Only bullseye targets allowed - against 1a / 2a?

[Funtimes]

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]

I can't see how.

[Paul S]

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.

[Funtimes]

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]

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]

You could challenge the human targets thing, would you win? no idea.

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]

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]

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.
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]

"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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.