THEWELSHM
Member
Mine does too, I maintain the fiction by putting them in Parabellum boxesMost of my reloads could pass as factory ammo.
Thewelshm
Mine does too, I maintain the fiction by putting them in Parabellum boxesMost of my reloads could pass as factory ammo.
Its not so much the actual liability, its the cost of defending yourself in court. Though, with indoor ranges, i find them predominantly in or around urban centers. I also find the preponderance of anti-gun, safety label loving, litigious nanny state type folks in and around urban centers. And seeing as that's who would make up the jury in that area, maybe the liability is more of a concernI see the liability boogie man being raised from the grave to scare shooters. Be afraid or the boogie man will get you. But what is the liability to the range if a shooter brings his own reloads and blows himself (or worse others) up with his own reloads? And why would there be a financial liability?
I did give the instructor a headache, since I insisted to go last so I could police up all the brass
Does the range have liability for the condition of the shooters weapons?
Right...that’s what I was reading as Slamfire’s boogieman. It’s not the actual liability it’s the ghost of liabilities past, present, and future that folks fear.Its not so much the actual liability, its the cost of defending yourself in court. Though, with indoor ranges, i find them predominantly in or around urban centers. I also find the preponderance of anti-gun, safety label loving, litigious nanny state type folks in and around urban centers. And seeing as that's who would make up the jury in that area, maybe the liability is more of a concern
Please tell me you're joking. You want freedom but you want to deny service and discriminate against certain people. My freedom doesn't end where your fear begins.My club wanted to institute a new member policy where they would be on probation and would be dismissed for safety infractions. I argued successfully that it would make more sense to educate these people on safety, and set up a short course to do that for all members. You’d be surprised how many existing members needed it.
“Give a man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish, he eats for a lifetime”
While I believe in as much freedom as possible, I do get nervous at the IDR when shooters step up to the point next to me. Bad ammo is just one of the possibilities. The NRA has a metallic reloading class that’s pretty basic but if the range is having issues, this could help. It won’t prevent all failures but could go a long way at increasing safety and membership. You’d need to show your successful class “pass” if you were shooting reloads, along with your vaccination card. Good luck.
Uhhh, private businesses instituting private requirements isn’t an assault on freedom. It’s the opposite.Please tell me you're joking. You want freedom but you want to deny service and discriminate against certain people. My freedom doesn't end where your fear begins.
Morality aside, that is protecting your Range Officer employees, just what is the liability of a range if a shooter is injured by his own reloads? Or, if a shooter, or by stander, is injured by defective factory ammunition? Does the range have liability for the condition of the shooters weapons? It could be the shooter's own personal weapon is defective in some way and kabooms at the range.
I see the liability boogie man being raised from the grave to scare shooters. Be afraid or the boogie man will get you. But what is the liability to the range if a shooter brings his own reloads and blows himself (or worse others) up with his own reloads? And why would there be a financial liability?
I think @bersaguy has hit the nail on the head.Right...that’s what I was reading as Slamfire’s boogieman. It’s not the actual liability it’s the ghost of liabilities past, present, and future that folks fear....
Were I advising a gun range on the issue of reloads, I wouldn't worry too much about someone who shoots reloads. There's a perfectly good 'assumption of risk' argument to protect the range on that, and liability waivers to boot. And TBH, I wouldn't even worry too much about the people in the lanes next to that shooter. Liability waivers again. With that said, if the range allows reloads, there is some possibility, not being zero, that if someone is injured (particularly next-lane shooters), a premises liability lawsuit may come down the pike. At that point, the cost of defense has to be taken into account and lawyers ain't cheap. I'm not saying that anyone should avoid reloads at the range, not by any means, but merely pointing out why they might be banned.Its not so much the actual liability, its the cost of defending yourself in court....
Aren’t we really missing the forest for the trees or something like that? Ranges are dangerous scary places with the real risk of a nut job deciding to go postal.I think @bersaguy has hit the nail on the head.
Were I advising a gun range on the issue of reloads, I wouldn't worry too much about someone who shoots reloads. There's a perfectly good 'assumption of risk' argument to protect the range on that, and liability waivers to boot. And TBH, I wouldn't even worry too much about the people in the lanes next to that shooter. Liability waivers again. With that said, if the range allows reloads, there is some possibility, not being zero, that if someone is injured (particularly next-lane shooters), a premises liability lawsuit may come down the pike. At that point, the cost of defense has to be taken into account and lawyers ain't cheap. I'm not saying that anyone should avoid reloads at the range, not by any means, but merely pointing out why they might be banned.
I don't want to derail this thread but, this is discrimination, no different then denying someone service due to skin color. So, not legal but herd mentality of fear.Uhhh, private businesses instituting private requirements isn’t an assault on freedom. It’s the opposite.
What, exactly, does that 'real risk' have to do with the fact that cost of defense is a factor to consider in a range setting up its policies?Aren’t we really missing the forest for the trees or something like that? Ranges are dangerous scary places with the real risk of a nut job deciding to go postal.
Keep in mind that discrimination itself is not illegal. Only discrimination based on any one of several aspects defined in laws, including race, sex, age, disability, etc., is illegal.this is discrimination, no different then denying someone service due to skin color.
VAX card... no way, rather shoot airsoftMy club wanted to institute a new member policy where they would be on probation and would be dismissed for safety infractions. I argued successfully that it would make more sense to educate these people on safety, and set up a short course to do that for all members. You’d be surprised how many existing members needed it.
“Give a man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish, he eats for a lifetime”
While I believe in as much freedom as possible, I do get nervous at the IDR when shooters step up to the point next to me. Bad ammo is just one of the possibilities. The NRA has a metallic reloading class that’s pretty basic but if the range is having issues, this could help. It won’t prevent all failures but could go a long way at increasing safety and membership. You’d need to show your successful class “pass” if you were shooting reloads, along with your vaccination card. Good luck.
You’re absolutely correct. It is discrimination which is entirely lawful, commonplace, appropriate, and necessary except in limited circumstances. But, you are also absolutely incorrect—this is nothing like denying someone service because of their skin color. Nothing. No shoes, no shirt, no service...is also discriminating and perfectly legal.I don't want to derail this thread but, this is discrimination, no different then denying someone service due to skin color. So, not legal but herd mentality of fear.
Only that we’re deciding whether to worry about reloaders at an inherently dangerous placeWhat, exactly, does that 'real risk' have to do with the fact that cost of defense is a factor to consider in a range setting up its policies?
Agreed—our comments passed in the ether.Keep in mind that discrimination itself is not illegal. Only discrimination based on any one of several aspects defined in laws, including race, sex, age, disability, etc., is illegal.
Legal discrimination may be a good idea, or may be bad business or insulting.
Craig
I know no one can change anyone's mind But when they ban guns for the safety of others you can reflect on these comments.Agreed—our comments passed in the ether.
I hear you but this to me is just a business owner setting his own rules. And I don’t really care. I’d just take my business elsewhere. I didn’t know however there were ranges that didn’t allow reloaded ammo. As a newbie, I never gave it any thought. And if that happens around here I’ll be PO’d and SOL.I know no one can change anyone's mind But when they ban guns for the safety of others you can reflect on these comments.
Me either. That's why I found it so shocking. I always figured the lane dividers were for the safety of other shooters and what happens in another lane is isolated. I have noticed at every public place I shoot - private club or open to the public - a startling lack of both propriety and courtesy recently. It can't all be newbies who don't know any better. I'm also seeing a lot more sloppiness in firearms handling - people at the sales counter sweeping the crowd with the muzzle, not checking chambers, repeated dry-firing of rimfires, etc. Maybe I'm just old-fashioned and it's too much these days to ask people to be mannerly, polite and courteous.I didn’t know however there were ranges that didn’t allow reloaded ammo.