Friday, January 11, 2008

Best Use for Preperation H

Municipalities can't ban people from owning handguns, court rules

Is this delicious or what?

SF Gate, San Francisco's Premium Libricat Website, is forced by the newsworthiness of the story to report that Proposition 'H' has been judged unconstitutional.

We knew it years ago (later, here), and they're finally getting the word?


Red's Trading Post: Len Savage: "Duck Hunters and Sportsman, You're the next target of the ATF!"

While we've been distracted by the way the ATF, under the leadership of Michael Sullivan, has fixed its prosecutorial attention on the Akins Accelerator, the ATF has found the time to rule on the definition of a 'machine gun'.

Ryan Horsley has it here at Red's Trading Post.

I recall the 2001 Area 1 USPSA Tournament in Washington, which I attended with an STI Edge which I received from my then gunsmith AT THE MATCH. I had given it to him to perform some minor maintenance, including a thorough cleaning. He had completely disassembled the pistol, cleaned and lubricated everything ... but I had neglected to give him the magazines and some ammunition to test it. Since the pistol is in 10mm, which nobody except for The Geek used for Practical Shooting competition, he had been unable to test the re-assembled pistol.

The first time I shot it was in Stage 1 of the match, at which the pistol doubled (fired multiple shots when the trigger was pulled.) I was ejected from the stage, given a zero score, and my gunsmith and I spent the next 40 minutes at a safety table ... where we discovered that he had inserted the sear spring ('3-finger spring') incorrectly.

He put it together again, this time correctly, and we visited the Function-Test bay a couple of times until we were sure it was right.

In the actual event, the Match Director discovered that my score sheet for Stage 1 had been filled out wrong .. among other things, I had never signed it and they hadn't entered the time or the score (zero), so I was required to reshoot the stage. As usual, I didn't impress anyone, but my stage score was a lot better than ZERO so I was happy, all things considered.

Here's the down side:

Under the new BATFE ruling, the fact that my pistol actually shot more than one round with a single trigger-pull, ATF considers it a machine gun. There are no accommodations for malfunctions.

There are several malfunctions which can cause a semi-automatic pistol to 'double', including a worn sear ... which may be caused by poor maintenance, an overly enthusiastic trigger job, or normal wear on a firearm which has been used so much that he metal on the sear face erodes. (I've had that happen when a relatively new sear was found to have suffered from a 'manufacturing defect', and the manufacturer cheerfully replaced the deficient part with abject apologies.)

And again, if a sear spring is incorrectly installed, the pistol will double even though that is not the design intent.

Consider this scenario:
You're at a USPSA match, you're your own gunsmith, and you put the gun together 'wrong' after a detail cleaning. You start to shoot the stage, and your gun doubles. This is an 'unsafe firearm' according to USPSA rules, and you are required to (a) stop shooting immediately, and (b) not continue shooting until you repair the firearm and have demonstrated that your pistol is safe to shoot.

Enter the ATF, perhaps (in this hypothetical scenario) a spectator at the match. The ATF agent observes the doubling, and confiscates your firearm. He takes it to an ATF lab, which tests it. (According to Horsley, there are not testing standards.) Your gun doubles during the tests.


You are then deemed to be in possession of an unlicensed machine gun. You may be prosecuted, fined, your firearm will almost certainly be confiscated ... and there is no defense.

Nor is there appeal, or oversight.

The engineering definition of 'screw' is "An inclined plane wrapped around a post".

The practical definition of 'screwed' is "The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives".

You're screwed.

And until we can convince the American Federal Government to rein in this rogue bureaucracy, we're all screwed.
According to ATF Ruling 2006-2:

The definition of machinegun in the National Firearms Act and the Gun Control Act includes a part or parts that are designed [note #1] and intended for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun. This language includes a device that, when activated by a single pull of the trigger, initiates an automatic firing cycle that continues until the finger is released or the ammunition supply is exhausted.

ATF Rul. 2006-2
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has been asked by several members of the firearms industry to classify devices that are exclusively designed to increase the rate of fire [note #2] of a semiautomatic firearm. These devices, when attached to a firearm, result in the firearm discharging more than one shot with a single function of the trigger. ATF has been asked whether these devices fall within the definition of machinegun under the National Firearms Act (NFA) and Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA). As explained herein, these devices, once activated by a single pull of the trigger, initiate an automatic firing cycle which continues until either the finger is released or the ammunition supply is exhausted. Accordingly, these devices are properly classified as a part “designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun” and therefore machineguns under the NFA and GCA.

The National Firearms Act (NFA), 26 U.S.C. Chapter 53, defines the term “firearm” to include a machinegun. Section 5845(b) of the NFA defines “machinegun” as “any weapon which shoots [note #3], is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended [note #4], for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.” The Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), 18 U.S.C. Chapter 44, defines machinegun identically to the NFA. 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(23).


Notes are included by the editor.

Note #1:
"... a part or parts that are designed [note #1] and intended for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun.

"This clause strongly suggests that malfunctioning parts may NOT define a 'machinegun', because they are not 'designed and intended' to '(convert) a weapon into a machinegun'.

Note #2:
This clause also supports the preceding argument. A malfunctioning part should not reasonably be interpreted as being:
' ... exclusively designed to increase the rate of fire [note #2] of a semiautomatic firearm".
Note #3:
The referenced phrase is different from the preceding quotes. Where the earlier quotes strongly speak to 'design' and 'intention', this phrase includes the separate clause 'shoots', which can easily be interpreted to include malfunctions.

' ...defines “machinegun” as “any weapon which shoots [note #3], is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.'
That is, whether the subject weapon has been 'designed to shoot' or 'can be readily restored to shoot' in a (full-auto) mode, if it DOES shoot more than one shot per trigger pull, it is a "machinegun" even if you don't want it to so function.

This verbiage is distinctly different from previous (and the following) clauses. We can only assume that this is the unfortunate clumsy verbiage which Michael Sullivan has embraced to justify his arbitrary and unilateral ruling which includes Malfunctions as justification for defining a 'machinegun'.

Note #4:

Again, we see that the rest of the fuling returns to the concept of 'design' and 'intention' in defining a machinegun;
The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended [note #4], for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun ...

Thursday, January 10, 2008

Georgia HB915 & The NRA

Lonelymachines has an interesting article combining a couple of threads recently popular here ... new gun freedom legislation in Georgia and the NRA.

Essentially, he cautions us that HB915 hasn't yet passed, but has only been introduced. And he's mad as heck that the NRA isn't supporting that bill. In fact, he thinks the NRA isn't protecting its members as well as JPFO and other gun freedom organizations. Not only that but ... well, maybe you should just go read the whole thing.

On the other hand, Kim presents an even more confusing 'other take' on the situation vis-a-vis Georgia HB915 and the NRA.

And also here.

Don't these people talk to each other? And why not?

Wednesday, January 09, 2008

Georgia HB915 - Campus Carry Okay!

New legislation passed in Georgia today removes the restriction on carrying concealed firearms ( with a "CHL" license) on a University Campus.
Said article is further amended by revising paragraph (1) of subsection (a) of Code Section 16-11-127.1, relating to carrying weapons within school safety zones, at school functions, or on school property, as follows:
"(1) 'School safety zone' means in, on, or within 1,000 feet of any real property owned by or leased to any public or private elementary school, secondary school, or school board and used for elementary or secondary education and in, on, or within 1,000 feet of the campus of any public or private technical school, vocational school, college, university, or institution of postsecondary education."



For Immediate Release: 1/9/2008

In a unanimous decision today, the California Court of Appeals ruled that the City of San Francisco’s handgun ban is illegal under state law, upholding a lawsuit filed by the Second Amendment Foundation and several other groups.

“This is a great day for gun owners and civil rights in California,” said SAF Founder Alan M. Gottlieb. “This is the second time we successfully fought a gun ban in San Francisco, and what this demonstrates is that the city’s leadership is as horribly out of touch with the law as it seems to be out of touch with reality.”

SAF was joined in the lawsuit by the National Rifle Association, Law Enforcement Alliance of America, California Association of Firearms Retailers and several private citizens.

In its ruling, the court held that Proposition H, approved by voters in November 2005, is invalid as preempted by state law. Gottlieb said this was essentially the same case that SAF battled on its own 23 years ago when the city, under then-Mayor Dianne Feinstein, adopted a gun ban.

“We urged the city well in advance to drop Proposition H from the 2005 ballot, and warned them that if they pushed the measure and it passed, we would meet them in court,” Gottlieb recalled. “We kept our word, along with our colleagues at the NRA, LEAA and our friends in the CAFR.

“This has been a horrible waste of the court’s time, the city’s legal resources and the taxpayers’ money,” he added. “The only reason this case went forward after the ban was struck down by the trial court is that San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom and the Board of Supervisors wanted to mandate their extremist anti-gun rights philosophy as public law.

“Every judge in every court that this and the earlier case went before has sided with us,” Gottlieb stated. “This is a battle that had to be fought, and this is a ruling that we expected from Day One of our lawsuit. This wasn’t just a fight over gun rights. It was really about defeating social prejudice against gun owners; a type of bigotry made even more insidious by the fact that it was fostered and defended by a city administration whose attitude toward gun owners is anathema to American values.”

The Second Amendment Foundation ( is the nations oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 600,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control. SAF has previously funded successful firearms-related suits against the cities of Los Angeles; New Haven, CT; and San Francisco on behalf of American gun owners, a lawsuit against the cities suing gun makers and an amicus brief and fund for the Emerson case holding the Second Amendment as an individual right.

I'm not sure how reliable this announcement is, I caught the link on The War On Guns and I haven't followed it up yet.

(Possible geek link)

NRA link:

NRA Wins Big in California State Court of Appeals

Fairfax, VA – The California State Court of Appeals announced today their decision to overturn one of the most restrictive gun bans in the country, following a legal battle by attorneys for the National Rifle Association (NRA) and a previous court order against the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.

“Today’s decision by the California State Court of Appeals is a big win for the law-abiding citizens and NRA Members of San Francisco,” declared Chris W. Cox, NRA’s chief lobbyist.

In 2005, NRA sought an injunction against the San Francisco Board of Supervisors to prevent them from enacting one of the nation’s most restrictive gun bans. NRA won the injunction, but the City’s mayor and Board of Supervisors ignored the court order and approved a set of penalties, including a $1,000 fine and a jail term of between 90 days and six months, for city residents who own firearms for lawful purposes in their own homes.

“We promised our California NRA members in 2005 that we would fight any gun ban instituted by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, and we haven’t given up that fight,” continued Cox. “Today we see our second win for the Second Amendment against the San Francisco gun ban. We beat them once in court and the City’s attorney appealed based on his personal disagreement with the court’s first decision to overturn the ban. Now we’ve beaten them again. The California State Court of Appeals has upheld the state preemption law.”

Today’s decision came in the form of a 3-0 opinion in favor of the lower court ruling overturning the gun ban.

Bad Ideas ...

Leaving your handgun stuck under the couch cushions where your 5-year-old son can unwittingly bump into it .. and shoot himself in the leg.

Putting a loaded pistol under your 6-year-old daughter's pillow.

Putting your loaded shotgun (round chambered) shotgun in the back of the pickup with your excited dog ... where he can step on the safety AND the trigger.

Making up arguments against the 2nd Amendment on the grounds that ... as you are the District of Columbia, restrictions on 'states' do not apply to you, risking the response that if you aren't a state you ain't dick, dude.

Bragging on the Internet that you're going to travel from England to Afghanistan on a 'mission of revenge', and asking "Pray that I kill many, Brother. Revenge, revenge, revenge!"

Being the leader of the "Socialist Left" party in Norway, and proposing taxes on 'use of coastal waters' on the grounds that :

"Townships should demand to be paid for use of areas in the coastal zone... [t]here's a lot of pressure on use of the seas, and there's a need to regulate it. A tax can inspire the townships to improve coastal resources, because they'd get paid for it."

They want to impose a new tax on use of coastal waters, a proposal that would put an additional tax burden on such core Norwegian businesses as seafood production and offshore operations.")
Wheeling your dead room-mate in a wheelchair in front of a check-cashing station and trying to cash his social security check at the same place where Dead Friend was personally known, on the grounds that "he's right out there, dude!" while a crowd (including a policeman) gathered about to comment on the obvious corpse.

Some days, you just have to wonder:

What were they thinking!

S&W 659 Assembly and Disassembly instructions

On November 22, 2006, I posted an article about assembly and dis-assembly of the S&W 659 (9mm pistol, 2nd generation S&W, stainless).

These instructions are generally applicable to all model 59 variations.

Thanks to reader MARK, I have been encouraged to finally post the still photos which demonstrate this process in detail. The individual photos are annotated with detailed instructions, which I hope will make this a more usable resource for Model 59 owners.

This link has been included in the original post.

If you are trying to use these pictures as a guide to field-stripping the model 59, and you have questions, please send your email to the address listed at the bottom of this page. I may not be able to answer your questions, but it's worth a shot. (Sorry!)

BTW, I no longer have possession of this pistol. My son is the proud recipient of the pistol, so I can't pull it out and tinker with it. The pistol, I mean.

UPDATE: January 10, 2008
I've just found that Gunworld has schematics of both the Model 59 and the Model 5906 ... both of which are closely related to the 659 and are probably of interest to most of you who found this article as a result of an Internet Search.

Sunday, January 06, 2008

NRA - Supportive to individuals, or to 'groups'?

On December 17 I wrote an article titled "Registered Gun Owner", questioning whether I should feel 'comfortable' with my decision to (once again, for the fourth time) joining the National Rifle Association.

I received some comments to the effect that "it's about time", which I presumed should be construed as supportive.

Tonight I continued an established theme about protecting private ranges (and public ranges, for that matter) against the predations of developers and other vested interests which seem to find on conflict with their personal values when attempting to put Shooting Ranges out of business for the sole purpose of creating 'unclaimed property' for the development of residential properties ... and selling houses which they would build on this 'new' land.

One of the central themes in this business venture was whether the established ranges met 'industry standards'. For the purpose of the discussion, the 'industry standards' are the NRA Range Manual.

When I attempted to find a document which met the description of the "NRA Range Manual", I discovered that such a document was not readily referenced.

Bear with me, this gets complicated.

Since the "NRA Range Manual" was either unavailable online, or was 'out of print', I went to the source: The National Rifle Association.

When I attempted to contact the NRA in reference to this document, I found a link which proposed to allow me to request NRA publications. The hitch is, you have to be an NRA member to request this document. I joined the NRA on December 17, 2007. This is January 6, 2007, so that should not be a problem. Right?


Although the NRA debited my VISA card on December 18, 2007, as of today (January 6, 2008) I have not received my NRA member number. Therefore, the resources which may generally be considered available to a NRA member are not available to me.

I went to the NRA website and found an "ASK THE NRA" email address. I wrote to the NRA, pointed out their willingness to debit my account versus their (lack of) established mechanism which would allow me to use my NRA membership to access their resources.

To my surprise, the EMAIL sent to the "ASK THE NRA" email address was returned because the email address was 'not known'.

Working backwards through the involved issues:
  • I DON'T KNOW why the NRA Range Manual is considered to be so non-supportive of vital Range Management Issues;
  • I DON'T KNOW why the NRA Range Manual is considered the definitive of Range Management;
  • I DON'T KNOW why the NRA Range Manual is not available through ANY source I can imagine, including (if it's a publication generally available to the public) through such sources as AMAZON.COM;
  • I DON'T KNOW why the NRA Range Manual is not available through the NRA;
  • I DON'T KNOW why the NRA doesn't have a convenient (or even an inconvenient) link to the NRA Range Manual ... which appears to be 'out of print';
  • I DON'T KNOW why the NRA can countenance the continued reference to a resource without documenting that it is either (a) not a legitimate NRA document, or (b) mentioning somewhere on its website that it is obsolete and should no longer be referenced, or (c) affirming that it is a 'work in progress ... please watch this space for notification when it is available for public distribution;
  • I DON'T KNOW why the NRA doesn't notify new members of their member number as soon as they have been determined to have paid their dues;
  • I DON'T KNOW why the NRA requires member numbers (ID) before it performs basic search functions to identify official documents which arguably SHOULD be available to anybody, regardless of member status.
It's not difficult so see why I am disappointed by the 'benefits' accruing to my new-found member status.

I've written to the NRA for clarification and asked for their assistance in my search. But I have to say that I am not encouraged by the results so far. That their published links to "WRITE TO THE NRA" return "NOT FOUND" messages is indicative of a failure to support member communications at best -- an indifference to member communications at least; this is not the communication policy of a viable and concerned volunteer organization.

It does not reflect well on the National Rifle Organization that they have not bothered to insure easy and user-friendly communications with their membership. It does not reflect well on the National Rifle Organization that they are not pro-actively following up on new memberships, in the media (online/email) methods which have sufficed them to entice new members.

Most of all, it does not reflect well on the NRA that they are demonstrably willing to take our ... no, MY money ... but don't let me talk to them when I perceive a problem.

I would rather the NRA prove to be a caring, responsive entity which holds member communications as a primary priority.

So far, this does not characterized the policy of the NRA.

Open Range: Not?

Last Sunday I published an article (Gun Range Owner Says He's Unfairly Targeted) addressing the question of predatory legal attacks on established shooting ranges.

In this article, the 'city fathers' of League City, Texas, actively conspired with a 'developer' to force a long established shooting range so that the land could be condemned, and then sold to the developer to build homes in the area. Note that they did this on 'city time', which is supported by local taxes ... funding to which the range owner probably contributed.

After writing the article, I sent the link to our friends on The Unofficial IPSC List. I asked them to comment, and to suggest or submit any other similar stories of predation on land owned by Shooting Ranges.

I received several comments, both on the list and in personal mail. I've decided to post here the two most typical examples.

First, in a short comment which is unattributed (because I didn't ask the writer for permission to identify him when I cited him), is an example of the problems which might proliferate when a range attempts to "do the right thing":

An (unidentified) member of The Unofficial IPSC List said:

To assure the town that we were totally committed to public safety, our board of directors invited the NRA's range team to come and give us an assessment.

Huge mistake. After they were done, our 200 yard range became a 100 yard range and if they could have it their way, they would have us all shooting through cement pipes that went all the way to the targets.

Another contributer (who responded to the above quote) was Karl Rehn, of KRTRAINING.COM; an Austin, Texas firearms instructor. When asked, Karl generously allowed me to not only quote him, but to cite him by name.

Karl Rehn said:
Unfortunately that's pretty typical of the NRA Range dept's "help" to IPSC clubs.

Years ago I was a member of an IPSC club that bought land and built a nice range that was going to be a club-owned permanent facility with enough berms to run a major match including 200 yd rifle stages.

The state had recently passed a law mandating that all ranges in counties with a population over 100K comply with the NRA Range Manual -- which was a terrible law because the NRA Range Manual does not define standards for ranges.

The neighbors sued us and the judge in our county (less than 100K residents) decided that if the law was good for big counties it should apply to us too.

The NRA sent a guy that had never shot IPSC and had never seen an IPSC match. His only shooting experience was bird hunting with a shotgun in an open field.

His recommendations, if implemented, would have made it impossible to run any kind of practical shooting event.

During that period neighbors were trespassing - bringing TV news crews onto our property, and someone vandalized a bulldozer on the property.

The club went bankrupt, lost the range and sold the land to one of the neighbors that was suing us.

The only good thing that came from the case was that the state Attorney General reviewed the NRA Range Manual law and basically struck it down. That was important later when the CHL law passed and lots of little one-berm private ranges got built and certified by the state as "safe" to run the CHL shooting test.

An IDPA range in the area was vandalized a few years ago. One night someone came in, started up the bulldozer and drove it over all the props.

We did get a statewide range protection bill passed, around the time CHL passed, that provides ranges some protection against complaints about noise from those that move into an area where a range has been operational.

When I built my private range our main downrange neighbor complained about noise -- all the way to the state police firearms training unit who certifies ranges for CHL classes.

The neighbor was told that our range complied with all state laws and that he basically just had to tolerate the noise. His complaint occurred on a Sunday morning on the 3rd day of a multi-day rifle class. Since then we have stuck to mostly pistol shooting with limited long gun shooting and limited Sunday morning shooting and we've had no more complaints from neighbors.

That experience seems fairly typical, in the context of my experience that most shooting ranges are willing to make extraordinary efforts to be 'good neighbors'.

One good example is the Albany Rifle and Pistol Club (ARPC), here in Oregon.

ARPC is centered on a small hill (approximate elevation: 100') which is actually a 'butte', in that it has two points of high elevation. The butte is the ultimate backstop berm for all of the ranges. Ranges include a 20+ table Bench-Rest range on the west side; a trap and skeet range on the west side; a 7-bay pistol range ("the North Range") on the North side of the butte, where every bay includes a 3-sided, roofed building with the open side toward the butte; and five more 'open' (no buildings included, at this time) shooting bays on the East side of the butte.

The North Range and the bays on the East side were used in the 2006 USPSA Multigun Nationals, the 2007 USPSA Multigun Area-1 Tournament, and the 2007 Cowboy Action (S.A.S.) "Shoot-out at Saddle Butte" Tournament.

Note that the closest neighbor is a farm house about 3/4 mile NORTH of the range. On the West, the U.S. Interstate 5 Freeway runs North/South 1/4 miles away on the other side of an orchard. On the other three sides, open fields provide a buffer zone.

Still, ARPC has a standing rule that while shooting on the North Range, the (pedestrian) doors on the covered shooting areas must be closed, to muffle the noise which may escape through these doors and thus annoy their distant neighbors.

Another example:

The Chehalem Valley Sportsman Club (home of Dundee Practical Shooters) is located immediately adjacent to a county park. It's a very nice park, and because the Dundee range is also backed up against a tall hillside, the danger of rounds leaving the range is minimized. In fact, in the bay closest to Cranberry Park, the club has an iron-clad policy of not placing targets where even a ricochet could possibly impact in the park. Neighbors include at least two wineries, which have never complained about the noise (possibly because they are located on the other side of nearby hills.

Still, the park is occasionally used in clement weather for outdoor weddings. The club has a policy of coordinating with special activities at the park. In the past several years, we have seen that weddings are often scheduled on the same day as USPSA matches. On those occasions, the club ALWAYS stops all competition and shooting for as much as an hour, to allow the solemnity of the wedding ceremony to continue without the contention of noise from the match which may reverberate from the tree-clad hills surrounding the range.

Most shooting ranges are originally placed far away from residences. However, as municipalities grow the 'neighborhood' may expand until residential housing is placed immediately adjacent to shooting ranges. The developers know that the range is there, yet they build there anyway ... and that's fine.

The problems occur when new residents decide that they are unwilling to endure the annoyance of noise from shooting ranges. If there is any fault to be assigned here, it is shared by the developers and the people who buy property in new developments. If the developer fails to inform buyers that a shooting range is in the vicinity, then the buyers should take their complaints to the developers. It may happen that the developers would be responsible for misrepresenting the neighborhood, or if they had informed the buyers that a range was in the neighborhood then the buyers are responsible for having bought property which may be subject to the annoyance of shooting in the near vicinity of their homes.

This is applicable only to noise issues.

If rounds are leaving the range and land in private property, the ranges may then be deemed responsible for either making changes in their range design, or discontinuing operations entirely.

It takes only a small number of (justifiable) complaints about 'rounds leaving the range' to require ranges to make such extensive physical reconfigurations that the range can no longer operate.

If you own a range near a municipal site which may someday be developed, you have very few option. Either you can buy up the adjacent property and keep it as a 'safe impact zone', or you can reconfigure your shooting bays ... often at similar or even greater expense.

You make that decision now, while land is 'relatively' inexpensive, or you can make it later, when your options are limited by the developers.

For more information about the NRA Range Manual, see the following links:

National Association of Shooting Ranges: ("Lessons Learned", 1996)

I have attempted to find the "NRA RANGE MANUAL", and my best Internet Surfing Efforts have been defeated. The best I can find is some extreme 'Star Wars' type gadgets here.

Apparently, a man named Richard Whiting authored a NRA Range Manual in 1988. It was available from Unfortunately, it is no longer available.

The Cedar Rod & Gun Club (?) wrote a Range Manual in 2004 which may provide usable information. Or not.

I tried to contact NRA directly for this information. I was unable to complete the contact because, although I joined 3 weeks ago, they haven't given me my member number. More on this later .. and I'm telling you, this is not a positive reflection on the NRA.