banned gun solely due to its “detachable magazine.” FAC at ¶32.
However, Plaintiffs believe that by not issuing “a statewide bulletin or other directive regarding
the ‘bullet button,’” Defendants have somehow caused Plaintiff Haynie to possess “a reasonable
fear that he may suffer wrongful arrests in the future.” FAC at ¶¶ 33, 35. Likewise, The Calguns
Case3:10-cv-01255-SI Document26-1 Filed05/06/11 Page5 of 13
Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion to Dismiss (10-cv-1255-SI)
Foundation and The Second Amendment Foundation allege that they “fear that [their] members
may be subject to wrongful arrests.” FAC at ¶36.
Apparently you have not noticed, but for all of this year and before Christmas we have been selling a number of AR style rifles. I don't mean the 22's, but the centerfire ones.
We have just a few at any one time and have been doing transfers without issue.
I started back into the Blackgun line slowly and with reservation due to the DOJ issues from before me. We have a number of good knowledgeable staff here and MANY good knowlegeable shooters that have allowed me to once again support the shooting community. That is one reason I continue to allow centerfire rifles to be fired here - even with the heavy damage they cause.
I have been buying complete AR style CA approved rifles and will continue to do so. You just have to look closely, or ask for Taek.
I've been to On Target once and I agree that they are very VERY friendly...just wish their rifle permit classes weren't held on the 1 day I'm stuck at work all day Sunday! :(
|All times are GMT -8. The time now is 1:33 AM.|
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.