Subject: DesNews says only shoot at a professional range or don't shoot at all
Read especially the last few paragraphs of this editorial.
So now, in the name of fire prevention the anti-gun DesNews editorializes against all shooting except at a professional range. Simply taking prudent measures to avoid causing a fire is not sufficient for them. No bets on whether they'd support a few public ranges or even easing the zoning for private ranges.
Letters to the editor of the DesNews can be sent to <letters@desnews.com>. Letters must include a full name, address, city and telephone number.
Drivers along I-15 in Davis County can now clearly see the ring of black, charred earth that hangs like a shroud on the mountainside above Farmington. They also can see where the ring ends, just to the east of houses and neighborhoods.
Fortunately, no house was burned. As of Monday the fire was 50 percent contained and not expected to threaten homes. That's due to a combination of good firefighting and favorable conditions ù and to the fact no homes exist higher up the mountainside.
This fire should be a warning to anyone planning to build higher than anyone has gone before in any spot along the Wasatch Front ù a popular notion among some developers.
Fires can happen anywhere. On days like these, with temperatures rising to 100 degrees or more, tinder-dry vegetation is ready to burst at the slightest spark. But the hillsides, with mountainous and difficult terrain nearby, are particularly vulnerable and dangerous.
Hillside homes are hazards for fires during hot, dry summers and for landslides during rainy periods. They could fall over in an earthquake. In addition, they mar the beauty of the mountains for everyone else who lives in the valley.
Davis County, including Farmington, is undergoing a planning process that ultimately could protect its hillsides from development. In Salt Lake and Utah counties, however, policies vary from city to city, and often they allow for developers to keep testing new heights.
Simply put, this is crazy.
Mountainside homeowners don't have to worry simply about the odd lightning strike. They have to contend with the stupidity of man, which seems to be in abundant supply.
Another wildfire started because people were shooting at targets outside of Saratoga Springs. Apparently, they tried to put out the fire, but it spread too quickly. A BLM official suggested shooters look for areas with little vegetation and that they bring fire extinguishers with them. We have a better solution. Go to a professional firing range, or don't shoot at all.
Officials say target shooters start a fire a week on average during hot summer months in Utah. Generally, they don't shoot in the valleys. They shoot in the mountains, where they stand less chance of hitting people.
Mountain fires aren't new here. The first recorded wildfire near present-day Farmington was in 1846, a full year before Mormon pioneers entered Utah. By now, everyone should have learned. Don't build houses where it's most difficult to pump water and douse a blaze
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!
- -
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 18:29:27 GMT
From: Charles Hardy <utbagpiper@juno.com>
Subject: Shoot only at public ranges
In response to yesterday's DesNews articles telling us to ONLY shoot at a professional range, I've sent the following letter to their editor. I've also sent a note to the SLCo Mayor and County Council. I encourage others to do likewise.
<letters@desnews.com> and <MayorNancy@co.slc.ut.us>, and <http://www.co.slc.ut.us/co/cfml/co_contact.cfm>.
Charles Hardy
Policy Director
GOUtah! (Gun Owners of Utah!)
xxxxx
Sandy, Utah xxxx
xxx.xxx.xxxx
Dear Editor,
I'm writing in reference to your July 16th Editorial, "Fire a reminder to developers," in which you admonish shooters "Go to a professional firing range, or don't shoot at all. I would certainly enjoy shooting out of the hot sun and choking dust. How nice to practice self-defense tactics, duck hunting draws, or even sight in an Elk gun in a pleasant, controlled environment and without having to drive 60 minutes into the mountain or desert! Sanitation and concession facilities would also be welcome.
Unfortunately, the existence of sufficient publicly accessible shooting ranges, especially those that allow the weapons or activities mentioned above, has escaped my attention. Please publish a list of ranges that are OPEN TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC. Please be sure to let your readers know what types of firearms may be discharged and which shooting activities may be pursued at each range along with the costs.
Do some checking and youÆll find that in a State where the majority of homes have at least one firearm, there are almost no publicly accessible outdoor shooting ranges and very few indoor rangesùespecially that are equipped to handle anything other than standing practice with a handgun or a .22 LR.
In light of this, and with the history of taxes supporting an abundance of golf courses, health centers, tennis courts, soccer fields, swimming pools, skateboarding parks, musical presentations, arts festivals, and other public recreational facilities, IÆm sure the Deseret News will advocate the desirability of using ZAP taxes to construct some public shooting ranges. I trust you desire is simply to increase the safety of the shooting sports, not to diminish participation by eliminating venues.
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!
- -
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 23:18:48 GMT
From: Charles Hardy <utbagpiper@juno.com>
Subject: FW: Poll: Should Residents of DC have Guns?
One has to wonder why it has taken Hatch so long to finally introduce legislation such as this. The cynic in me says it is merely to bolster support among conservatives who are likely to disaprove of his latest Con Amd to let naturalized citizens serve as POTUS (or other non-conservative issues pushed by the Senator) and he has no real intention of burning much political capital on it. After all, nothing like this kind of bill to end coverage of his ConAmd.
As a side note, I observe that for a man who claims to believe the Constitution is a document inspired of God, Hatch sure likes to offer up amendments to change it. I guess I shouldn't be surprised. A lot of people might be persuaded to accept the Bible as inspired if only they could change a few passages here and there. ;)
In any case, check out the poll.
==================
Charles Hardy
<utbagpiper@juno.com>
- ---------- Forwarded Message ----------
It's a loaded question (notice how the "No" vote is phrased) but we're
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!
- -
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 15:32:25 GMT
From: Charles Hardy <utbagpiper@juno.com>
Subject: Why is Hatch finally pushing for DC gun rights?
FYI...
<http://www.cato.org/dailys/07-21-03-2.html>
Battle of the Ban
by Robert A. Levy and Gene Healy
Robert A. Levy is senior fellow in constitutional studies and Gene Healy is senior editor at the Cato Institute.
Disarmed residents of the nation's capital, which is also the nation's murder capital, seem to have attracted a powerful ally in Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah). The D.C. Personal Protection Act, introduced by Hatch on July 15, would repeal the District's 27-year ban on handguns and lift prohibitions on carrying weapons in homes and businesses.
Yes, Congress has been through this before. For the first time, however, someone with the heft of Orrin Hatch is leading the charge. Why Hatch? And why his sudden preoccupation with D.C. after 27 years? As Council member Kathy Patterson (D-Ward 3) put it: "I can't believe a senator of his stature would waste time on something like that." Of course, defenseless Washingtonians, at the mercy of the local drug gangs, may have a different view of what constitutes wasted time. Still, that doesn't explain Hatch's sudden emergence as a crusader for repeal.
Enter the National Rifle Association, a Hatch supporter (and vice versa), the organization most closely associated with vindicating gun owners' rights. Now it gets really convoluted, because the facts suggest that Hatch and the NRA are doing everything they can to prevent the Supreme Court from upholding the Second Amendment. Here's the untold story behind the Hatch bill: It was concocted by the NRA to head off a pending lawsuit, Parker v. District of Columbia, which challenges the D.C. gun ban on Second Amendment grounds.
In February, joined by two other attorneys, we filed the Parker case, a civil lawsuit in federal court on behalf of six D.C. residents who want to be able to defend themselves with a handgun in their own homes. When we informed the NRA of our intent, we were advised to abandon the effort. Surprisingly, the expressed reason was that the case was too good. It could succeed in the lower courts then move up to the Supreme Court where, according to the NRA, it might receive a hostile reception.
Maybe so. But with a Republican president filling vacancies, one might expect the Court's composition to improve by the time our case was reviewed. More important, if a good case doesn't reach the nine justices, a bad one will. Spurred by Attorney General John Ashcroft's endorsement of an individual right to bear arms, public defenders across the country are invoking the Second Amendment as a defense to prosecution. How long before the high court gets one of those cases, with a crack dealer as the Second Amendment's poster child?
Despite that risk, the NRA seems determined to derail our case. Nearly two months after we filed our lawsuit, the NRA filed a copycat suit on behalf of five D.C. residents and moved to consolidate its case with ours. Both suits challenged the same regulations, asked the same relief, and raised the same Second Amendment arguments. But the NRA included several unrelated constitutional and statutory counts, each of which would prolong and complicate our case and give the court a path around the Second Amendment.
Worse still, the NRA sued not only the District of Columbia but also Ashcroft, presumably because the Justice Department prosecutes felonies in D.C. Yet no NRA plaintiff is at risk of a felony prosecution. Joining Ashcroft simply adds months to the litigation so the court can decide whether he is a proper defendant. Regrettably, we now have two suits, one of which is unnecessary and counterproductive.
Thankfully, on July 8, federal judge Emmet Sullivan, wishing "to avoid any protracted delay in the resolution of the merits in either case," denied the NRA's motion to consolidate. That means the NRA failed in its attempt to control the legal strategy. Just one week later, Sen. Hatch introduced his bill. The timing is suspicious, to say the least. If enacted, Hatch's D.C. Personal Protection Act could result in the dismissal of our lawsuit. After all, plaintiffs cannot challenge a law that no longer exists.
Everything points to an NRA effort to frustrate Parker. Why was the bill introduced by Hatch rather than some back-bencher? Why not wait for a court decision (the legislative option is always open, even if the court were to go the wrong way on the Second Amendment)? Why did the NRA file its suit at the outset? Why raise extraneous legal claims, then move to consolidate with Parker, a clean Second Amendment case? Why include Ashcroft when he's so obviously an improper defendant? Essentially, the NRA is saying, "If we can't control the litigation, there will be no litigation."
Yes, the rights of D.C. residents can be vindicated by either legislation or litigation. But a narrow bill aimed at the D.C. Code will have negligible impact on gun owners' rights when contrasted with an unambiguous pronouncement, applicable across the nation, from the U.S. Supreme Court.
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!
- -
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 18:53:07 GMT
From: Charles Hardy <utbagpiper@juno.com>
Subject: Anti-self-defense SLTrib
While I have expressed some concerns about the timing and motivation of Hatch's bill to allow DC residents to keep guns in their homes and businesses (but, so far as I know does not provide any CCW or other means to carry legally in public), I do not oppose the bill. (I would hate to see it derail a good clean lawsuit.)
The SLTrib, OTOH, opposses the bill on its merits. Today's editorial:
It may have escaped the notice of Sen. Orrin Hatch, busy as he is telling the District of Columbia what its laws should be, but one thing should be obvious.
Washington ain't Utah.
Hatch wants Congress to overturn the Washington City Council's strict gun-control laws.
Hatch is acting on the intellectually flawed and morally bankrupt argument that pouring more guns into a violent city would somehow make it less violent. Worse, he is seeking to usurp the District's limited home-rule authority on the insultingly paternalistic grounds that Congress Knows Best.
Washington does have exceptionally strict gun laws, at least by American standards, and crime is still a big problem. Legal gun ownership there is strictly limited, with every gun supposedly registered and every gun owner supposedly licensed.
Supposedly is the word, because the laws of course aren't stopping people, law-abiding and criminal, from obtaining and carrying weapons. Really limiting the trade and possession of firearms is difficult in any circumstance and, with D.C. surrounded by the more gun-friendly states of Maryland and Virginia, it has proved nigh onto impossible.
Still, Hatch's argument that arming more citizens would help quell Washington's murder rate, which floats between the third- and seventh-highest of major cities, is grounded in a culture that has watched far too many movies.
In fiction, the good guys never have to fumble for their weapon when taken by surprise, never have it go off too soon or too late, never shoot themselves or an innocent passer-by. Matt Dillon never left his gun within reach of a child, or a drug addict. James Bond never caressed it while in the throes of suicidal despair.
In real life, these things happen all the time, even to trained police officers. While there is little doubt that some criminals would be stopped in their tracks by a clear-eyed pistol-packing citizen, there is even less doubt that, overall, adding guns to ease violence is like adding gasoline to put out a fire.
Hatch's Utah has looser restrictions on guns. And it has less crime. It also has a smaller, richer, more religious, more highly educated population, more intact families, more open spaces, less drugs and alcohol. Our people, not our guns, are the reason for our lower crime rate.
If Orrin Hatch can find a way to make Washington more like Utah in all those other respects, he might have a chance of making the nation's capital a safer place to live.
Otherwise, he should let the people of the District of Columbia make their own laws.
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!
- -
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 23:22:59 GMT
From: Charles Hardy <utbagpiper@juno.com>
Subject: Mayor Workman suggests banning all shooting outside of professional ra nges
I am astounded at the following response I've just received from our (GOP? or RINO?) SLCo Mayor to my email suggesting that ZAP taxes might appropirately be used for construction of public shooting ranges.
While her suggestion to ban all shooting outside of professional ranges is probably a moot point as I believe all of SLCo is already off limits to recreational shooting, I'm disgusted that she would propose doing so and thought some here might want to respond. (In a professional, dignified manner, of course.)
Charles
==================
Charles Hardy
<utbagpiper@juno.com>
- ---------- Forwarded Message ----------
Dear Mr. Hardy:
Thank you for your email. I appreciate your sharing of your thoughts
concerning proper shooting ranges and encouragement of use of those venues
by shooters. As you may be aware, I am acutely concerned with the potential
for fire in this extremely dry summer. I have worked with our Fire
Department to restrict illegal use of fireworks and outright bans of any
fireworks in certain areas. It would seem to be an appropriate next step to
consider a similar restriction on using firearms outside of approved ranges.
I will work with the Fire Chief on this issue. Again, I appreciate your
thoughts. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Mayor Nancy Workman
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Charles Hardy [mailto:utbagpiper@juno.com]
> Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2003 12:16 PM
> To: Mayor Nancy
> Cc: Randy Horiuchi; Jim Bradley; Steve Harmsen; Joe Hatch; Michael H
> Jensen; David Wilde; Russell Skousen; Cortlund Ashton; Marvin
> Hendrickson
> Subject:
>
>
>
>
> Dear Mayor Workman and SL County Council members,
>
> I've recently received your report on how my ZAP taxes are being
> allocated and spent. Coincidentally, yesterday, the Deseret News ran
> an editorial admonishing shooters to ONLY shoot at professional
> shooting ranges. Below, is the Deseret News editorial and a letter
> I've sent in response.
>
> What is the position of the SLCo Mayor and each Council member on the
> topic of providing safe and appropriate shooting venues for the
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!
- -
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 17:21:57 GMT
From: Charles Hardy <utbagpiper@juno.com>
Subject: Fw: SLCo Mayor's non-position on public shooting ranges.
The following is a brief email exchange I've recently had with SLCo Mayor Nancy Workman. Notice that she carefully avoids taking a firm position on public shooting ranges. And she was VERY quick to suggest/support a total ban on all recreational shooting except in "approved" ranges.
I think we ought to push Mayor Workman and our SLCo council to use some ZAP tax monies for shooting ranges and see how many the Republicans among them really support the RKBA and how many would rather see tax money spent only on high brow arts and parks for skate punks.
Charles
==================
Charles Hardy
<utbagpiper@juno.com>
- ---------- Forwarded Message ----------
Dear Charles
That is a new and interesting concept. Shooting is a recreational activity.
ZAP funding is a function of the County Council in this new form of
government. I will pass this on to County Council Chairman Jensen.
Thank you.
Nancy Workman
County Mayor
- -----Original Message-----
From: Charles Hardy [mailto:utbagpiper@juno.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 10:06 AM
To: Mayor Nancy
Subject: RE:
Mayor Workman,
My pleasure.
Again, what is your position on using ZAP taxes to help fund public shooting
ranges in SLCo?
Thank you.
Charles
==================
Charles Hardy
<utbagpiper@juno.com>
- --- Mayor Nancy <MayorNancy@CO.SLC.UT.US> wrote:
Thank you for the clarification.
Mayor Workman
- -----Original Message-----
From: Charles Hardy [mailto:utbagpiper@juno.com]
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2003 5:26 PM
To: Mayor Nancy
Subject: Re:
Dear Mayor Workman;
Perhaps you misread my email. I am NOT suggesting that the county ban all
recreational shooting outside of "approved ranges." I am suggesting that
public shooting ranges are every bit as appropriate use of ZAP taxes as are
theaters, zoos, and the other attractions currently funded by those taxes.
I believe providing safe and appropriate venues for shooting is a far better
solution than simply banning shooting while few if any such venues exist.
==================
Charles Hardy
<utbagpiper@juno.com>
- --- Mayor Nancy <MayorNancy@CO.SLC.UT.US> wrote:
Dear Mr. Hardy:
Thank you for your email. I appreciate your sharing of your thoughts
concerning proper shooting ranges and encouragement of use of those venues
by shooters. As you may be aware, I am acutely concerned with the potential
for fire in this extremely dry summer. I have worked with our Fire
Department to restrict illegal use of fireworks and outright bans of any
fireworks in certain areas. It would seem to be an appropriate next step to
consider a similar restriction on using firearms outside of approved ranges.
I will work with the Fire Chief on this issue. Again, I appreciate your
thoughts. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Mayor Nancy Workman
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Charles Hardy [mailto:utbagpiper@juno.com]
> Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2003 12:16 PM
> To: Mayor Nancy
> Cc: Randy Horiuchi; Jim Bradley; Steve Harmsen; Joe Hatch; Michael H
> Jensen; David Wilde; Russell Skousen; Cortlund Ashton; Marvin
> Hendrickson
> Subject:
>
>
>
>
> Dear Mayor Workman and SL County Council members,
>
> I've recently received your report on how my ZAP taxes are being
> allocated and spent. Coincidentally, yesterday, the Deseret News ran
> an editorial admonishing shooters to ONLY shoot at professional
> shooting ranges. Below, is the Deseret News editorial and a letter
> I've sent in response.
>
> What is the position of the SLCo Mayor and each Council member on the
> topic of providing safe and appropriate shooting venues for the
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!
- -
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 19:38:15 GMT
From: Charles Hardy <utbagpiper@juno.com>
Subject: FW: Concealed Weapon Permit Holders get in trouble even less frequent ly than do police officers
Some more info on the comparision between police officers and private CCW permit holders provided by Scott Engen.
Again, comparisions between police officers' and private CCW permitees' rates of problems are useful for CCW permit holders precisely because the police are such a trusted groups (and rightfully so in most cases). Hence, you'll note the subtle change in subject line, which I think may be a prudent change in language usage.
We are NOT suggesting that police officers are bad people or untrustworthy. We are simply pointing out that, by at least some measures, private CCW permitees "get into trouble" even less frequently than do our sworn peace officers.
Charles
==================
Charles Hardy
<utbagpiper@juno.com>
- ---------- Forwarded Message ----------
Regarding the Cops/CCW stats issue:
I raised this very comparison in a joint House/Senate committee shortly after we did the Utah CCW reforms in the mid-1990's.
While our dedicated police officers, just like CCW holders, are among the finest members of our society and are being asked to do a difficult and often thankless job, there are a few additional points to consider:
- -POST certifies some 8000-plus officers in Utah, but something less than half are Cat. 1 (Fully sworn officers with full arrest powers) and thus able to carry a firearm on or off duty per, their department's regs. The balance are Cat. 2 (Special Service Officers such as corrections, dispatchers, etc.) and generally only able to carry on duty per department regs.
- -Many of both the Cat 1 and Cat 2 officers also have a CCW, to allow them greater latitude in carrying a personal firearm off duty. Departments often encourage their people to get a CCW, usually to minimize their liability for any sort of off-duty confrontation from one of their employees.
- -Law enforcement as a group has demonstrated in numerous studies a higher rate of divorce, suicide, domestic violence and other potentially dangerous behaviors than those of the general public.
- -Utah CCW holders are the ONLY group that are subject to a DAILY criminal background check by Utah BCI. Not cops, illegal aliens, elected officials, judges or TV reporters. Just our nearly 60,000 CCW holders.
- -Thus it is possible, even probable that the figures demonstrating the highly responsible CCW holder behavior as [forwarded] by Mr. Hardy are actually even better in real life than the 1/3 less revocations compared to police as he stated.
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!
- -
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 19:42:29 GMT
From: Charles Hardy <utbagpiper@juno.com>
Subject: Fw: Re: Fw: SLCo Mayor's non-position on public shooting ranges.
Some more good points about (the lack of) public shooting ranges both in SLCo and in the State of Utah as a whole.
I wonder how much money the Utah legislature or any county commision has sought, much less obtained, from the feds for construction of shooting ranges.
Charles
==================
Charles Hardy
<utbagpiper@juno.com>
- ---------- Forwarded Message ----------
You might also want to note that SGMA's recreational participation research shows that target shooting sits between golf and tennis in number of particpants nationally, around 18-20 million annually, and would be higher than the national average in Utah. Also note that there is the federal Pittman-Robertson excise tax of 11% on guns and ammo at point of manufacture earmarked for game preservation and range construction.
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!
- -
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 21:21:51 GMT
From: Charles Hardy <utbagpiper@juno.com>
Subject: RE: Re: Fw: SLCo Mayor's non-position on public shooting ranges.
Dear Mayor Workman,
I believe much good could come from greater interactions between the shooting public and sworn peace officers. While there are certainly times when the police need exclusive use of certain facilities, I fear that having exclusive use of a segregated range insulates officers too much from a major segment of those they serve and protect. Unfortunately, the very segment they are thus insulated from, private gun owners many of whom hold state issued CCW permits and carry concealed firearms in public, are the segment where the greatest mutual understanding and respect is needed.
Further, you will note that the 11% federal excise tax on firearms and ammunition applies to ALL guns and ammo, not just those purchased by or for the use of law enforcement. Hence, there should be federal money available--in addition to local ZAP funds--to fund ranges open to the general public. Ideally, such ranges would be constructed such that the public and sworn peace officers could practice and recreate side-by-side most of the time.
Thank you for your time in considering such matters. I encourage you to actively work to ensure that there are safe and appropriate venues for recreational shooting as well as to practice the arts of defensive firearm use.
If you'd like, representatives of the various gun owners and shooting sports organizations could meet with you to provide more information.
Charles Hardy
Policy Director
GOUtah!
==================
Charles Hardy
<utbagpiper@juno.com>
- --- Mayor Workman <MayorWorkman@CO.SLC.UT.US> wrote:
Hi Charles
Our shooting range that is for law enforcement was financed by federal
monies. However it is not open to the public. It is a highly patrolled and
protected area and could not be open to the public.
Nancy Workman
County Mayor
- -----Original Message-----
From: Charles Hardy [mailto:utbagpiper@juno.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 1:42 PM
To: Mayor Workman
Subject: Fw: Re: Fw: SLCo Mayor's non-position on public shooting ranges.
Some more good points about (the lack of) public shooting ranges both in
SLCo and in the State of Utah as a whole.
I wonder how much money the Utah legislature or any county commision has
sought, much less obtained, from the feds for construction of shooting
ranges.
Charles
==================
Charles Hardy
<utbagpiper@juno.com>
- ---------- Forwarded Message ----------
You might also want to note that SGMA's recreational participation research
shows that target shooting sits between golf and tennis in number of
particpants nationally, around 18-20 million annually, and would be higher
than the national average in Utah. Also note that there is the federal
Pittman-Robertson excise tax of 11% on guns and ammo at point of manufacture
earmarked for game preservation and range construction.
