Brief (1)
HB 2550 concerns the regulation of sport shooting ranges. Sport shooting range is defined as an area designed and operated for the use of archery, rifles, shotguns, pistols, semautomatic firearms, skeet, trap, black powder, or any other similar sports shooting. The bill would require the Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks (KDWP) to adopt generally accepted operating practices for sport shooting ranges. The generally accepted operating practices would be those established by a nationally recognized nonprofit membership organization that provides voluntary firearm safety programs. The Kansas Wildlife and Parks Commission is directed to adopt these practices within 180 days of the effective date of the act.
The bill would also allow shooting ranges to be exempt from any liability claims for noise pollution or nuisance claims. In order to be granted this exemption, the shooting range would have to comply with the generally accepted operating practices. The ranges would also have to have been in compliance with any applicable noise ordinances at the time of construction or initial operation of the range. The bill would allow a sport shooting range to continue in operation without being subject to local zoning ordinances if the range is in compliance with the generally accepted operating practices.
The House Committee amended the bill to delete the provision which required all users of sport shooting ranges to assume any risk associated with such use.
Background
Testimony in support of the bill was presented to the House Committee on Federal and State Affairs by representatives of the: KDWP; Kansas Second Amendment Society; Kansas State Rifle Association; Air Capital Gun Club; Kansas Hunter Education Instructors Association; Douglas County Rifle and Pistol Club; and the Kansas Sportsmen's Alliance.
Opposition to the bill was expressed by representatives of the City of Lenexa and the League of Kansas Municipalities.
A representative of the Kansas Trial Lawyers Association expressed opposition to the assumption of risk defense provision contained in the introduced version of the bill.
The fiscal note prepared by the Division of the Budget states that the fiscal impact of the bill cannot be estimated at present. KDWP expects that it would create additional expenses for salaries, printing, and mailing. The Kansas Association of Counties indicates that passage of the bill would require additional expenses for more law enforcement resources.
1. *Supplemental notes are prepared by the Legislative Research Department and do not express legislative intent. The supplemental note and fiscal note for this bill may be accessed on the Internet at http://www.ink.org/public/legislative/bill_search.html