7 thoughts on “Range Loophole”

  1. We discussed this the other day over at my blog. The main problem I have with it is the idea that a prohibited person would be able to train and practice in order to better carry out his criminal activity. The article mentioned the suicides, but they wouldn’t be picked up by the background check anyway. To me it doesn’t seem right that a bad guy can come to the range for practice.

  2. I’m just surprised at the fact the ATF does not require a NICS check since in my point of view, the customer has “possesion” of the firearm when he has rented it.

    MikeB: I have a feeling this is not a big problem in 98% of places in the US. Apparently Badger guns has had problems with their “clientele” for a long time, which is probably the case if you’re operating a shop in the ghetto.

  3. I think you’re right, Pete. Of course I don’t support a poll tax, as Robert asked, but I do support background checks for every gun transfer, including rentals.

  4. For goodness sake, man, why? The firearm isn’t leaving the premises, and the user is going to be under the eye of a range officer who is himself warmed and likely in Condition Orange (at least, every RO in every renting range I’ve been on has been both).

  5. I think I read somewhere back when I was a kid that Al Capone as a young man sharpened his revolver marksmanship skills in the basement of a saloon with empty bottles as targets. This was before he became a felon I believe, but the point I’m trying to make is that felons could just as easily do something similar today for target practice with their black market guns, rather than “renting” FFL firearms at gun shop ranges.

    Anyway, there were a few things done to prevent crime a whole lot more back in the days of Al Capone than there are today – capital punishment, longer prison sentences, and tighter controls on immigration. I say it’s time to go back to those methods for a change instead of worrying about how many places a background check can be done.

Comments are closed.