• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

Should MA ranges prohibit/ban PD qualification courses...

Joined
Mar 4, 2006
Messages
18,157
Likes
9,234
Feedback: 1 / 0 / 0
if the CLEO or department policy places additional requirements for an LTC?

Very few PDs have their own range facilities for firearms qualifications testing. Most rely on renting/leasing time from local gun clubs for officer training and qualification.

Say a particular PD is a thorn in the side with regards to issuing an LTC to a law abiding MA resident, but trains and certifies it's officers at a local gun club.

Should that club tell that PD that their business isn't wanted here any more until policy is changed?

IIRC, some CA gun club instituted the same policy and the gun-grabbers had a melt-down.

This has nothing to do with individual officers, rather it's about sending a message to department heads... 'if you want to play games, we can play games too'... f***'em!

I realize that the PD rental fees contribute to some portion of a ranges operational costs, but there are some things money can't buy.
 
This has nothing to do with individual officers, rather it's about sending a message to department heads... 'if you want to play games, we can play games too'... f***'em!

Before you do that you had better make sure that you have an awful strong hand or you are going to get a quick education in power politics. If the COP is not friendly to local gun owners, what makes you think that he will just roll over and change his policies because his men are locked out of a range? Knowing what Massachusetts politics can be like I imagine that you could be facing a range shut-down (or worse) unless you have some powerful friends in your corner.
 
Local PD's are corporate members of our club. When they wish to use the entire range, they schedule 60 days in advance and pay fees for exclusive use. It brings a very large amount of funding into the club. We have very good relations with the local departments and to do anything to change that would be a VERY big mistake. We need the cooperation of the town officials much more than they need use.

Gun Clubs have enough trouble maintaining their facilities without bringing on addtional problems. Towns have a very wide range of possilities to screw with a gun club. Think about if the EPA comes in and runs tests on the soil for lead content or the air quality in the indoor ranges. The air fitration systems required for indoor ranges along cost in the six figure range.

I'm sure Mass. is much like every other state. Firearm's licensing is not a priority. Most departments have one person assigned on a part time basic.
 
I've been a member of 3 gun clubs (not counting one I just joined, too soon for any data here) and a BOD member of one club for 14 years.

NONE of the local PDs paid a plug nickle to use the ranges, nor did any state or Fed LE organization. MCJTC did arrange for the Army Core of Engineers to do some work gratis as payback at one club, but that is it.

One PD did shut down one club for ~2 years, cost the club >$21K in renovations to get the blessings necessary to re-open. The club didn't have the money to do the work. but begged for donations and no-interest-loans for 3-5 years from club members to pay for what they had to do to get it re-opened. The club was threatened by local LE if they didn't give special preferential treatment to said PD, etc.

The PD has "all the cards" so that a club can't win if they go head-to-head with their local PD/chief, even if they are right.
 
For the last 7 years or so, we've used PD owned ranges in the SE Mass/Cape area. We did use Camp Edwards for a couple of years too until they banned all live fire. Before that I can only think of maybe 3 privately owned ranges that were used.

If a club wanted to make a stand as outlined above, all it would take is a few "noise complaints" and the ball would be rolling to have the club shut down with help from the neighbors who see it as a nuisance.

I would say that you're better off keeping the PD your friend. Invite Officers for a shoot. As mentioned, some offer a different membership and I've heard that some offer their facilities for free. Can't hurt to go in front of the town father's when faced with neighbor complaints and have the PD on your side.

If you want to make a change, you have to go after him politically. It may take a while, it will be a fight but it does work.
 
I have to agree that while it's a nice thought that we should scratch their backs only if they scratch ours, but with something as tenuous as the rights of us Mass gun owners, the ball is definitely in their court.

I think JonJ is correct, it's a battle to be fought in court and by the Pols. We're already hurting enough, why shoot ourselves in the foot?
 
Face it, the Chief isn't going to say, "Ya, gee you're right. I'm an ass and I'm sorry. Everyone can have an ALP. Please oh please, let us shoot at your range".
He'll set it up to go somewhere else and that's only if he does his own in house Quals. Most don't, they rely on the training council.
 
PDs change chiefs every frew years, which can result in a dramatic change in attitudes towards firearms licensing. Northboro went from very restrictive to fairly open, and Worcester went in the opposite direction when chiefs changed. If you pick a battle with a PD, the new chief's first info on the club is not going to be favorable to your cause, and the individual who is given the task of processing the licenses may be the same person your club said "no" to.
 
BillK said:
I have been to ranges where the local PD comes in and locks it for LE only qual's.... that did piss not only me off, but the club too..

I dunno, from some of the horror stories from lousy shooting and gun-handling at PD qualifying shoots I dunno if I'd want to be within a mile of the club.

-Weer'd Beard
 
It would not be unreasonable to require that the PD provide a policy listing the club as an "Additional named insured"
 
Like JonJ, I think you'd be much better off opening the club up to LEO rather than blocking them.

In fact, encouraging frequent use (in the form of free/discounted memberships) by the local PD would seem a good policy. We are already the enemy. If we want to change attitudes, it won't be by making things yet more divisive.

Though I did smile momentarily at the thought of sticking it to my local COP...

Matt
 
My club used to let the Corrections Dept. use our range. USED to because the guards left our range a pigstye.

I also remember a certain club located along Rte. 109 that was almost shut down because of incompetent gun handling that sent shots onto neighbors' land. It was the local cops practicing their (apparently quite shoddy) "quick draw" techniques; not the members.

That said, the political realities have been set forth quite clearly above. Besides, I love finding all that once-fired, nickel-plated brass they leave behind! [wink]
 
Should MA ranges prohibit/ban PD qualification courses...
Speaking for myself regarding my club, I’d say absolutely not! I’m happy to have the local PD shoot at my club.

I think we need as much good will between the sport shooting community and the LE community as possible. I feel that it’s important that we both understand and respect each other.

This last week, after asking permission from one of their instructors, I watched our local PD finish the last day of their qualifications. What I saw was a group of shooters who were controlled very well by their instructors and showed safe gun handling skills during their course fire.

Although I sat far to the right of the officers, during the time I watched, four different LEOs took a least a little time to speak with me. One explained the course of fire for hand guns, how it was to be scored and added a little information of the other guns they were going to shoot that evening.

He also expressed interest in joining the club and that’s always a good thing!

Another LEO took the time to apologize for bumping me from the range (I explained they didn’t as I had come down to watch). He informed me that after this phase of shooting the shooters were going to record the s/n of the firearms and that I’d be “covered” by the muzzles as they do so. I moved until they finished.:)

One of the town’s regional (?) Swat team members took time to discuss his choice of weapon (I wasn’t familiar with it) and it’s drawbacks (weight).

Over all, for me, it was an interesting evening. I’d hate to lose any good will that currently exists between our local PD and our club.


Respectfully,

jkelly
 
The range I shoot at in Rochester has a few organizations that shoot there. I've seen some that I didn't even recognize, and heard about ICE practicing there as well as the local police.They'd really make a mess of the target stands, blasting em to bits, leaving trash behind, etc.
Best thing is now the club is making a range right next door just for them.
 
I've seen and participated in many LEO QUALS and I can only think of one time where I witnessed something unsafe and that was years ago. There are unsafe shooters everywhere, LEO or not. The lines are strictly run and everyone gets a range safety refresher.
Policing the range after QUAL is mandatory and I can say that the police ranges that I've shot at are cleaner than some private ones. When I go to Plymouth R&G I always pick up 5 times more brass than I shot.
Go to the Barnstable Municipal Range if you want to see something that's a mess. LEO shooting there is a very small percentage of the use.
 
Outright ban, no. Ban on certain departments, I've seen that happen. Of the two clubs that I am a member of both only let the town police use the range for qualifications. In both cases it was police from out of town that were being unsafe, messy and inviting all their friends down to shoot.

My biggest beef is with MA dealers that sell “leo only” equipment to departments. I’m not talking about form 4 stuff either but +10 mags and firearms and rifles other civilians can not purchase. But that is a different thread.
 
We finally got fed up and kicked the local PD out years ago under the old chief. He was a PITA would never gave anything but "Target and Hunting", but that wasn't the reason. When they did their period night shooting training & qualifications, the neighbors would frequently phone to complain about people shooting at the club after dark. Rather than explaining that it was the police training, the dispatcher would simply reply "We'll send a car out to investigate." We found out and complained to the chief. When it happened again (One of our officers called to "complain", just to see what would happen) we told them to take a hike. There were never any repercussions, and we get along great with the current Chief.

Ken
 
I don't recommend that any club kick out the PDs from using it to qualify, however there should be rules laid down and if the PDs refuse to abide by them, you don't invite them back as your guests . . . and let this be known to TPTB upfront so there are no surprises.

Some problem areas that PDs have created for clubs that I have been a member or BOD member of (I had no involvement in the Ts & Cs with those PDs) over the past 30 years:

- PDs shouldn't threaten the club or its members to demand concessions, free use for union members, etc. It's called extortion in the legal world and is not cool. [One instance I was present for the meeting where this happened and wouldn't have believed it if I hadn't heard it with my own ears.]

- Clubs that give permission to the PD for specific dates/times for "official use only". Then individual officers come down on their own time with sub-guns, their own personal hunting rifles, etc. and use it whenever they like. Problem is that the range is restricted to handgun and .22RF rifles only, not designed for high-power rifle and houses aren't more than 100-200 yds away from backstop. Safety issues that apply to members should also apply to the PD, and if the club doesn't give carte blanche to all officers (this one didn't) and won't allow its paying members to do these things, guests should abide by the same rules. [One case I know of, a club officer stopped a local LEO who was shooting a hunting rifle and the LEO threatened the club officer! BOD wasn't even told who the LEO was and nothing was done, for fear of repercussions from PD.]

- PDs that are allowed to use club for free (specific dates for quals only): When officers from some of these towns stop citizens from shooting in their towns (sandpits, back yards, etc.) they tell them to go over and use xyz club! So now the club has trespassers shooting up the place, not following rules, etc and when they are approached their answer was that abc PD told them to come over and use this club!

- If they are guests, they should clean up after themselves before leaving. Some PDs are good about this, others have been slobs and left a mess.

The problems with a club bending over backwards for any PD, inconveniencing the paying members, while the PD uses it for free are:

- The "brass" you are trying to impress are not usually even using the range. They aren't usually "shooters".

- Some officers who are "shooters" will really appreciate what you are offering. They might even join the club as dues paying members. This is good.

- Some officers who don't really like guns, just take it for granted. They aren't even aware of details of the "deal" between PD and the club. This probably leads to the scenario that one club had as I noted above with the PD "sending" shooters in their town over to trespass on the club!

- The chiefs talk and before you know it, the accomodating club is getting inundated from PDs and other LE orgs within a 20 mile radius! This starts to seriously impinge on range availability for paying members.


I recommend that a club treat everyone equally, until or unless they create a problem for that club. If that happens, try to work it out and/or boot them if they can't abide by the clubs rules for using the place.
 
Last edited:
To have a range left in poor condition after quals. is the direct responsibility of the department's firearms instructor. It is his responsibility to see that the range is left in proper condition when they leave. We have had similar problems with departments but after speaking with the administrator in charge, they were corrected.

When we used a local club range back in NJ, I considered our department a guest. I was a member since age 15 and considered it "my" range. It was left clean with brass picked up to the best of our ability. Any on of my people who acted out of line or unsafe was ordered off of the range. If he was unable to complete the state mandated qualification due to that action, he was suspended until he could qualify, at our time frame. Fortunatly, it was not necessary very often.

No club should have to put up with unsafe or inconsiderate shooters, be it PD or civilian. Fortunaatly we haven't had any major problems and the ralationship remains very good. Gun clubs have enough enemies out there in the public eye. No need to add more, but no need to put up with any bull.
 
LoginName said:
if the CLEO or department policy places additional requirements for an LTC?

{SNIP}

This has nothing to do with individual officers, rather it's about sending a message to department heads... 'if you want to play games, we can play games too'... f***'em!

Actually this has everything to do with the individual Officers and absolutely nothing to do with the CLEO.

The line Officers need to qualify for their own protection whether they like it or not. The Chief will not change his issuing policy based on anything done to prevent or encourage that. If he is against firearms he is probably against it for his men too. (Been there)

It is better to set policies and stick to them for use of your range than to piss off the whole PD. Require a club Range Officer be on site. Require they clean up after themselves. If there is a neighbor problem, require they notify the neighbors prior to the night shoot with a blurb in the local paper.

There are a lot of ways to solve problems. The last part of your post that I quoted is not one of them.

Regards,
 
It would seem that the prevailing opinion is, no matter what the COP feels about civilian CCW and firearms ownership it is better to work with your local PD and try to make a positive change through public relations/judicial means rather than go "an eye-for-an-eye".
 
Range Incident

Here is an incident that just occured in NJ during police qualifications. The sad part is that such incidents, whoever is responsible can cause grief and possible closure of ranges.

Not only poor handling of a firearm but poor maintenance procedures.

Bullet penetrates window of Princeton Township home a mile away from firing range

An incident involving a bullet misfired from a police firearms training range that struck a Princeton Township residence a mile away has resulted in additional precautions at the practice facility in order to avoid the "one-in-a-million" chance of reoccurrence, acting Princeton Township Police Chief Mark Emann said Wednesday.

The precautions, which include officers now shooting through a 2-foot diameter water pipe to prevent a wayward bullet, come after an April 12 incident that is being investigated by township police in which a bullet penetrated the living room window of a Governors Lane home and landed within 10 feet of where resident Elise Nakhnikian was typing on her computer.

At about 1 p.m. that day, members of the Princeton Borough Police Department were practicing at the firearms range shared with the township off River Road in Princeton Township when a rifle malfunctioned, causing the weapon's firing pin to release and the cartridge to fire without the officer pulling the trigger, acting Chief Emann said.

The manufacturer has inspected the rifle and concluded that the misfire was the direct result of a faulty trigger on the Model 700 Remington, the acting chief noted.

Because of the angle of the rifle at the time of the malfunction, the bullet passed over the 60-foot protective berm that surround the range, and continued for a mile in a southwesterly direction towards Governors Lane, acting Chief Emann said. The bullet hit a metal railing outside the home, ricocheted upwards at about a 45-degree angle, entered the home through the front window and struck the crown molding around the ceiling, the acting chief said. "It struck that and fell down," he said.

Ms. Nakhnikian and her husband, Steven Gittelson, were home at the time of the incident — Ms. Nakhnikian said she was sitting within 10 feet of the bullet's path and Mr. Gittelson was in the next room making a phone call.
"I just heard this tremendous bang," Ms. Nakhnikian said. "I looked to my left and there was a hole in the window. I said to my husband, 'I think we just got shot at.'" The window is by the preferred seat of the couple's cat, Ms. Nakhnikian explained. "The bullet came in a little bit above where her head usually is," she said. Ms. Nakhnikian said she then went to get a stepladder to observe what happened but Mr. Gittelson warned her to stay put. The couple then called the police. "Once we received a call from the homeowner, we almost simultaneously got a call from the borough about the incident" at the practice facility, acting Chief Emann said. Police arrived at the Governors Lane home within minutes, but they did not instantly connect the misfired shot at the range with the one that entered the home a mile away. The two hours directly following the incident were the most frightening because, at that point, the origin of the bullet was unclear, Ms. Nakhnikian said. "That was really the scariest part," she said, adding that she worried that a sniper was involved and feared for the safety of herself and those around her.

At about 3 p.m., however, she said the chiefs of police for the borough, Anthony Federico, acting Chief Emann, arrived at her house to explain the cause of the incident. Acting Chief Emann said the investigation is ongoing, adding it is unlikely that the officer holding the gun — whom police have not identified — will be penalized. The misfire was confirmed by Remington engineers to be a direct result of the faulty weapon, the acting chief said. "We don't feel at this time that any action is going to be taken against the officer," he said.

Investigations by Remington engineers revealed that the gun was flawed because of a defective servicing it underwent from an outside company prior to the incident, Chief Federico said. According to Chief Federico, two Model 700 Remingtons owned by the borough police — including the weapon involved the April 12 incident — were found by Remington engineers to be defective as a result of an improper servicing by the same outside company. The guns are being sent back to Remington, where they will be fixed, Chief Federico said. Ms. Nakhnikian commended the actions taken by borough and township police departments. "They really did a great job," she said. And despite the scare, she said she feels safe in her home.
"I think this was a freak accident," she said. While the situation was certainly startling, particularly before the cause was determined, Ms. Nakhnikian said she doesn't feel like it was a near-death experience. "I really didn't feel like I just dodged a bullet, so to speak," she said. But, Ms. Nakhnikian said she believes the incident reveals a more systemic problem in American culture. "There's too many guns in this country," she said. "Because there are so many guns, the cops have to have guns."

And because police need to be trained with the weapons, she added, "There's really this big, huge problem in America of open firing ranges in populated areas." Recognizing that the likelihood of another bullet hitting her house is virtually nil, Ms. Nakhnikian said she hopes precautions are taken in communities across the country to ensure that practice ranges placed near neighborhoods are safe. As she says — and as her situation indicates — "the odds of anything happening are tiny, but they are not zero."
[thinking]
 
At about 1 p.m. that day, members of the Princeton Borough Police Department were practicing at the firearms range shared with the township off River Road in Princeton Township when a rifle malfunctioned, causing the weapon's firing pin to release and the cartridge to fire without the officer pulling the trigger, acting Chief Emann said.

The manufacturer has inspected the rifle and concluded that the misfire was the direct result of a faulty trigger on the Model 700 Remington, the acting chief noted.
Sure, it's the rifle's fault. My guess is that either there was a problem with a Mk 1 Mod 0 trigger finger or someone goonsmithed the action on said rifle.
 
But, Ms. Nakhnikian said she believes the incident reveals a more systemic problem in American culture. "There's too many guns in this country," she said. "Because there are so many guns, the cops have to have guns."

Did she get paid by the Brady Bunch to parrot their party line? [rolleyes]
 
Re: NJ incident

True stories:

Reading, MA - Some LE organization was shooting at the range (don't recall name of range), a round struck a house some distance away. None of the LE orgs that were using the range took responsibility for the incident, even though it was well documented that they were the exclusive users at the time of the incident. End result was that the range was shut down for all! This occurred well over 20 years ago IIRC.

Neighbor across the street told me some 25 years ago that he had a bullet lodged in his window frame, a lose round from either one of the two gun clubs or a careless hunter. Late Chief confirmed the story to me with details, but he's been deceased for >20 years and I don't recall the details any more. Incident happened prior to our moving here, so this happened more than 32 years ago.

Some 20 years ago, a shooter at Massapoag Sportsmen's Club created a skip-shot which struck the arm of a young lady taking a smoking break at Crescent Ridge Dairy, 1/2 mile away from the range. Investigating officer found shooter, confiscated gun, had MSP test it and confirm source of bullet. Chief ordered Sharon Fish & Game shut down (payback, see my comments earlier) even though that club had no involvement in the incident (all this was confirmed to me directly by the investigating officer many years later). SF&G wasn't allowed to reopen for ~2 years and had to make >$21K in renovations to the outdoor range. Atty Ed George represented the club with the Selectmen and recommended all outside users be required to sign a "hold harmless" statement, provide proof of $1Million insurance covering the club if an incident occurs, etc. Sharon PD refused to sign it and thus were denied use of the club for qualifications as a result. The only LE groups that agreed to the terms were MCJTC which used it for a number of years and BC PD who still uses it and actually pays the club for the privilege.
 
Back
Top Bottom