I also sent letters to all county reps, with no reply.
Varminter 22 wrote:
Originally Posted by varminter22
Don makes good points. Especially:
To the best of my knowledge, other local ranges in Clark County allow LEOs to shoot for free (or other "good deals.") Is this correct?
IF so, then why are you not boycotting all the other shooting ranges that are supportive of Clark County Departments/LEOs?
You and Don are the only ones who spin the topic off of gun registration, and onto the individual cops. That is unrelated.
We never talked about Cops using the range for free and can care less if a range owner gives his services away. Here is the one and only reasion that the range NEEDS to be sold:
+ Clark County is The only County in nevada who registers guns. To willingly support Clark County is not only pleasing to the Brady Campaign, but also supporting tyranny.
Other reasons include
Defeats the fair market chances of independant proprieters.
Puts Government in a position to provide more misinformation (just like the CCW instructors)
Sorry about the way I did the quote, I willl try to get better
Spin? What spin?
Is it not relevant? I believe my statement was relevant. If other ranges give preferential (or free) treatment to your county/city law enforcement agencies, why would would support them but not the county shooting range?
To a large degree the draconian (and, in my opinion, unconstitutional) Clark County handugn registration issue is a statewide issue; and to some degree it is a Clark County issue.
I have been pushing to abolish Clark County handgun registration for years.
In my opinion, Clark County handugn registration is clearly in violation of state law (as amended by SB-92 in 2007.)
In reference to a boycott, I tend to agree with the statement:
Originally Posted by SoLasVegas In my opinion, financial boycotts of government-owned facilities just won't work. Governments don't think like normal business owners. The only likely result of a successful boycott would be the closing of the shooting park, and/or a rise in taxation to support the operations of the park system. The people operating the park don't have the influence necessary to change the laws in the county, so why bother with this?
We would be better served by going to the park and passing out literature, or by even pooling some money and sponsoring a free or reduced-cost range day to garner more support for our cause.
In reference to Steve's comment:
And this is the only park that charges you a fee to use it. The organizers of the CCSP knew they had a issue as they were building it, because they made a agreement that other park laws wouldnt apply. Why didnt they stand up at that time and speak out for our rights?
I have no idea why. Perhaps more citizen involvement was/is needed? I certainly thank you for your efforts!
In reference to David's comments about further reasons to boycott the shooting range:
Defeats the fair market chances of independant proprieters.
Puts Government in a position to provide more misinformation (just like the CCW instructors)
I don't understand. Does this apply equally to family parks & childrens playgrounds? Should we abolish all?
Same for "position to provide more misinformation." Does the shooting range provide misinformation? If so, lets go after that too.
In reference to TBG's comment:
Well intentioned but through experience many of us have found out that our County Officials just don't care what we think or want. Simply communicating with these Jokers does not work. On that I think all of us who have been involved in this issue will agree no matter what side of the boycott debate they fall on. Changes are going to be forced. Change State pre-emption, put it on the ballet, change Commissioners, sue them and or hit them financially. The path ain't easy...
Who can disagree with that??!!
It just seems to me that a full blown boycott of the shooting range might not be the best avenue to effect change. After all, where else is best to find shooters of a like mind? Activism at the range? Most certainly. Hand out literature. Talk to shooters. Educate folks. Recruit folks of a like mind. Go after your county commissioners. Bring suit in a court of law. Bring forth legislation.
But a full blown boycott that could/would result in range closure and/or higher taxes? Seems like "cutting off the nose to spite the face."
In reference to DVC's comment:
Isn't this the new NRA-affiliated group which was supposed to be the end-all for our state? The one that I expected to be as useful as an afterburner on a turtle -- and which so many here condemned me for not having faith in?
Well, the Nevada Firearms Coalition will be what its members want it to be. One is certainly entitled to one's opinion. And one can participate as part of the solution or part of the problem. One thing for sure, the Coalition will fail without substantial membership and member input/help.