WI range turns in names of customers to police who run background checks on all.

[JetGirl]

But they do not hang on to your DL during the duration of any of those

I hang onto DLs when I call in a NICS check. If I can't read your writing for name/height/weight/b-date/etc., I refer to the DL...

 

[Bunnykid68]

I hang onto DLs when I call in a NICS check. If I can't read your writing for name/height/weight/b-date/etc., I refer to the DL...

OK, for that then.

BLAH BLAH BLAH

 

[JetGirl]

OK, for that then.

BLAH BLAH BLAH

Bested by a monkey... must be a low day for you.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Bested by a monkey... must be a low day for you.

Had a banana stuck in my eye

 

[JetGirl]

Had a banana stuck in my eye

Wonder how that got there.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Wonder how that got there.

Damn monkey me thinks

 

[JetGirl]

Damn monkey

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJT2vJMsYc4[/ame]

 

[GBuck]

Bested by a monkey... must be a low day for you.

About average for him really.

 

[JetGirl]

About average for him really.

Repped.

 

[Bunnykid68]

About average for him really.

Thats just wrong mister, siding with a monkey girl

 

[DRob]

Curious

Holding the ID isn't the issue. It's what the WI range does with the info on that ID that's questionable. If they had a shred of integrity, they would inform customers in advance their info will be given to the PD.

I'm curious how many outraged posts on this thread were made by members who have sung the praises of a particular range in Indy which holds your DL while you're shooting.

The practice won't stop me from shooting there, by the way.

 

[JetGirl]

I'm surprised the FB comments are still up. Either they don't regularly look in on their page, or (even if someone has alerted them to it) they don't care.

 

[CX1]

B) I did not say that the range was disseminating info the the public, it does not have to be to the public. They are sending it without the individual's permission. That is called disseminating. IF the police run the info they are also breaking the law, as they have no RAS or PC to run that individual, anything they find is from a fruitless tree.

Please don't take the following that I am agreeing with the process or am happy with what this range seems to be doing. However I do have some questions.

As far as sending the personal information of the patrons to the Police I am not understanding why that would be illegal.
Yes I believe the range should have been more up front with the practice.

The range does warn patrons that the range is not responsible for any damage or injury to the patron and the wavier does not limit this to physical damage. The waiver also mentions the range is not responsible for "risks not known nor not reasonably foreseeable". There is also the part stating "...understands the he/she has given up substantial rights by signing this document, and is executing this document voluntarily."

There is also nothing in the waiver (that I can see) that provides any detail of a privacy policy. By signing the document the patron is allowing the range to give the voluntarily provided information to any third party the range desires because the range has not limited itself in the waiver as to who the third party might be.

So I can't see why this would open the range to criminal charges or civil lawsuits. The waiver seems to make the patron hold the range harmless.

The range is providing service and equipment that is of a nature that it could be illegal for them to do so for a felon and could expose the range to possible criminal charges.
When we have people in this thread freely admitting that they falsify personal information when requested by a range is it any surprise that this range takes further steps to ensure that it is not illegally providing access to felons?

Again, I am not trying to defend the range's actions. I don't think that running background checks on every patron is a very 'customer friendly' way to conduct business. I just am not seeing how it is illegal or trampling on the privacy of the patron since the patron voluntarily signed the waiver so they could be allowed to use the range's property.

Now as to the actions of the police. Again I am not seeing how it is illegal.

Please see this link Indiana State Police - Limited Criminal History Search
Seems that if this range was in Indiana and qualified as a non-public school(for example) then a criminal background check would be provided for free. While not familiar with the specifics of Wisconsin law it does not seem unreasonable that they might have a similar system there.

Also the police need PC or RAS to stop or detain an individual or physically search private property. Looking through their own files at information they already possess is not stopping or detaining and it is not a private property access issue.

The 'fruit of the tree' is used for rules of evidence. They are not using the background check as a means to convict. They are just providing the information to the range who has no standards of evidence to meet when deciding to not allow someone access to their private property.

 

[Iroquois]

Not a lawyer nor do I play one on INGO. There is legal premise that holds that unless something is specified in writing the standard would be assumed to be based on what a reasonable person would expect. I have to wonder how a waiver would hold up
if court, unless it specified that the background check was standard practice.
In other words, as an example, if I sign a waiver to hold you harmless while hunting
on your land,no reasonable person would expect you to have booby-traps on the trail.
This sounds like a similar situation, if the members were not informed the background
check might seem unreasonable to a jury. The question would be better posed to a
local lawyer.
Another option might be an informational campaign to stop new members from joining. In the '70s in my town a man bought a prefab house that was , say, not as advertised. He put a sign in the front yard 'for sale,HANDYMAN SPECIAL'. As it was
across the street from the model home the dealer was compelled to buy it back or go out of business. A similar tactic could result in a settlement of some sort.

 

[cobber]

If the range management has misgivings about a particular patron and contacts the police, that's one thing, but to open the books and let the police gather all information about all members is a different kettle of fish. Would anyone on INGO feel comfortable patronizing such a business, be it a gun range, bookstore, or church?

(I know, I know, if you have nothing to hide...)

 

[Hoosierdood]

If the range management has misgivings about a particular patron and contacts the police, that's one thing, but to open the books and let the police gather all information about all members is a different kettle of fish. Would anyone on INGO feel comfortable patronizing such a business, be it a gun range, bookstore, or church?

(I know, I know, if you have nothing to hide...)

I wouldn't go anywhere that required a background check.

 

[cobber]

I wouldn't go anywhere that required a background check.

Which is why these guys were obliged to tell their customers.

 

[Expat]

If this protects just one child, it will all be worth it...

 

[IndyDave1776]

This was an interesting thread, and then...I stepped in sheep s**t.

 

[JetGirl]

I stepped in sheep s**t.

Here's hoping it was purple poop.