Unsatisfactory experience at Point Blank in Greenwood

[T.Lex]

I think your take is likely spot on. When I counsel organizations about new policies or "rules" they want to enact (which I do on a semi-regular basis), among the questions I ask is: "what are you trying to accomplish with this policy" and "are you willing to do whatever it takes to enforce it?"

You may (or may not) be surprised by the number of executives and administrators who answer the first question with: "I don't know...someone said we should have this rule". If that is the answer, a lot more discussion needs to be had before we adopt anything. Maybe it's not necessary at all. Maybe it's covered by other things. Maybe it will make the situation worse.

...but if there is no law that would impose liability on a range owner for a patron shooting an unregistered supressor....why have the policy? Just because someday there might be such a law? really?

I also counsel businesses on things like that. In terms of "why have the policy," I think it goes beyond what the law may impose in terms of liability, since laws are notoriously poor barometers of what can create liability. Better to have at least a minimal policy, minimally enforced, than no policy. At least that is my experience.

Or, we should also be careful what we wish for. NFA owners are still a HUGE minority. A simple, no-thought-required policy is to not allow any NFA items at the range. Done. Problem solved, no need for autonomous ROs. Particularly if "we" (or VUPD in this case) don't have "satisfactory" suggestion for a policy, then an easy-to-enforce but ultimately disappointing policy could be the result.

@chipbennett
I recognize the deficiency in the analogy, but it was only that. Plus, there are other ways to confirm income without access to my 1040, including an affidavit that the number I provide is correct, or copies of 1099s/W-2s (still tax documents, but more analogous to the NFA tax stamps). Even so, I think the analogy serves its purpose.

 

[jamil]

Initial thoughts: Maybe Kirk needs some range time at Point Blank in Greenwood.

I dropped the ball at the goal line. I couldnt find a P word to end the sentence properly. (or at least as I wished) It was a pitiful performance on my part.

Perpetually pitiful performance? Preposterous.

Like one of my most favoritest Sgts says: "Pay burger flipping wages, get burger flippers."

I think some people think that if you pay burger flippers rocket scientist wages, you'll get rocket science burger flippers. But probably the only way to get rocket scientist burger flippers is to move their jobs to China. In which case, you can still pay them burger flipper wages.

 

[HoughMade]

I also counsel businesses on things like that. In terms of "why have the policy," I think it goes beyond what the law may impose in terms of liability, since laws are notoriously poor barometers of what can create liability. Better to have at least a minimal policy, minimally enforced, than no policy. At least that is my experience.

Mine, too, but from a tort perspective, I have a hard time figuring out what makes a supressor safer when the tax is paid.

 

[ArmedNerds]

I recognize the deficiency in the analogy, but it was only that. Plus, there are other ways to confirm income without access to my 1040, including an affidavit that the number I provide is correct, or copies of 1099s/W-2s (still tax documents, but more analogous to the NFA tax stamps). Even so, I think the analogy serves its purpose.

In the case of FAFSA, it's the government asking for government information. Notice that the FAFSA form is a US Govt. from approved by the OMB or whomever. Very different from an RO at a private business asking for NFA tax stamps. In the former it's the government asking for information that it has some form of legal standing to ask for. In the latter, the RO has no reason or standing to ask for your NFA stamps. It would be like an ordinary citizen asking to see my LTCH - unless they are a police officer acting in their official duties the answer is always "Go pound sand".

 

[jamil]

Nope. Just pointing out there's a pretty easy list to come up with that most ranges will enforce regardless if they're printed on their website or not. "Engaging in an illegal activity" is pretty broad and one I've seen at a few places. NFA items are pretty easy to spot and question.

Hell, they allow shotguns...... take some pigeons and start throwing targets down your lane. Don't see that rule anywhere either..... get my point?

Kind of an absurd distinction really. No one would be astonished if a RO kicked someone for throwing clay pigeons down range in an indoor range, even if that particular rule isn't posted. THAT rule doesn't need to be posted. It is intuitive to any sane person.

But requiring that ROs inspect the tax stamp before allowing patrons to shoot their NFA items? I don't live in the area, and I've never been to a Point Blank range. I've been to plenty other ranges, and have never heard of any such rule. Businesses have a right to concoct all the silly rules their paranoid imaginations can dream up. But when a rule astonishes patrons as this one did, it's a sign they need to post it. It's clear from this thread that most INGOers seem to be astonished that a range would have such a rule at all, and especially that they wouldn't post a rule that isn't at all intuitive.

 

[T.Lex]

Mine, too, but from a tort perspective, I have a hard time figuring out what makes a supressor safer when the tax is paid.

It isn't, mechanically.

But would you rather be able to say to a jury in a premises liability-style case, "My client did everything he could under the law to make sure Defendant Shooter McShooter had the proper federal approvals before allowing him access to the range." Or the alternative, "We didn't really do anything because RKBA."

I don't think we're really arguing. Plus, I'm having a tough time coming up with any alternative policies. Best risk-mitigation policy is to forbid them. And I don't really want that, for personal reasons.

 

[T.Lex]

In the case of FAFSA, it's the government asking for government information.

Try explaining that to the private colleges that will receive the information.

 

[Cameramonkey]

So, if the RSO demands that you show him your underwear, or to shout, "I am a golden god!" before every shot...?

HAH! The joke is on him! I dont wear underwear!!!!

Mine, too, but from a tort perspective, I have a hard time figuring out what makes a supressor safer when the tax is paid.

Agreed. Unless their butt is somehow on the line if Billybob gets busted on-site with his illegal can, I dont see how its any of their concern.

I'm eagerly awaiting Corporate's response to VUPD's official inquiry.

 

[Woobie]

So, if the RSO demands that you show him your underwear, or to shout, "I am a golden god!" before every shot...?

Then that would mean the range in question had hired Vitamink as an RO.

 

[chipbennett]

No. I'm also not real sure why it's such a problem to produce the form to a person of authority on private properly, or leave at their request.

A Range Safety Officer is a "person of authority" only with respect to ensuring range safety. FULLSTOP.

An RSO is not an ATF agent. An RFO is not a "person of authority" with respect to verifying the lawful possession of a firearm - much less, of an NFA item. An RSO is not an IRS agent. An RFO is not a "person of authority" with respect to ensuring that proper taxes have been paid for an NFA item.

I fully expect any "open to public" range I'm shooting at to question the legality of my NFA items. It's going to happen, right or not.

Why? Why do you expect it to happen? Do you similarly expect the RSO to verify the LTCH of every person shooting on the range? And if you know it's not right, why put up with it?

 

[chipbennett]

@chipbennett
I recognize the deficiency in the analogy, but it was only that. Plus, there are other ways to confirm income without access to my 1040, including an affidavit that the number I provide is correct, or copies of 1099s/W-2s (still tax documents, but more analogous to the NFA tax stamps). Even so, I think the analogy serves its purpose.

The colleges (public and private) that use the FAFSA information are distributing government-allocated monies, under the rules of a government aid program - the allocation of which monies is accountable to the government.

The range, much less the RSO, has no involvement with or accountability whatsoever for NFA items used by range shooters.

 

[Thegeek]

Obvious questionable legality. That's why I would expect it.

An RSO is "person of authority" with respect to ensuring range safety. However, as an employee of the business, their roles and responsibilities extend beyond that of the RSO role.

For arguments sake, if they post it as a rule: "If you intend to use an NFA item at this range, you must produce your documentation prior to range entry". Would you or would you not?

 

[chipbennett]

Obvious questionable legality. That's why I would expect it.

An RSO is "person of authority" with respect to ensuring range safety. However, as an employee of the business, their roles and responsibilities extend beyond that of the RSO role.

For arguments sake, if they post it as a rule: "If you intend to use an NFA item at this range, you must produce your documentation prior to range entry". Would you or would you not?

I would not. I would go elsewhere, though I may ask to speak with the manager first, to explain why I've decided not to do business there.

(This is all hypothetical; I have no NFA items. Though, being able to use a suppressor at the range would be awfully nice. My ears are bad enough as it is.)

 

[T.Lex]

The colleges (public and private) that use the FAFSA information are distributing government-allocated monies, under the rules of a government aid program - the allocation of which monies is accountable to the government.

This isn't exactly correct.
https://studentaid.ed.gov/sa/fafsa/next-steps/how-calculated

Colleges use information from the FAFSA, including Expected Family Contribution, based upon income data from .gov. They also generally have their own formula, but it is absolutely related to the .gov info, without any tie to federal dollars.

 

[chipbennett]

This isn't exactly correct.
https://studentaid.ed.gov/sa/fafsa/next-steps/how-calculated

Colleges use information from the FAFSA, including Expected Family Contribution, based upon income data from .gov. They also generally have their own formula, but it is absolutely related to the .gov info, without any tie to federal dollars.

Mostly a distinction without a difference. They're following .gov rules for disbursement of .gov money, according to income information reported to .gov.

The main point is: the college has a legitimate reason to ask for the student/parents to disclose private, financial/income/tax information. The RSO does not.

 

[VUPDblue]

I got a phone call from their regional manager just now. He apologized for this situation and wanted to make it right. He went on to explain that their policy is to inspect the stamps for NFA items to allow them on the range, and he admitted that it was not posted anywhere. I was told that the website has been updated to reflect this policy and that signs for all their locations have been ordered. The gentleman also profusely apologized for the RO threatening me with calling the police and assured that it would be brought to his attention as well as the attention of the store manager. I was offered free range passes for my trouble, which I declined. I told the man that I was appreciative that he was making it right and that's all I really wanted.

I still do not agree with the policy but I am grown up enough to be able to decide if that will keep me from using their range or not.

The manager guy I spoke with was a class act.

 

[T.Lex]

Mostly a distinction without a difference. They're following .gov rules for disbursement of .gov money, according to income information reported to .gov.

This part is absolutely incorrect, chip. Did you read the link?

The .gov money is available from .gov. But, the private colleges (in particular) use that part of the equation to decide what financial aid to provide on their own. If it was only .gov distributing .gov money, then the colleges shouldn't have any part of the information. It would be between .gov and the student (or the student's family).

And that's the important part of the analogy. My tax information is not a good predictor of whether my kid will be a good student at a particular college, or even whether we will pay the money for private college. It presents historic information. But, the information is shared. Similarly, but not identically, a private range might want to know if someone has a tax stamp. It doesn't predict whether the person is safe, it provides historic information.

 

[T.Lex]

I still do not agree with the policy but I am grown up enough to be able to decide if that will keep me from using their range or not.

The manager guy I spoke with was a class act.

A) Same-business-day response? That's pretty f'n fast IMHO.

B) Ultimately, probably the right answer all the way around.

Well done.

 

[Dead Duck]

I got a phone call from their regional manager just now. He apologized for this situation and wanted to make it right. He went on to explain that their policy is to inspect the stamps for NFA items to allow them on the range, and he admitted that it was not posted anywhere. I was told that the website has been updated to reflect this policy and that signs for all their locations have been ordered. The gentleman also profusely apologized for the RO threatening me with calling the police and assured that it would be brought to his attention as well as the attention of the store manager. I was offered free range passes for my trouble, which I declined. I told the man that I was appreciative that he was making it right and that's all I really wanted.

I still do not agree with the policy but I am grown up enough to be able to decide if that will keep me from using their range or not.

The manager guy I spoke with was a class act.

So no BootNeckin?

 

[chipbennett]

I got a phone call from their regional manager just now. He apologized for this situation and wanted to make it right. He went on to explain that their policy is to inspect the stamps for NFA items to allow them on the range, and he admitted that it was not posted anywhere. I was told that the website has been updated to reflect this policy and that signs for all their locations have been ordered. The gentleman also profusely apologized for the RO threatening me with calling the police and assured that it would be brought to his attention as well as the attention of the store manager. I was offered free range passes for my trouble, which I declined. I told the man that I was appreciative that he was making it right and that's all I really wanted.

I still do not agree with the policy but I am grown up enough to be able to decide if that will keep me from using their range or not.

The manager guy I spoke with was a class act.

Here it is, under Range Safety Rules:

Range Pricing & Rules | Point Blank Indoor Shooting Range & Gun Shop | Cincinnati Ohio

• We require proper paperwork to be presented at the range counter for any Class III items to be used on the range.