Honoring gun-range law could be daunting, police say

  • Article by: LAURIE BLAKE , Star Tribune
  • Updated: May 8, 2012 - 10:58 PM

They say many outlets targeted by the measure, intended to help youth who want to finish their firearms safety programs, were largely not built with public use in mind.

  • 10
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
  • 1 - 10 of 10
rraganMay. 9, 12 6:51 AM

Another good example of bad legislation. You have to wonder if there was any investigation by the legislators on the pracitcality of opening up the small police ranges to the public or if Hackbarth just tacked it onto the bill and it flew through without discussion.

9
5
owatonnabillMay. 9, 12 7:23 AM

A silly, capricious use of the legislative system, in my opinion. There is certainly no lack of shooting ranges in Minnesota, and more are being opened all the time. There may (will) be a fee attached for using them, but so what? Why inconvenience an already-overburdened law enforcement system? It makes no sense.

7
5
a911scannerMay. 9, 12 7:28 AM

Bad legislation? Citizens paid for them, why can't we use them in such a minor way? In fact, most firearms instructors are better at handling firearms & safely using them when compared to many LEO's. On top of that, you create a good relationship between children & police when they are involved, as mentioned. Being as I live in one of the cities mentioned, I can say this. I like the AV chief's thoughts much better than the Plymouth chief. I'm sick and tired of any government official's stance of "If I don't get my way, I'll just go home and take my ball with me" attitude. Hardly a way to be a "public servant".

5
9
allhailfsmMay. 9, 12 9:16 AM

Socialism Alert!

Use of public money for private purposes is just fine with the right wing as long as the private purpose is one they want to engage in.

How did it become governments responsibility to support shooting practice , but personal responsibility to get health coverage or education?

Do these GOPTP types have any principles at all?

7
5
jalsomnMay. 10, 1211:37 AM

I understand the burden this places on law enforcement, but I believe that this is in the public good despite that. This is not an issue in rural areas, as people can shoot on their own property. In the metro, since the legislature has limited where a person can shoot, it only makes sense that they open publicly funded shooting ranges to the public that funds them. After all, the public does in fact own them. There is nothing confidential or sensitive about a shooting range that requires it to be closed to the public. The idea that law enforcement believes they should have an exclusive right to a publicly funded facility smacks of elitism. Peel principal of policing #7: The police are the public and the public are the police.

3
1
SpaceVikingMay. 10, 12 1:05 PM

"After all, the public does in fact own them." We also own those fire trucks that aren't used very often. I'm sure no one will mind if I go borrow one to drive around town. I'll even spring for gas!

2
1
lindn1May. 10, 12 1:13 PM

"Citizens paid for them, why can't we use them..." I paid for that police car, I want to take it for a drive. I paid for that snow plow, I'm going to borrow it to plow my driveway. I paid for the SWAT team weapons, I'm going to use them to go hunting. Those are several stupid examples of the reasoning quoted above. Citizens paid for them, and they get the benefit: cops who can shoot accurately because they have a place to practice firing their weapons. Opening them up to the public is just silly.

1
2
bmcwMay. 10, 12 2:02 PM

This is totally crazy and unnecessary legislation. Many of the police shooting ranges are in secure areas and would cause many problems in turning them into public areas. One out of over 5,000 instructors complained to Rep. Tom Hackbarth and he came up with this bill instead of dealing with more important issues. I guess he just wanted to get his name on a a bill. I wonder if that instructor is one of his family members. Mary Smith wants to hold a meeting of her knitting group, every city has a few conference rooms that are not in use in the evenings, perhaps they should be made available to her.

0
1
usafnodakMay. 10, 12 2:39 PM

Maybe we should look at it as a "rights" issue. Progressives say that access to birth control is a right and therefor it should be paid for by either the government or private health insurance companies. To keep and bear arms is a right, and in order to have a well regulated militia, us private citizens have a need and a right to practice. So, lets have the government either pay for us to have a private range membership, or the government can pay to open up public shooting ranges for private citizens who need to pass a gun safety class. Most of the people taking gun safety are around 12 years old. It's for the children!

2
0
dmpabloMay. 10, 12 9:59 PM

Let the kids join the army when old enough if they want to play with guns.

0
1
  • 1 - 10 of 10

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT