Side berms as backstops - a request for your range rules

m39a2 said:
1. The CFO has no legal authority to inspect a range, ever!
2. The "range guidelines" are just that, guideline and have no force in law.

Tell the CFO what you are doing and challenge him to shut you down. The CFO does not have the legal authority to shut down a range, it must be in writing and it must come from the minister.

The CFO's authority from the minister also must be in writing, ask for the document that says so.

Finally, in court, ask the CFO to show the judge where his authority to "Inspect" a range comes from in the Firearms Act.

Stop cowtowing to the bullies and fight back.

Scott
Click to expand...

I think the CFO has legal authority to inspect a range....

Firearms Act, Section 29

29 (1) No person shall operate a shooting club or shooting range except under an approval of the provincial minister for the province in which the premises of the shooting club or shooting range are located.

(2) A provincial minister may approve a shooting club or shooting range for the purposes of this Act if
(a) the shooting club or shooting range complies with the regulations made under paragraph 117(e); and
(b) the premises of the shooting club or shooting range are located in that province.

(3) A provincial minister who approves a shooting club or shooting range for the purposes of this Act may revoke the approval for any good and sufficient reason including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, where the shooting club or shooting range contravenes a regulation made under paragraph 117(e).

(4) A chief firearms officer who is authorized in writing by a provincial minister may perform such duties and functions of the provincial minister under this section as are specified in the authorization.

(5) Where a provincial minister decides to refuse to approve or to revoke an approval of a shooting club or shooting range for the purposes of this Act, the provincial minister shall give notice of the decision to the shooting club or shooting range.

(6) A notice given under subsection (5) must include reasons for the decision disclosing the nature of the information relied on for the decision and must be accompanied by a copy of sections 74 to 81.
Click to expand...

So yes, a CFO can revoke a range approval.

You will not find a judge anywhere in the country who will agree with you that a law enforcement officer with a statutory power to enforce the law is somehow not allowed to inspect the the thing is duty bound to enforce.

Regulations for Shooting Clubs and Ranges.

9 Every five years after the date on which the approval of a shooting range was granted, the operator shall submit current copies of the documents set out in paragraphs 3(2)(a) to (c), as well as evidence of continuing compliance with the requirements referred to in paragraphs 3(2)(d) to (g) and sections 5 and 8, to the chief firearms officer.

10 (1) The chief firearms officer may request an operator of a shooting range to provide evidence as described in section 9 no more than once in a calendar year.
(2) Despite subsection (1), the chief firearms officer may make a request more frequently if he or she
(a) has received, in the preceding 12 months
(i) a personal injury report in accordance with section 11, or
(ii) a change report in accordance with section 12; or
(b) has reasonable grounds to believe that the continued operation of the shooting range may endanger the safety of any person.
Click to expand...

A physical inspection of the range easily falls within the purview of "submitting evidence of compliance with the requirements for that range." Especially how open and generally accommodating the CFOs are in scheduling this inspections. THe only time I have ever heard of an unannounced visit was in relation to a specific complaint.

Personally I don't think the CFOs should be inspecting ranges because they are not qualified or experienced enough to full comprehend the science involved in assessing risk on shooting ranges. It is something that should be left between range operators and their insurance providers. But to suggest that the CFO has no authority to inspect a range... that's silly.
 
Unfortunately in Saskatchewan it appears the Cfo answers to no one except R. Goodale and J.Turdo, he also apparently was the rcmp ballistics guy in a previous life and after the the incident in G.P. This summer he has decided to attack dynamic shooting both indoors and out in addition to start shutting down ranges both private and public that have been in incident free operation for decades. I hope this malarkey doesn't spread to other provinces.
 
Cameron SS said:
I think the CFO has legal authority to inspect a range....

Firearms Act, Section 29



So yes, a CFO can revoke a range approval.

You will not find a judge anywhere in the country who will agree with you that a law enforcement officer with a statutory power to enforce the law is somehow not allowed to inspect the the thing is duty bound to enforce.

Regulations for Shooting Clubs and Ranges.



A physical inspection of the range easily falls within the purview of "submitting evidence of compliance with the requirements for that range." Especially how open and generally accommodating the CFOs are in scheduling this inspections. THe only time I have ever heard of an unannounced visit was in relation to a specific complaint.

Personally I don't think the CFOs should be inspecting ranges because they are not qualified or experienced enough to full comprehend the science involved in assessing risk on shooting ranges. It is something that should be left between range operators and their insurance providers. But to suggest that the CFO has no authority to inspect a range... that's silly.
Click to expand...

I think perhaps you need to re-read the sections you quoted, especially the inspection part. It says nothing about a physical inspection. Our case in Alberta proved it and the CFO is only inspecting ranges if the range operators allow it. If they say no, then the CFO walks away.

Scott
 
m39a2 said:
I think perhaps you need to re-read the sections you quoted, especially the inspection part. It says nothing about a physical inspection. Our case in Alberta proved it and the CFO is only inspecting ranges if the range operators allow it. If they say no, then the CFO walks away.

Scott
Click to expand...

Can you provide a link/reference to your case?

IF a precedent has been established in Alberta Court I am sure there are Ontario Range operators who would love to put that to work for them.
 
Slavex said:
we just had our range inspection done, and what a complete sh!t show. I'll be posting the results when I get the mailed info back from them, but I am expecting to see side berms removed from our approval as well as our special permission to shoot steel at 7yds (which we demonstrated and were approved for by the previous inspector). Not impressed. Also being told that we can't allow the cops to shoot full auto anymore, because you know, that's helping the public somehow.
Click to expand...

Do you shoot jacketed at 7 yrds or just cast lead. I was setting up a cowboy scenario one time with the targets at 7-8 m. and an ex-ipsic shooter came unglued at me "that the target minimum was 10 meters Period !!", when I refused to relent to his fuming he actually called the CFO office (Ab.) from the firing line...When it came for my turn on the phone I asked the CFO for the pertinent Act references...his reply was "there is none but just a in-house edict that jacketed bullet targets must be 10 m". ...I replyed to him that we weren't using jacketed, only cast lead...his reply to that was "carry on as you wish" and we have ever since. That conversation was 8 yrs ago and we have used two more ranges since then and never had any kind of a target distance reference made on any range certification.
 
Take it for whatever you want; The Federal Range Construction Guideline book states "10m minimum distance for shooting steel"
It doesn't say whether it's jacketed or raw lead.

Some enterprising individuals like Rob had demonstrated to various CFOs that 7m for steel challenge was not a safety risk. Sorry to hear that they're going back on that decision.

While the "Ex-IPSIC Shooter" was a #### for have ratted you out to the CFO; (that's an internal matter to your club) the distance for shooting steel should be clearly stated in the range's Range Standing Orders which all ranges are required to have under the guidelines. That set of orders would have been approved when the range was inspected by the CFO. That's the place to refer to when that kind of issue arises.
 
Freedom Ventures said:
Take it for whatever you want; The Federal Range Construction Guideline book states "10m minimum distance for shooting steel"
It doesn't say whether it's jacketed or raw lead.

Some enterprising individuals like Rob had demonstrated to various CFOs that 7m for steel challenge was not a safety risk. Sorry to hear that they're going back on that decision.

While the "Ex-IPSIC Shooter" was a #### for have ratted you out to the CFO; (that's an internal matter to your club) the distance for shooting steel should be clearly stated in the range's Range Standing Orders which all ranges are required to have under the guidelines. That set of orders would have been approved when the range was inspected by the CFO. That's the place to refer to when that kind of issue arises.
Click to expand...

it is not a given that every range would have a minimum safe distance for steel included in their standing orders. There is no default standing orders. Each club, at the time of their application for approval, submits the rules that they want to be approved for. If a club has no interest in shooting steel there is no requirement to have this addressed.

The RCMP Range Design guide says that the minimum safe distance from steel is 10m. Not just steel targets, but any steel, including steel back stops. The NRA Range design guide says 7 years. Caswell built the first indoor shooting range in 1927 and by the 1940s were promoting 7 yards as the defacto minimum safe distance based on anecdotal experience and it was adopted wholesale by the range industry without ever being independently validated. To my knowledge it never has been. To conduct a test in order to determine what it should be would like take 100s of thousands of rounds, would cost millions of dollars, and no one would ever make any money from knowing the answer.

In truth, distance is only one of several factors to be considered when determining minimum safe distance. Angle of impact, velocity, and relative hardness of the bullet in relation to the target/trap media all factor to determine probability of a dangerous ricochet.
 
Don’t forget quality of the steel

Almost every single ricochet I e seen directed up range came from poor poch marked steel, often with the occasional hole thrown in
 
Would love to have a copy of this lawsuit from Alberta to reference for my club.
I've previously published a copy of our range approval showing right on it that we are allowed to shoot steel at 7yds for Steel Challenge (with straw bales on the ground in front of the target to act as a ground baffle), which are totally unnecessary, but made the previous inspector happy. The idea that our side berms are not safe is so ridiculous, as is this new idea that cops should not be allowed to shoot full auto at our range. We'll be fighting this as hard as we can if we get anything back that curtails our previous allowances.
 
Slavex said:
The idea that our side berms are not safe is so ridiculous, as is this new idea that cops should not be allowed to shoot full auto at our range. We'll be fighting this as hard as we can if we get anything back that curtails our previous allowances.
Click to expand...

'Why allow the police to shoot at all...?
 
667 said:
'Why allow the police to shoot at all...?
Click to expand...
At my club - they (not the individual officers, the force) pay well and that $$ goes to range facilities expansion that benefits the members without costing them anything. They use the ranges at the most non-peak times so there really is no cost to it. It's a pretty sweet deal.
 
Onagoth said:
Don’t forget quality of the steel

Almost every single ricochet I e seen directed up range came from poor poch marked steel, often with the occasional hole thrown in
Click to expand...

Yes damaged plates with uneven angles are at higher risk of ricochet, but then so is shooting at a plate that is already swinging.

Quality of the steel is definitely something to consider, but more of a fit for the purpose issue, or a maintenance issue, rather than a range design and use issue, per se.

Even good steel gets worn out and needs to be replaced.
 
Cameron SS said:
$$$. Many agencies pay big dollars to rent the range and significantly subsidizes the membership dues.
Click to expand...

My club turns down requests from LE for range time.
Club is there for members use and we don't need their money.
The last request came with too many other demands so... They too got a 'Sorry... No thanks.
 
667 said:
My club turns down requests from LE for range time. Club is there for members use and we don't need their money. The last request came with too many other demands so... They too got a 'Sorry... No thanks.
Click to expand...

Renting your range facilities to LE agencies does tend to come with a price of its own.
 
One club I belonged to rented to the OPP, the money was good, but all was fine until they started shooting up the props and leaving a mess. They got booted.

Another club I belonged to rented to the OPP and were told no live ammo to be stored in the locker they were allowed to use. Over 10K of .40 was in there - they forgot to lock the door. They got booted.

The club I belong to now will not, under any circumstances, rent the range out. It belongs to the members and we have priority.
 
we have multiple agencies that use our facility under long term contracts with us, as well as numerous other agencies that use us on a more sporadic basis. Without the income from these renters we would not be able to do the things we do at out club. We also have an exceptional relationship with these agencies and their members that has proven beneficial in many instances. Our club also feels that it is absolutely worth being a part of their training and that we want to see our police officers capable and able to do their jobs properly. Should we purchase the land we want to purchase it will only be through the contracts we land that we will be able to do so, and provide an even larger and better facility for our members. As well individual members of those agencies often use our facility (as members of our club) for their after hours training, and we encourage this as well. Perhaps we are lucky in that we have an excellent relationship with our various agency renters and members and do not see them as the enemy, they help us, we help them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom