Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 11/10/2001 3:18:38 PM EDT
it seems the BLM might have made some changes regarding there policy on shooting CA AW's on there land. "The Bureau of Land Management California policy is to allow the use of firearms on public lands, as provided for in state law, and to cooperate with state authorities in the enforcement of firearms regulations. [b]Federal lands managed by the BLM in California are generally closed to the possession of assault weapons, as defined by state law: However, BLM Field Managers, after consultation with the State Office and the public, may designate specific areas, through issuance of specific authorization, where state defined assault weapons may be utilized.[/b] This would be under authority of the Recreation and Public Purposes Act. Such authorizations will require compliance with the appropriate regulations and state laws. The authorizations will contain safety conditions, including liability insurance. Authorization will specifically require that it will be the responsibility of the lessee to ensure adherence to state law regarding assault weapon use at these specially authorized areas." [url]http://www.ca.blm.gov/caso/hunting.html[/url]
Link Posted: 11/10/2001 11:33:12 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/10/2001 11:26:35 PM EDT by Troy]
Link Posted: 11/11/2001 10:45:14 AM EDT
This recent post on a yahoo board does look promising: [url]http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theekklesiachurch/message/3015[/url]
Link Posted: 11/13/2001 2:21:02 PM EDT
That is not new, in fact I posted about that over two years ago to the old AR15 forum board. I contacted the BLM in the San Diego area and asked if it would be ok to shoot my AR15 on BLM land. The reply was that it WAS ok (before the BS23 ban) with a Kalifornication LEGAL (at the time) AR15. Once the BS23 ban took affect then the only way that a Kalifornication "defined" assault weapon could be fired on BLM land was if you asked "permission" to fire your Kalifornication "defined" assault weapon on BLM land. When I called the HMF BLM guy in Sacramento I was told that it was no problem to get the "permission" if the following were met: Land suitable for a "long distance" firing range. The "purpose" of the "event". Insurance (something like $250K of liability)to cover the users and morons who whould walk into a live firing range) I posted the names, email address and the phone numbers of the BLM people. The district manager for the San Diego area told me that no one had applied for a permit to use Kalifornication "defined" assault weapons in his area. He also said he would be interested in it as he had his own personal AR15 that he wanted to shoot on BLM land. I guess all it would take is money.
Link Posted: 11/14/2001 12:16:08 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/14/2001 12:18:28 PM EDT by SaltCreek]
To all you fellow California AR-15 guys - I pursued this matter with a vengeance early in the year. I first contacted the Palm Springs office and they flat out said “NO, assault weapons are NOT allowed on CA BLM lands.” This was stated in a letter from James Kenna. I then wrote to Roger Bruckner, the Special-Agent-In-Charge in Sacramento. He actually called me and we had a nice chat. He told me (this was back in February) that “if the BLM had it their way, they would BAN ALL SHOOTING on public lands in CA.” The reason being, he said, was that people are using guns to destroy plants and trees, buildings and signs, and are leaving trash everywhere.” He specifically told me, however, that assault weapons are not entirely banned from public lands. He recommended I call the Chief Law Enforcement Ranger for my district and ask him for permission. He ended the conversation on a positive note, leading me to believe that there was a ray of light. When I talked with John T. Blachley of the Palm Springs District, he told me that he personally could not grant permission. He suggested I write a letter (see a pattern developing here?) to the head honcho of the CA BLM and ask him to ‘revisit the decision’ which disallowed the use of ass. weapons on public lands. He hinted that with a new President in the Oval Office, sometimes policies change. Eventually I heard from Roger Bruckner again, who told me that after conferring with the head honcho, ‘the decision still stands’. John T. Blachley then sent me a letter outlining the specifications needed to legally use an AW on public lands, and this is what it boiled down to: It will be a cold day in hell when they allow it. Long story short - this process took me about six months. I went through 5 CA BLM officials to get a solid ‘NO FUCKING WAY’. Those carefree days of plinking with your AR on vast expanses of BLM land are gone like New Kids On The Block. On the bright side, you can still use your Mini-14 on CA BLM land. But that’s TOTALLY different, because the Mini-14 is .223 caliber, accepts detachable magazines, and is a gas-operated semi-automatic rifle. Unlike the AR series, which is .223 caliber, accepts detachable magazines, and is a gas-operated semi-automatic rifle. See the difference?
Link Posted: 11/14/2001 12:28:46 PM EDT
So anyway, you have to sneak 'em out now. And if the cops come, just throw your rifle into a wash and scream, "You can't prove anything, pal!"
Link Posted: 11/14/2001 3:29:23 PM EDT
SaltCreek, with all that time invested in letter writing, why give up so easily? Just kidding, but why not go to the top - Gale Norton! PRK is full of liberal bureaucrats who need a little prodding from outside the state. [url]http://www.doi.gov/secretary/[/url]
Link Posted: 11/14/2001 5:25:05 PM EDT
What business does the Fed Gov. have in land in Kalifornia? If the Fed Gov. did'nt pay the taxpayers of Kali for the land they claim, then they dont own it! Speaking as a resident taxpayer of Kalifornia, I did NOT receive a check from the Fed Gov. for the land that they seized. Therefore, I think that ANY Fed. Gov. agent on Kalifornia public land is trespassing.
Link Posted: 11/14/2001 7:01:53 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/14/2001 6:56:23 PM EDT by Pthfndr]
I don't know if this will work on BLM land per se, but it works for us up here on USFS land. I admit it is from the original RR law, but my AR is now covered by that and not SB23. Doesn't everyone have one of these. [img]www.ar15.com/members/albums/Pthfndr%2Fpermission1%2Egif[/img]
Link Posted: 11/14/2001 8:46:51 PM EDT
That sucks i too spoke with roger and he was a nice guy to speak with.He gave me the number tothe barstow office and who to talk to.(barry nelson).Well i spoke to him and he said that he had no problem with shooting on blm land in his DISTRICT if the rifle was registered and that i can legally own it i should be able to shoot it.So far so good. but it is up to the local district supervisor and if he hates guns your screwed.
Link Posted: 11/15/2001 7:27:38 AM EDT
That email from the HDMSC looks somewhat promising, but I'm totally confused now. They are saying that SB23 firearms are allowed, but Roberti-Roos firearms aren't allowed? That's weird, isn't SB23 an extension of Roberti-Roos? Both of my 'assault weapons' were purchased by me in the mid-1990's and thusly they are not Roberti-Roos guns. When I was in contact with the CA BLM, I used the term 'assault weapon', but didn't specify 'Armalite M-15 and Norinco MAK-90'. That HDMSC letter leads me to believe that the policy extends only to specific weapons covered under Roberti-Roos. Looks like you guys up in the Barstow area are lucky bastards! I shoot out by the Salton Sea, which is in the Palm Springs district. The head ranger there, John Blachley, seemed like a really nice guy and said nothing to make me believe he was anti-gun. Well, confusion still reigns, but maybe there's some hope. I did recently find an area in the San Bernardino NF that I can exercise some firepower, but my first love is the desert - all BLM land. Please post if you find any more solid info. Thanks!
Link Posted: 11/15/2001 8:28:00 PM EDT
SaltCreek, as ar15robert says, it may be a regional thing. If you wish to ask Tony Hogrefe about the HDMSC letter or ask him any questions you can find him on this board posting as "Gunnfixr". It's his board: [url]http://www.awrm.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi[/url]
Link Posted: 11/16/2001 12:55:25 AM EDT
With all the time you guys are spending on the BLM business, you could also be checking out private property to shoot on. I can appreciate and applaud your efforts, but I'd give serious thought to securing written permission from an individual land owner or a corporate land owner. I have known Logging companies who's employees set up informal ranges (with the companies o.k.) to sight in their hunting rifles. These same companies give permission to some outsiders for recreational shooting as well. Once, I found out who the land manager was for a large lumber company and asked him directly (i.e. bypassing the secretaries et.al.) about shooting on their property. I just dealt with him straight and he gave me one of their permission slips. I even went back to offer to organize a cleanup crew for the trash folks were leaving in the area. Easy things to do, and sometimes highly effective. A company with a rock quary might also be a place to shoot. Search county records for owners in an area where there are large undeveloped tracts away from cities. Contact the owners to ask if they ever give permission for hiking, bug collecting, hunting, whatever. If you get permission to be on their land and show what good boys you are (maybe by cleaning up trash someone else has left and notifying the owner they HAD a trash problem) you could then move onto recreational shooting priviledges. Explain how you like to remove all traces of your shooting activity and then make sure you follow through. Just a thought! WSmac
Link Posted: 11/16/2001 1:00:11 AM EDT
another thought; Organize a group of shooters and approach the BLM through a group who will be responsible enough to clean up after themselves, maybe doing other clean up (sorta like the adopt-a-highway deal). WSmac
Link Posted: 11/17/2001 10:42:56 PM EDT
wsmac -- your right we could be spending time looking around for private property to shoot on. but does that mean we should sit by and allow federal govt PUBLIC land be closed off to our fav activity? first the shooters are gone, next will be the off roaders, whos next? this is OUR land, we paid for it and we should be able to dictate the activities that take place on it.
Link Posted: 11/18/2001 8:52:27 PM EDT
LAgunman2K, I agree with you. One problem I see here is that folks get conflicting answers to the same questions. So how does a person resolve this? I think for a definite answer, they/we should send a large collective voice to the person who's word would be followed by his (or her) subordinates. You work your way up the chain of command until you get an answer that will hold. As some people might say, "You don't keep beating a dead horse". In addition to that, if you want to keep shooting on open land, try to find private property to shoot on. In my case, private property surrounds me and works out best. I will support any local/state/national effort to pin down the policy (hopefully in our favor) on shooting AW's on public lands whether I plan on shooting there or not. I'll make phone calls, write letters, send e-mails, sign & pass around petitions. Hope this clears up my position for you. WSmac
Top Top