Unsatisfactory experience at Point Blank in Greenwood

[chipbennett]

So where do you draw the line between personal and "as long as they keep it secure"? Your avatar shows a person wearing glasses. Assuming that's you, your DL most likely shows you have an A restriction. Do you believe HIPPA should protect you from anyone viewing your DL knowing you have vision issues?

Would you be fine if they asked for your LTCH, if they kept it secure? Why is one document okay when another is not.

The range has a legitimate (enough) reason for asking for/holding my DL. It is a) a form of ID, and b) held in trust while I use their property.

I don't know enough about HIPAA laws to know if they would cover DL restrictions, and the range would have no legitimate reason to ask for/hold my LTCH.

 

[nakinate]

Would you be fine if they asked for your LTCH, if they kept it secure? Why is one document okay when another is not.

I'm pretty sure that the whole problem with the scenario is that the policy was not stated to VUPDBlue in advance of paying for range time. That's it.

 

[jamil]

Sometimes the burr in yer ass itches really bad. You just have to keep scratching to feel satisfied.

 

[shootersix]

I am learning to live with "Auto Correct"

me too, thanks to auto correct "ducking" is a term, and I call my ex wife a "hunt"

 

[Thegeek]

I'm pretty sure that the whole problem with the scenario is that the policy was not stated to VUPDBlue in advance of paying for range time. That's it.

As with many other unpublished rules as I've mentioned before. If you were shooting prone and the RO told you it wasn't allowed, would a similar complaint be voiced, or would it just be "ok, sorry".?

 

[chipbennett]

As with many other unpublished rules as I've mentioned before. If you were shooting prone and the RO told you it wasn't allowed, would a similar complaint be voiced, or would it just be "ok, sorry".?

Those other rules involve range safety, not invasion of privacy.

 

[PistolBob]

What if every gun range was as perfect as their customers? Incapable of making a mistake, incapable of the myriad of "what if" scenarios that race through the minds of all the internet PHD's out there...we could all gather on the hillside and sing kum bah yah while we hold hands....this is a dead horse, the beatings will continue until morale improves...

 

[chipbennett]

What if every gun range was as perfect as their customers? Incapable of making a mistake, incapable of the myriad of "what if" scenarios that race through the minds of all the internet PHD's out there...we could all gather on the hillside and sing kum bah yah while we hold hands....this is a dead horse, the beatings will continue until morale improves...

How is the fallibility of the range, its employees, or its customers even at issue here? If the customer - who owns and possesses the NFA item in question - is in the wrong, there is no impact to the range or its employees.

 

[T.Lex]

If the customer - who owns and possesses the NFA item in question - is in the wrong, there is no impact to the range or its employees.

I guess that boils down to how much the INGOer trusts juries.

 

[HoughMade]

I guess that boils down to how much the INGOer trusts juries.

 

[jamil]

We might all have slightly different preferences depending on our life experiences, personalities, sensibilities, etcetera, and decide this question differently. To show the tax stamp or not. That is the question, which has an answer subjective to the whim of the individual. Must we all comply or all not comply? Dare we think differently about anything?

The OP is about a range not posting a policy most people would be surprised that a range would have. Beyond that, what difference at this point does it make, whether an individual doesn't want to show his tax stamp as a simple "**** you" to the man, or just doesn't give a flying **** and shows it because he wants to shoot?

 

[chipbennett]

I guess that boils down to how much the INGOer trusts juries.

I don't get it?

 

[T.Lex]

I don't get it?

Fair enough.

You said:

How is the fallibility of the range, its employees, or its customers even at issue here? If the customer - who owns and possesses the NFA item in question - is in the wrong, there is no impact to the range or its employees.

To rephrase your question, is there a scenario where the wrongful acts of a customer could "impact" the range?

My first thought goes to litigation around liability. Even removing NFA items from the formula, if a range customer negligently uses a firearm and hurts someone else, there will likely be litigation, regardless of whatever waivers were signed. So, there is a baseline risk for a range owner just having people do dangerous things at their establishment. If something goes wrong, the wrongful person and the range will both be sued.

Rightly or wrongly, NFA items are regarded as having an extra component of risk. SBRs/SBSs/full auto - somewhat trickier to control. Suppressors - well... that's a real stretch, but they are still NFA items. Most importantly, they are regulated differently, which creates an innate "difference" in how they are regarded.

If a customer handles an NFA item negligently and hurts someone, there will be extra scrutiny. All the same litigation would occur - the range WOULD be sued - but additional questions regarding the NFA items. To the extent possible, it is better to prepare to give good answers to those additional questions.

Ultimately, it may require a jury to decide whether there is "impact to the range."

 

[Kirk Freeman]

If a customer handles an NFA item negligently and hurts someone, there will be extra scrutiny.

Enhanced duty of care? Any case law on that? (Not saying you are not correct, just curious).

 

[chipbennett]

Fair enough.

You said:


To rephrase your question, is there a scenario where the wrongful acts of a customer could "impact" the range?

My first thought goes to litigation around liability. Even removing NFA items from the formula...

Sorry, by "removing NFA items from the formula" you have completely changed the context of my statement. My statement only applies in the context of mistakes involving possession of NFA items while at a gun range - i.e. the context of the OP.

 

[T.Lex]

Enhanced duty of care? Any case law on that? (Not saying you are not correct, just curious).

No, just spent enough time (too much, IMHO) as part of the plaintiff's bar. Were I a plaintiff's attorney, I would absolutely argue that greater risk was posed by the NFA items. (The suppressor would be tough, but those attorneys aren't always bound by the laws of physics in their arguments.) So, while it would not necessarily be an enhanced duty exactly, the reasonableness of the range's actions would have to be measured in light of the additional risks posed.

Sorry, by "removing NFA items from the formula" you have completely changed the context of my statement. My statement only applies in the context of mistakes involving possession of NFA items while at a gun range - i.e. the context of the OP.

So, did you stop reading at that point? I go on to address the NFA-negligent part.

 

[HoughMade]

I'm starting to round up a group of near deaf shooters to sue ranges for not requiring​ suppressors.

 

[chipbennett]

If a customer handles an NFA item negligently and hurts someone, there will be extra scrutiny. All the same litigation would occur - the range WOULD be sued - but additional questions regarding the NFA items. To the extent possible, it is better to prepare to give good answers to those additional questions.

Ultimately, it may require a jury to decide whether there is "impact to the range."

So, the question would be one of the range's allowance or prohibition of use of NFA items - or, of practices with such items, such as rapid-fire of a fully automatic rifle - rather than the question of whether the NFA item is properly possessed/registered (tax-stamped).

In order to sue the range, someone would have to show harm. While someone can be harmed by negligent use of any firearm, including NFA firearms, how can someone be "harmed" by someone improperly possessing an NFA item - something that the range is not legally obligated to verify, anyway?

If someone unlawfully possesses a pistol, and through use of that pistol harms another customer at the range, will the range be held responsible for the irresponsible act that led to the injury, or for failing to verify that the pistol in question was not lawfully possessed?

 

[T.Lex]

So, the question would be one of the range's allowance or prohibition of use of NFA items - or, of practices with such items, such as rapid-fire of a fully automatic rifle - rather than the question of whether the NFA item is properly possessed/registered (tax-stamped).

Well - yes - all of that would be wrapped into the case.

In order to sue the range, someone would have to show harm. While someone can be harmed by negligent use of any firearm, including NFA firearms, how can someone be "harmed" by someone improperly possessing an NFA item - something that the range is not legally obligated to verify, anyway?

This gets back to my point about juries. Houghmade, Fargo and Kirk have FAR more courtroom experience than I, so I would defer to them. But, if any of them claim the superpower of predicting what juries will do, then they deserve a cape, a mask, and a spandex suit.

So, part of the problem of risk mitigation is to build in answers to questions juries might want to know. A jury might want to know if a range took additional precautions for the items that require additional approvals. It is not whether the range is legally required to verify anything (Lord knows we don't need MORE laws on this). It is whether the defendant can put together a compelling narrative.

How much do you trust juries?

If someone unlawfully possesses a pistol, and through use of that pistol harms another customer at the range, will the range be held responsible for the irresponsible act that led to the injury, or for failing to verify that the pistol in question was not lawfully possessed?

How much do you trust juries? I can't predict what a jury would do with that, as any sort of oddsmaking would require significantly more facts.

A variation of the question is, what are reasonable steps a range owner can take to protect its customers?

 

[VUPDblue]

I don't feel like I should prove that I legally own something to someone who has no legal interest in the matter. Similar to them running a serial number check on every gun to ensure they aren't stolen.