Sen. Udall aims to expand federal funding for shooting ranges

[jplove71]

Shooting sports advocates say now is the time to increase public access to shooting ranges before they become an endangered species.

Sen. Mark Udall has his sights set on passing The Target Practice and Marksmanship Training Support Act to funnel more money toward building and maintaining public shooting ranges on government-owned land.

"Shooting ranges have become scarce in Colorado, both on and off public lands, and the ones that remain are often poorly maintained. There's an obvious need for this legislation and a lot of support from outdoors groups and people worried about the impacts of dispersed shooting," Udall said.


Read the full story here (http://www.denverpost.com/politics/ci_18400499).

[Irving]

This is surprisingly positive. I'm for it. This very argument has been made here before.

[vim]

Good luck. Last time he raised the issue, his bill was buried in a Barbara Boxer committee with a membership that was obviously not going to let it out for a vote.

[Byte Stryke]

Maybe he is one of the public officials we need to get attending a cleanup day with RMGO Bringing the lemonade to.

[cysoto]

I applaud Sen. Udall for his initiative. Sadly, by reading the comments sections of this article, it looks as though he is encountering a great deal of resistance on the issue.

[scratchy]

Maybe he is one of the public officials we need to get attending a cleanup day with RMGO Bringing the lemonade to.


This is a great idea. and contact some of the other pro shooting sport legislators as well. Make sure to invite all who support 2A. I bet we would get record CO-AR15 attendance as well.

[rocktot]

Is this a response to that Colorado Springs article? Its good news, I would like to see some proper ranges. They would over a period of year, pay for themselves, and it would help avoid environmental damage from the moron crowd. They need those trench ranges, dug into the ground a bit.

[Tweety Bird]

Pandering. Call me a skeptic, but I don't trust Udall. It's all politics.

He knows it's not going anywhere but can claim to be responsive to concerns from folks that are not part of his base.

[Byte Stryke]

Pandering. Call me a skeptic, but I don't trust Udall. It's all politics.

He knows it's not going anywhere but can claim to be responsive to concerns from folks that are not part of his base.

he has always had a pro-outdoor sports viewpoint. so this isn't exactly a windsock alarm.

I have sent him messages via email and Facebook about our cleanups.
who knows...

[Irving]

I thought most people on here generally did not like Udall. Is this the one thing that people agree with him about? Based on what I read in the article, I certainly agree with him on this particular issue.

[DavieD55]

Well, If you like being told when,What,Where,howmuch,If you can or cant then that type of funding is a good idea.

This would probably open the door for a whole lot of bureaucracy to come into your range.

[DavieD55]

Maybe he is one of the public officials we need to get attending a cleanup day with RMGO Bringing the lemonade to.

I'am guessing he would already be supplying the Kool-Aid. [Pepsi]

[cstone]

As long as the local governments can run other recreational facilities, and operate at no cost to the taxpayers, I'm all for using bonds to develop public facilities. This shouldn't be any different than a public golf course or recreation center. Those who use them should pay for them. The rules will be determined by the users because when the rules are too onerous, no one will use the facility and it will fail. Failed facilities are often purchased by private owners who then become more responsive to the users. Either way, the risk is to the bond holders, and that risk is minimal because the sale of a public facility will often cover the amount owed on the outstanding bonds.

When there are as many public ranges as public golf courses, I will start worrying about why politicians want to spend money on them. [Coffee]