Range Obligation Regarding Illegal Guns

[AAShooter]

So as a customer at the range, do you expect the range to police their shooters for illegal guns? Do they have any obligation to take action at all? Does anything go or where do you draw the line?

From the range perspective, clearly if someone were injured on your range and you ended up testifying that you knew a gun was illegal but took no action, it would not be a positive thing.

What do you think? How should this issue be handled?

[Briancnelson]

I expect the range officers to enforce the rules of the range, nothing else, unless someone is doing something blatantly and obviously illegal or endangering themselves or someone else.

Most of them don't know the rules well enough to enforce them anyway. I've been told by several RO's that my SU-16 was not legal with my pre-ban magazines until I went to their supervisor, who knew better.

[QuarterBoreGunner]

Weeeell, when I was managing a indoor range back in the 90's, we'd get the occasional flat out 100% illegal firearm come through the door (the guy with the 9mm Colt Sporter with the 11" barrel comes to mind) but that was really rare. After 2000 anything Tec 9ish or HK SP89ish, were totally cool *if* they had their RAW paperwork with them. If they didn't we'd ask them to please leave the range.

Our rational was simply good business; we had a lot of LEO business, officers were in all the time, and we didn't want someone to get busted on our property, because of all the bad press - rumors fly fast and we didn't want a "Don't go to that range - they'll call the cops on you" sort of situation.

I know of some ranges don't care.

[M1A Rifleman]

AA Shooter, an interesting question, which shows the conflict of property rights, liability, and individual freedom.

As per my other recent post of experiences, as a range user I want to be left alone and not questioned as to what and why I shoot.

However, if I was a range owner, safety, and happy customers would be my prime directives.

[Sniper3142]

Unless the individual or group is obviouisly behaving in an unsafe manner or showing poor firearm safety and handling, I think they should be left alone.

The current laws can be confusing and I'd rather not have to educate range personnal on what is or isn't legal.

It's usually the know-it-alls and similar folks that piss off those of use who've got cool toys like 30 round mags and RAWs.

[joefreas]

Leave law enforcement to law enforcement.


I am so sick of ROs telling me my RAW is illegal.

[Josh3239]

Of course they have an obligation to enforce range rules and safety. However, there are of course certain situations were something illegal is going on and they don't want the negative attention. Let's be honest, we all know what the response is if there is a suicide, fire, or an illegal weapon at a shooting range news report.

[Burbur]

First, enforce range rules. If you have a 1 per 1 rule and someone is firing full-auto, there is reason for a conversation.

Next, if it is possible for a weapon to be legal (RAW, AOW, SBR) it is in the ranges best interest to make sure that it patrons are in compliance with the law. Tact is necessary! Don't say 'TaHt iz IlleGALZ!", say "Are you aware of the restriction surrounding that type of firearm?"

In our litigious society, I could see a range getting sued for "allowing" someone to use an illegal firearm. Not stopping an action could be seen as tacit approval. Worse yet, if a shooter is arrested for an AW violation on a range, what could happen?

[guns_and_labs]

Sometimes it can be helpful.

Not long ago at Chabot, one of the shooters left his magnetic bullet button thingie attached to the rifle. Now, I'm sure he picked it up at a shop or show that told him that "leaving it attached in California is possibly illegal and should be avoided (wink)." But he forgot or ignored it. At a cease fire, an RO noticed it and suggested that the shooter remove the doodad, so as to avoid a possible felony.

If they were to ignore such things, and other, more blatant violations, when they are clearly in a position to know such things, could they be accused of being an accessory?

I'm thinking of CA Penal Code 32 (Title 2): "32. Every person who, after a felony has been committed, harbors, conceals or aids a principal in such felony, with the intent that said principal may avoid or escape from arrest, trial, conviction or punishment, having knowledge that said principal has committed such felony or has been charged with such felony or convicted thereof, is an accessory to such felony."

Could the range officer be assumed to have sufficient knowledge of the firearms laws (even if the reality is that most do not)? And with said knowledge, would the failure to notify law enforcement be a form of concealing or aiding?

[AAShooter]

Sometimes it can be helpful.

If they were to ignore such things, and other, more blatant violations, when they are clearly in a position to know such things, could they be accused of being an accessory?

I'm thinking of CA Penal Code 32 (Title 2): "32. Every person who, after a felony has been committed, harbors, conceals or aids a principal in such felony, with the intent that said principal may avoid or escape from arrest, trial, conviction or punishment, having knowledge that said principal has committed such felony or has been charged with such felony or convicted thereof, is an accessory to such felony."

Could the range officer be assumed to have sufficient knowledge of the firearms laws (even if the reality is that most do not)? And with said knowledge, would the failure to notify law enforcement be a form of concealing or aiding?

Interesting question.

[bill_k_lopez]

It is an interesting question. I went to Insight on Saturday in Artesia, the only thing the guy was interested in seeing was the ammo I brought in. He actually told me (when I put the rifle case on the counter to get the ammo) "I don't need to inspect your firearms".

Funny thing is, I DO remember going to the Long Beach Police Pistol range (which has been closed for YEARS) and always being asked "I need to see your guns please" before being allowed to shoot.

For my bottom line I could care less about you shooting something illegal if its bullet button vs removable mags but would care HIGHLY if you were shooting your brand new home made .357 mag that is barreled with galvanized pipe.

[John Browning]

I don't know how to say this without sounding like I'm a self-appointed internet genius, but when I go to the range I want to just be left alone. I don't need legal counsel from people who as often as not have no real clue what their talking about. Unless someone is doing something blatantly illegal like bringing something full auto or an SBR/SBS, range officers should just worry about the range rules. If there is any possibility that it could be legal, they should just assume that it is.

[1911su16b870]

Funny stuff. I have been told that my mag locked AR pistol was illegal because "it looked illegal''

I have also seen a SBR confiscated and turned over to the local PD at one range.

[warbird]

This is a risky question because it is a judgment call. Does the range want to be shut down if the police complain of too many illegal weapons? Do the range want to become a nit picker on everything? Do they want to become involved in civil action if an illegal gun they should have recognized hurts someone even accidently? I think this is a range call depending on who your range officers are and your policy as clearly stated before each party enters. If you use the range alot ask if you can put copies of your info on file. ranges want you to shoot but they can't afford the legal trouble of someone who thinks their right to violate the law should be over looked by the range. Less defensive more open communication from start to finish especially by the range officer should solve 99% of this easily.

[jingerale]

Funny stuff. I have been told that my mag locked AR pistol was illegal because "it looked illegal''

I have also seen a SBR confiscated and turned over to the local PD at one range.

that doesn't sound legal to me? If you ( a non-leo) come and try to "confiscate" my property, I will assume you are trying to rob me. Feel free to ask me to leave though, if you are uncomfortable with what I own.