Contact: Joe Mullin, New England States Coordinator
On January 23, the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation (CSF) joined forces with an overwhelming crowd of sportsmen and women, as well as in-state and national conservation partners, to oppose New Hampshire Senate Bill 469 (SB 469) – legislation that subjects the owner and operator of a shooting range to civil and criminal liabilities for the violation of noise ordinances that went into effect after the range was established. The hearing was held in Concord, NH, where the halls of the State House overflowed with eager opponents to the bill, awaiting their chance at the microphone.
CSF was on-site to speak in opposition to this bill and to submit written testimony outlining the detriments that this bill would have on sportsmen and women across the State.
SB 469 seeks to address a localized issue by crippling the ability of firearms ranges to operate statewide. Firearms shooting ranges have historically been exempted from civil and criminal liabilities for the violation of noise ordinances – something that was done by design based on the very function of their business. Ultimately, SB 469 would place shooting range owners and operators under threat of exhaustive and expensive litigation.
SB 469 also threatens to drive contributions away from the American System of Conservation Funding – a “user-pays, public-benefits” structure, in which those who consumptively use public resources pay for the privilege, and in some cases the right, to do so. Recreational shooters spend significantly more on firearms and ammunition than hunters, subjecting themselves to Pittman-Robertson Act excise taxes while also contributing the lion’s share of money towards this funding structure. If firearms shooting ranges are opened to the liabilities listed in SB 469, recreational shooters would have fewer opportunities, resulting in lost funds for the Granite State’s conservation funding.
CSF will continue to fight against SB 469, and all other legislation that would expose firearms ranges to unnecessary and onerous liabilities. To remain up-to-speed on bills such as SB 469, please sign up for CSF’s “Tracking the Capitols,” a free service that allows you to search for and track legislation on specific issues, and in the states, you care most about.
Share this page
Your opinion counts
Recently, two Montana state representatives have proposed more aggressive legislation addressing the state's gray wolf population. These bills range from the addition of a wolf tag into big game combination tags, to year-round sanctioned harvest without a license, use of snare traps, and private reimbursement of wolf harvest. Currently, the wolf population in Montana sits at 850 wolves, which is 700 over the state’s minimum recovery goal of 150 wolves. Which of the below options for wolf management do you support? (Select all that apply)Vote Here
- Regulated hunting under the management of the state fish and wildlife agency during a specific season (24.00%)
- Year-round hunting of wolves without a license (15.00%)
- The use of snares (trapping) without hunting allowances (2.00%)
- A combination of hunting and trapping during specific seasons regulated by the fish and wildlife agency (34.00%)
- The establishment of a bounty program to incentivize harvest during specific seasons (3.00%)
- Other (2.00%)
- I do not support the take of wolves (20.00%)