Brief (1)
SB 180 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, semi-automatic firearms, skeet, trap, black powder, or any other similar sports shooting. The bill would require the Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks to adopt, pursuant to rules and regulations, 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 by January 1, 2002.
The bill also would allow shooting ranges to be exempt from any civil liability claims or criminal prosecution 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 also would 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 bill prohibits a governmental entity from taking title of a sport shooting range by condemnation or eminent domain, but is not restricted from exercising eminent domain or easement rights.
SB 180, as introduced, would have repealed the Kansas Performance Review Act, thereby eliminating the Kansas Performance Review Board.
Background
The provisions of HB 2558 were amended into SB 180 by the House Committee on Federal and State Affairs.
Representative Candy Ruff, a representative of the Leavenworth High School Army Junior ROTC, a Kansas Hunter Education Instructor, and two concerned citizens testified in support of the substitute bill. A representative of the First Santa Fe trail Plainsmen Muzzleloading Club submitted written testimony in support of the amended bill.
Representatives of the League of Kansas Municipalities, the Johnson County Commission, and the City of Lenexa testified in opposition to 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. The Department of Wildlife and Parks 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/fulltext.cgi