Would you use a range with background checks?

[rcslotcar]

"Show me your papers" ,,NO!

[omega]

no, I would not go to any range that required a background check.

I wont even buy ammo if they record each purchase, I use to go to a store and they required scanning my driver's license each time I bought ammo, I told them they could look at my DL but not scan it, and they wouldnt sell the ammo, I think they were keeping records for the local LE, so they would know who is buying ammo? and how many boxes, etc?

[Ant45]

No way.

I'm not a criminal and don't feel the need to prove it.

[Intimid8tor]

Used to belong to a private range. You had to apply and be voted on by the members. No background check though.

Generally, the type of people you are trying to avoid aren't going to join a range.

Your range, your rules. I wouldn't support your endeavor on the principal that it is the same as a smart gun and lends to government control down the road. I wouldn't use a range like that because I don't want to be subjected to a nanny watching over me. Hell, I don't even need background checks to buy a gun in the walmart parking lot.

But, it's your right to open a business and invest your time and money.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

[bigbearbear]

I would, I like the idea. You might want to create exceptions to avoid hassles. Examples include if the person already has a valid Global Entry / TSA Pre, active law enforcement, active military service etc. you might want to skip the check.

[ScottsBad]

There seems to be a trend here.

[dozer wright]

The problem with background checks. Is say a members wants to bring Unle Bill. Does he get a back ground check too. The problem with Ranges even private is insurance. And the other problem with members or even regulars is the seem to think that certain rules dont apply to them. I would love a range as you describe but finding open land for the distances and Shoot houses and fun stuff is the issue. Anywhere it would be cost affective and would pass political issues and permits. Would be impossible in California. Around a population that would support your endevor on the regular basis.

[toby]

Good luck with the 24/7 and I would never do a members only type anything, Just IMO

[IVC]

No problem with BC for private range, as long as it doesn't become a government-mandated model for ALL ranges.

People who are offended by it are free not to join and those who want to know they are shooting around legal people are free to join. It's not "guilty until proven innocent," it's just a bylaws requirement that is NOT government-mandated. For example, my range requires all members to be the NRA members and membership is checked upon renewal. It's part good policy, part better insurance rates.

[The Gleam]

No. The background check was done when I bought the firearm - and I didn't agree with it then either.

This is not 1936 Germany or 2015 London - even though California is starting to feel like 1956 USSR.

[Kyle1886]

I would imagine that considering gated security, 24/7 manning, and general maintenance, your fees/dues would need to be very high and out of reach for the average "shooter". I also assume that the range isn't picking up the tab for the background checks, so that needs to be added into the mix.

I suspect given the per person yearly cost to join, your clientele would be a select few and probably not enough to sustain the operation.

I've fought too many years against the "antis" to give them more incentive, so "NO" on the background checks in my opinion.

Respectfully
Kyle

[IVC]

The problem with background checks. Is say a members wants to bring Unle Bill. Does he get a back ground check too.

I can bring up to two guests to my local range and on one occasion the second person was my friend's friend. While he was a nice guy and paid attention to all the safety and introduction that I always go over before shooting with someone, I was not at all sure about his background. The best I could do without accusing him of anything was to get a verbal confirmation framed as part of the briefing by saying that we just have to confirm that nobody is a prohibited person.

Needless to say, from that point on I changed my routine and always go over legal aspects with any friend who wants to bring along someone I don't know personally.

This also happens in free states where people do PPT without background checks. Many would like to make sure they are not selling to a felon, but there is no way to do it. Of course, we certainly don't want the *universal registration* which is pushed as "background checks," but having the ability to ensure that someone is not a felon would be a good thing.

In both cases the idea is not that the background checks will stop anyone, but that the law abiding should have some form of protection against accusations of conspiracy when a felon is involved.

[Bull Elk]

Enough of the government and others knowing about me and my life. No, I would not join.

[jeremiah12]

I would not go to a range that requires background checks. I have a job that requires I get a background check every few years. I do have a CCW. I am not worried about passing a BGC.

I hate this for the further intrusion into my privacy to exercise my 2A right. I would exercise my right to go elsewhere.

My LGR is open to the public and does not have memberships. The gangbanger types weed themselves out because they do not follow the rules. They do not tear you a new one for breaking a rule. The RSOs are polite and respectful and yet make sure the rules are followed. Now if it is something that puts others in immediate danger, then they act loudly and swiftly. You get a couple of warnings before you are asked to leave.

At the private membership club my dad used to belong to, the full members got away with everything because the rules did not apply to them. They could kick anyone out for any violation, real or perceived. It was a full member that let his environmentalist GF take soil samples on the range without getting permission of the board. After she got her samples she did dump him.

I am sure there are others that would submit to a BGC to shoot at a membership only club. Whether it is feasible depends on the amenities, the costs, and can you attract enough shooters to stay in business.

[Oceanbob]

No way.


Plus I would never join a club that would have me as a member..

(Old joke from Groucho Marx^^^)