SLCFSA Rapid Fire Rule Change

[libertyof76]

How many cameras would it take on 93 acres to record the information and provide the kind of security the supporters of such implementation would expect. No doubt, not enough film collectors. If I wanted to shoot in a fishbowl, I would frequent an indoor range.

To start off with, about 10 based on my head survey of the range. Maybe more once I walk at the range in person. Remember, we don't need to have coverage of all 93 acres. Just the firing lines. If we need more we can add more.

My proposal would include strict computer and policy security measures. Such as all access is logged. And it would take two people to sign in to view the security video. Maybe even requiring board approval and membership notice.

My proposal would also include donating a computer for footage storage and myself and another member's time to set the whole thing up.

And back to the original topic, how do you feel about the rapid fire rule? Would you drive to support or oppose changing that?

[c45man]

To start off with, about 10 based on my head survey of the range. Maybe more once I walk at the range in person. Remember, we don't need to have coverage of all 93 acres. Just the firing lines. If we need more we can add more.

My proposal would include strict computer and policy security measures. Such as all access is logged. And it would take two people to sign in to view the security video. Maybe even requiring board approval and membership notice.

My proposal would also include donating a computer for footage storage and myself and another member's time to set the whole thing up.

And back to the original topic, how do you feel about the rapid fire rule? Would you drive to support or oppose changing that?

Ammo too expensive to rapid fire...current rule or upgrade to 3 tap followed by break is ok.

[libertyof76]

Ammo too expensive to rapid fire...current rule or upgrade to 3 tap followed by break is ok.

Ammo being too expensive is not a valid reason to limit rapid fire- primarly because that's not the ranges decision to make. I'll decide whether it's too expensive to rapid fire. And FYI- ammo is not that expensive to rapid fire for anybody.

A triple tap followed by a break does not allow people to practice defending against more than one attacker.

It's a bad rule that needs to change.

[c45man]

Ammo being too expensive is not a valid reason to limit rapid fire- primarly because that's not the ranges decision to make. I'll decide whether it's too expensive to rapid fire. And FYI- ammo is not that expensive to rapid fire for anybody.

A triple tap followed by a break does not allow people to practice defending against more than one attacker.

It's a bad rule that needs to change.

Well, I have been involved with many outdoor shooting ranges. Most limit rapid fire. there is the reality of civil liability and the reality of neighbor concerns. all of the arguing and debating in the world is not going to change that. I doubt very much if southern Lancaster County will be an exception. perhaps you should seek out indoor ranges that generally do not care about rapid fire. campaign as you will but such will go on the be an exercise in futility

[libertyof76]

Well, I have been involved with many outdoor shooting ranges. Most limit rapid fire. there is the reality of civil liability and the reality of neighbor concerns. all of the arguing and debating in the world is not going to change that. I doubt very much if southern Lancaster County will be an exception. perhaps you should seek out indoor ranges that generally do not care about rapid fire. campaign as you will but such will go on the be an exercise in futility

I understand the liability and neighbor concerns, but this rule does nothing to change that problem, and but does harm responsible gun owners who want to practice. I shouldn't have to go to an indoor range when an out door range is better for rapid fire, especially with rifles.

This will not be an exercise in futility. This will be overturned. Too bad you can't join the proper side of the debate.

[c45man]

I understand the liability and neighbor concerns, but this rule does nothing to change that problem, and but does harm responsible gun owners who want to practice. I shouldn't have to go to an indoor range when an out door range is better for rapid fire, especially with rifles.

This will not be an exercise in futility. This will be overturned. Too bad you can't join the proper side of the debate.

OK, I give up, campaign on. Upon visiting the club, if I see someone from an adjacent roof top with a "I want rapid fire" placard, I will know who it is.

[DoubleBarrels]

I think you have to look at the issue of rule-making on a case-by-case basis. You obviously can't please everyone with the rules, and I don't see libertyof76 asking to be pleased with this one. I'm sure there is a guy with a Ma Deuce that would like to shoot his toy at SLCFSA, but can't. And I think there is an easy case to be made that .50 BMG does tear things up pretty bad.

However, the restriction on caliber in that case has nothing to do with behavior of the shooter. It has to do with the perceived physical capability of the ammo based on sound research (think SAAMI), and by that I don't mean the type of research found at the CDC. This rule has nothing to do with the physical capability of the ammo. It's about regulating the conduct of people at a range engaged in unsafe activities. And I can say that limiting number of rounds fired or the timing of those rounds has zero impact whatsoever on that.

If there were a rule limiting shotgun ammo, who would object? After all, shotgun rounds are at least eight times (as in pellets in 00 shot shells) as destructive as a Mozambique drill or a double tap, both of which are now outlawed with threat of membership termination with extreme prejudice. Shotguns and M1 Garands are plenty loud and are rifles of a heavy caliber, but you don't see a restriction on either of those guns or ammunition cartridges because of the neighbors, or because of "range damage".

So many of us who don't hunt and got interested in firearms due to having known the good graces others involved in the shooting sports see this sort of thing as a non-solution to a problem, much like the ATF recently inventing a rule to solve the ever-growing problem of destructive "armor piercing rounds". It was a flip decision. It is a turnoff, and it smacks of the rule of FUDDs or OFWGs, both of which are terms I use sparingly but is appropriate in this case. That is to say a FUDD is someone who sees no value in engaging in an activity with a firearm other that which said FUDD is accustomed to and has done since he was " huntin' with his pap". And that sort of line of thought WILL break the gun rights movement. It's shameful to see even NRA badge wearers (patron member here) behind this concept. But I digress...

If there is a problem with behavior on the range impacting safety, this is a private club, and by virtue of that a person can be kicked out for safety violations. And I fully support the use of monitoring devices at the range for this purpose. SLCFSA is a club with funds in excess of $100,000, and I think adding two cameras to each line would be a good start. I certainly hope anyone who believes that range safety is an issue would be on board with that idea.

[c45man]

I think you have to look at the issue of rule-making on a case-by-case basis. You obviously can't please everyone with the rules, and I don't see libertyof76 asking to be pleased with this one. I'm sure there is a guy with a Ma Deuce that would like to shoot his toy at SLCFSA, but can't. And I think there is an easy case to be made that .50 BMG does tear things up pretty bad.

However, the restriction on caliber in that case has nothing to do with behavior of the shooter. It has to do with the perceived physical capability of the ammo based on sound research (think SAAMI), and by that I don't mean the type of research found at the CDC. This rule has nothing to do with the physical capability of the ammo. It's about regulating the conduct of people at a range engaged in unsafe activities. And I can say that limiting number of rounds fired or the timing of those rounds has zero impact whatsoever on that.

If there were a rule limiting shotgun ammo, who would object? After all, shotgun rounds are at least eight times (as in pellets in 00 shot shells) as destructive as a Mozambique drill or a double tap, both of which are now outlawed with threat of membership termination with extreme prejudice. Shotguns and M1 Garands are plenty loud and are rifles of a heavy caliber, but you don't see a restriction on either of those guns or ammunition cartridges because of the neighbors, or because of "range damage".

So many of us who don't hunt and got interested in firearms due to having known the good graces others involved in the shooting sports see this sort of thing as a non-solution to a problem, much like the ATF recently inventing a rule to solve the ever-growing problem of destructive "armor piercing rounds". It was a flip decision. It is a turnoff, and it smacks of the rule of FUDDs or OFWGs, both of which are terms I use sparingly but is appropriate in this case. That is to say a FUDD is someone who sees no value in engaging in an activity with a firearm other that which said FUDD is accustomed to and has done since he was " huntin' with his pap". And that sort of line of thought WILL break the gun rights movement. It's shameful to see even NRA badge wearers (patron member here) behind this concept. But I digress...

If there is a problem with behavior on the range impacting safety, this is a private club, and by virtue of that a person can be kicked out for safety violations. And I fully support the use of monitoring devices at the range for this purpose. SLCFSA is a club with funds in excess of $100,000, and I think adding two cameras to each line would be a good start. I certainly hope anyone who believes that range safety is an issue would be on board with that idea.

Two cameras to each "line"? I think you mean range. I work for a college in the safety and security dept. The cost of and maintenance of security cameras is very high and $100,000 in funds is not impressive relative to dependable quality equipment that is able to zoom, turn and record.

[libertyof76]

Two cameras to each "line"? I think you mean range. I work for a college in the safety and security dept. The cost of and maintenance of security cameras is very high and $100,000 in funds is not impressive relative to dependable quality equipment that is able to zoom, turn and record.

Yeah but your using "enterprise" level cameras with support which is grossly overpriced. We won't be using that. I work in IT and I know how to build a cost effective but a dependable quality system. It'll cost maybe $3k and I may be overestimating that.

[c45man]

Yeah but your using "enterprise" level cameras with support which is grossly overpriced. We won't be using that. I work in IT and I know how to build a cost effective but a dependable quality system. It'll cost maybe $3k and I may be overestimating that.

Not withstanding low cost, I do not believe that the membership is going to tolerate being under surveillance while shooting at our facility. Shooters, by the suspicious nature, tend to be a bit paranoid without being recorded while pulling a trigger. They will believe, and no one is going to convince them differently, that not only are their actions under camera scrutiny, but their conversations are being recorded as well. We both know the ugly legal ramifications of recording private conversations. That won't matter, no amount of convincing will change some of their minds that such voices are not being recorded. In other words, I doubt this surveillance idea is going to pass general membership.