Cape Gun Works Re-Opening With New Range

Let the range set up their policies and stop worrying about it. It's their responsibility. This is starting to sound like an anti town council meeting.

X100 I am sure many have nothing but good intentions but you could also be bringing up questions for Anit's who have no clue but would love a good argument to put up against the place
 
If a range has renters sign a waiver claiming to not be a PP, to date it has been enough so that instructors and ranges have not faced legal trouble. The media is altogether another story.

As an instructor I also have no way to know if a person is a PP or not, so waivers and disclaimers are the only thing you really can do.
What he said! No one really ever knows...

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
 
I hauled some Infinity, Serbu and JP stuff to the opening celebration Friday. Great facility, huge inventory. It's the only place I've ever seen two Seecamp 32s under the counter (vastly different prices and red tags, so I assume they might have been consignment guns). I didn't to any comparison shopping with other shops on price, so I am not qualified to comment where they fall on the pricing spectrum. Also, I don't know of any other shops that have African lion spheres in stock to compare to.

The ranges have the most advanced environmental control I have ever seen. An Archimedes screw pulls the lead from the backstop collection area into barrels in the basement, and the control room has a computer monitor of all environmental parameters (status of each filter, notices when a filer needs replacement, flow rates of the various fans, etc.). The "kerching" of the cash register when they bought that system must have been deafening. Two 8 position indoor ranges - one with a window to the lobby and one a bit more private (should come in handy if they do any celebrity or secret squirrel training).

It is definitely a "must visit" for anyone who finds themselves down on the cape.
 
Last edited:
But how does the range officer know if the guest is a federally prohibited person ???

LOL, not sure if serious. It's not the pay ranges responsibility to police this, although most have a waiver/etc that people sign, for added protection. BTW a person with an LTC can be a PP, too. Just because they have the plastic card isn't a 100% assurance that they are currently clean. (This is rare, but certainly not impossible if you know how these systems work. ) CGW's post had nothing to do with PPs btw, but compliance with the "LTC holder must be present with the unwashed to allow them to handle guns" thing in MA.

The ranges have the most advanced environmental control I have ever seen. An Archimedes screw pulls the lead from the backstop collection area into barrels in the basement, and the control room has a computer monitor of all environmental parameters (status of each filter, notices when a filer needs replacement, flow rates of the various fans, etc.). The "kerching" of the cash register when they bought that system must have been deafening. Two 8 position indoor ranges - one with a window to the lobby and one a bit more private (should come in handy if they do any celebrity of secret squirrel training).

It is definitely a "must visit" for anyone who finds themselves down on the cape.

That sounds pretty stellar. There is a lack of high quality indoor facilities like that in MA, its good to see more coming online, particularly after seeing S&W close their range, etc. (I realize its the other end of the state, but
still... more is better. )

-Mike
 
That sounds pretty stellar. There is a lack of high quality indoor facilities like that in MA, its good to see more coming online, particularly after seeing S&W close their range, etc. (I realize its the other end of the state, but
still... more is better. )

-Mike

This x1000. Opening up a facility of this caliber ( forgive the pun ) ,in this state, takes a set of King Kong sized, brass balls. Not to mention the capital and patience it must take in dealing with the state, and permitting the process.
 
It's not the pay ranges responsibility to police this
Yup.

Expecting a private range to verify this would be like expecting a parking lot to verify the driver's license, vehicle registration and insurance status of every car driven onto the lot.
 
Last edited:
Yup.

Expecting a private rang to verify this would be like expecting a parking lot to verify the driver's license, vehicle registration and insurance status of every car driven onto the lot.

But that information *is* available to the general public via the state RMV website, while companies and private individuals can't typically access the LE criminal database systems.

A rental car company can't legally rent a car to someone with a suspended license, however they *do* have a way to check the status of that license, whereas a range can't check for a criminal record on a customer wanting to shoot.

So basically it's a Catch 22, if a range unknowingly allows a PP to shoot inside their facility, and it's later discovered by the authorities, the range can be shut down. Isn't this what happened to the S&W range ???
 
So basically it's a Catch 22, if a range unknowingly allows a PP to shoot inside their facility, and it's later discovered by the authorities, the range can be shut down. Isn't this what happened to the S&W range ???

No, that's not what happened to them, they chose to shut down the range on their own. My guess was that incident provided a segue for management to do it (it was a cost center- in case you haven't noticed, S&W has been skinflinting the piss out of their operations over the past 5+ years) but the feds didn't actually shut them down. Plenty of pay ranges have had PPs shooting at them (and then they got caught later) but nothing happened to the pay range.

-Mike
 
No, that's not what happened to them, they chose to shut down the range on their own. My guess was that incident provided a segue for management to do it (it was a cost center- in case you haven't noticed, S&W has been skinflinting the piss out of their operations over the past 5+ years) but the feds didn't actually shut them down. Plenty of pay ranges have had PPs shooting at them (and then they got caught later) but nothing happened to the pay range.

-Mike
I'm not sure he was saying that s&w was forced to close it legally, but chances are that after the cops show up (or the press) wanting to know about why so and so was shooting there even though they are a criminal... the corperation lawyers shut it down to limit potential liability (better safe then lawsuit they say).
The fact that for a few years it seemed like s&w was willing to ignore gun owners and concentrate on police sales didn't help keep a public range open...

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
 
I'm not sure he was saying that s&w was forced to close it legally, but chances are that after the cops show up (or the press) wanting to know about why so and so was shooting there even though they are a criminal... the corperation lawyers shut it down to limit potential liability (better safe then lawsuit they say).

S&W still runs events there occasionally where attendees are also not screened for that status, so it's obviously not an outward liability concern.

It's all about the $$$$$$. It cost them real money to have it staffed all the time, so they cut it.

If every pay range shut down every time a PP was discovered later on to have used one, then no pay ranges would be open. (particularly considering that in states like MA, the bar to become a prohibited person is about an inch off the ground, LMAO... )

-Mike
 
particularly considering that in states like MA, the bar to become a prohibited person is about an inch off the ground, LMAO...

This brings up an interesting point.

For the purpose of this discussion, I will use the term "MPP" to refer to someone who is a MA prohibited person, but not federally prohibited.

- There is an exemption allowing an unlicensed person to shoot in the presence of a license holder.

- The law prohibits issuing an LTC to a MPP

- But, does that law also prohibit allowing a MPP to shoot under the supervision of a LTC holder?

I am interested in a specific answer (cite, case law), rather than proof by assertion.
 
This brings up an interesting point.

For the purpose of this discussion, I will use the term "MPP" to refer to someone who is a MA prohibited person, but not federally prohibited.

- There is an exemption allowing an unlicensed person to shoot in the presence of a license holder.

- The law prohibits issuing an LTC to a MPP

- But, does that law also prohibit allowing a MPP to shoot under the supervision of a LTC holder?

I am interested in a specific answer (cite, case law), rather than proof by assertion.

I'm guessing you are referring to the bunch of things in MGL that prevent issuance of a license, but aren't necessarily felonies or misdafelonies? EG, like simple assault; or possession of some kind of drugs that's not necessarily felonious, but still bars getting an LTC? (although MJ decrim got rid of some of this).

-Mike
 
I'm guessing you are referring to the bunch of things in MGL that prevent issuance of a license, but aren't necessarily felonies or misdafelonies?
Exactly .... though I know such offenses are rare since just about everything trivial is "up to 2.5 years" and thus a misdafelony.
 
This brings up an interesting point.

For the purpose of this discussion, I will use the term "MPP" to refer to someone who is a MA prohibited person, but not federally prohibited.

- There is an exemption allowing an unlicensed person to shoot in the presence of a license holder.

- The law prohibits issuing an LTC to a MPP

- But, does that law also prohibit allowing a MPP to shoot under the supervision of a LTC holder?

I am interested in a specific answer (cite, case law), rather than proof by assertion.

Rob, I don't have time to try to find it, but I'm almost certain that I found a reference to it being a crime to KNOWINGLY allowing a PP to handle a gun or ammo in the Fed law/regs.

Since the Feds treat MPPs as Federal PPs, that should probably answer part or all of your question.
 
Since the Feds treat MPPs as Federal PPs, that should probably answer part or all of your question.

Good point Len, now thinking of this more critically I don't think there are many that haven't been upgraded to misdafelony status.

I could have sworn at one time though there were a bunch of things which were essentially a state DQ but were not federally disabling.

Actually, on paper, one could also argue someone who got hit with a suitability denial is an MPP.

-Mike
 
Since the Feds treat MPPs as Federal PPs, that should probably answer part or all of your question.
Cite for this? I know some believe Caron implies this, though I don't think it is that obvious. Will someone fail a NICS check if they have a MPP which does not rise to the level of a federal PP?
 
Cite for this? I know some believe Caron implies this, though I don't think it is that obvious. Will someone fail a NICS check if they have a MPP which does not rise to the level of a federal PP?

Of course these days, how many are there left? I looked up simple assault, I was wrong. It's now a misdafelony. I thought it was like max 1 yr or something.

There might still be some drug laws that don't rise to misdafelony status but are all disabling under MGL. Maybe possession of a small amount of something that isn't MJ

-Mike
 
Cite for this? I know some believe Caron implies this, though I don't think it is that obvious. Will someone fail a NICS check if they have a MPP which does not rise to the level of a federal PP?

Give Wayne Betencourt (BATFE-Boston) a call, seriously, I think he might elucidate the matter above pure speculation.

- - - Updated - - -

Of course these days, how many are there left? I looked up simple assault, I was wrong. It's now a misdafelony. I thought it was like max 1 yr or something.

There might still be some drug laws that don't rise to misdafelony status but are all disabling under MGL. Maybe possession of a small amount of something that isn't MJ

-Mike

I don't think so, pretty sure any quantity of anything more than MJ is a felony from the get-go in MA.
 
Mrs. Knuckle Dragger and I had the opportunity to stop by a few days ago and check the place out on our way out to P-town. We got a nice little tour. All-in-all, a pretty impressive place. The retail shop is the kind of modern, well-lit retail space seldom seem in this industry. Really nice selection of guns and plenty of room to browse and look at stuff.

The range setup is especially well put together, particularly with respect to hygiene. It's clear that a lot of thought went into sound and lead mitigation. I have yet to see a commercial range that put this level of effort into managing lead.
 
Made a trek down to CCGW yesterday to make a purchase and was very impressed. Great folks there and very nice facility.
 
Hi Mousegunfan,
The Mid Week is M-F 10am to 5PM and it gives you 50% off range fees for nights and weekends. Right now we are running a special where we waive the initiation fee if you sign up for 2 years. It is $300 per YEAR and if your a senior or a veteran you get $50.00 off. If your active duty military or police, $100.00 off per year.
Thanks!

Toby
 
Last edited:
Exactly .... though I know such offenses are rare since just about everything trivial is "up to 2.5 years" and thus a misdafelony.

There are several drug possession charges under MGL c. 94C s. 34 as well as possession with intent of class D or E (MGL c. 94C Ss. 32c(a), 32C(b), 32D(a), and 32D(b)) that could still be Mass prohibitive but not federally prohibitive, once the federal prohibition of firearm possession by persons who are the unlawful user of/ addicted to controlled substances is remedied.

Remember, also, that there are people who may have convictions from states other than Massachusetts that would be prohibitive under Massachusetts law but not under federal law. For example, in 2015, Connecticut made possession of many types of controlled substances a class A misdemeanor. There are also numerous crimes of violence from other states that are misdemeanors punishable by less than 2 years imprisonment. And let's not forget the people with out of state, misdemeanor weapons violations....

Lastly, there are also individuals whom may have been denied an LTC or FID on more subjective grounds- who are not inherently disqualified but whom an issuing authority decided was not suitable for some reason.
 
Back
Top Bottom