Genesse Range vs CFO court battle

[RUSTY262]

Could someone please shed some light on why genesee range is going to court against the CFO?
I have been a member for several years now and have been waiting patiently for the long range to open
It seems odd that we would be in court against the CFO
I think we all have to remember that meeting certification this year does not mean we will automatically meet next year
By the time the court battle is over chances are the requirements will have changed
It's the same as a vehicle from ten years ago- it met safety standards for 2007 but would certainly not meet the standards for 2017

[3blade]

Only way to stop the idiot from changing the rules every 10 days. He is hell bent on eliminating shooting ranges in alberta.

It's a shame what happened there, used to be a good deal and close enough to make it worth while.

[RUSTY262]

Sherwood park just put in another range at Hastings lake facility and all is good there
Seems they have a good working relationship with the CFO
Maybe that would be a better way to address this matter
Certainly isn't going to be fast in the courts

[RolHammer]

With the case of the SPFGA, my suspicious is it has more to do with the organization being sufficiently capitalized to be able to put in effect any whims of the CFO of the moment than cordiality from them.

And I believe this is the true nature of the long game being played out - keep changing the rules, ratcheting the bar arbitrarily higher until it's no longer financially feasible to keep up.

The power of the CFO and their office, their lack of clear accountability, their ability to place stipulations without an evidentiary foundation of necessity are things that make me uncomfortable, that should make all of us uncomfortable.

[Bergerboy]

You can contact the CFO's office and ask why the range is failing the template.

[purgatory.sv]

Originally Posted by RUSTY262

Could someone please shed some light on why genesee range is going to court against the CFO?
I have been a member for several years now and have been waiting patiently for the long range to open
It seems odd that we would be in court against the CFO
I think we all have to remember that meeting certification this year does not mean we will automatically meet next year
By the time the court battle is over chances are the requirements will have changed
It's the same as a vehicle from ten years ago- it met safety standards for 2007 but would certainly not meet the standards for 2017

The next meeting for CHAS is February 6th; they also indicated the next newsletter will have information about the lawsuit. This information was taken from the link provided at the top of this section.

[fish_e_o]

Originally Posted by 3blade

Only way to stop the idiot from changing the rules every 10 days. He is hell bent on eliminating shooting ranges in alberta.

Which one is that?

[RolHammer]

Originally Posted by Bergerboy

You can contact the CFO's office and ask why the range is failing the template.

Yes, you could. I think it's the wrong question though - the question that should be asked is what are the reasons the template is the way it is. For every item on every line on every page there should be a clear & unambiguous reason for its necessity.

[Bergerboy]

Originally Posted by RolHammer

Yes, you could. I think it's the wrong question though - the question that should be asked is what are the reasons the template is the way it is. For every item on every line on every page there should be a clear & unambiguous reason for its necessity.

For what I have been told, the template has always been the same. The old CFO was very lenient. The new one is trying to follow the rules in which you have to have a certain berm height for different distances etc. Keep in mind, this is what I have been told by some of the members so I am not sure how valid my info is.

[purgatory.sv]

Originally Posted by RUSTY262

Could someone please shed some light on why genesee range is going to court against the CFO?
I have been a member for several years now and have been waiting patiently for the long range to open
It seems odd that we would be in court against the CFO
I think we all have to remember that meeting certification this year does not mean we will automatically meet next year
By the time the court battle is over chances are the requirements will have changed
It's the same as a vehicle from ten years ago- it met safety standards for 2007 but would certainly not meet the standards for 2017

In the Gun Owners OF Canada site some discussion is taking place, this is the link to the last page.
http://gunownersofcanada.ca/showthre...problems/page3

[RolHammer]

Originally Posted by Bergerboy

For what I have been told, the template has always been the same. The old CFO was very lenient. The new one is trying to follow the rules in which you have to have a certain berm height for different distances etc. Keep in mind, this is what I have been told by some of the members so I am not sure how valid my info is.

I've had a different experience, but similarly second hand. I was talking with an ex-CAF fellow involved with another range. He was relating the CFOs various requirements to a CAF range designer he knows, a fellow who designs not just rifle ranges but ranges of all types for the CAF, and the stipulations the CFO was making were nonsense.

As to the template, I believe you're right - I think the current template has been in place for awhile. What I understand about this though is that a new template is coming and that change requirements are being made on this as yet to be declared template versus the current one which is in force. My issue with that is the current building code is the current building code. The inspector make their stipulations according to this proclaimed code, not according to changes in some future version of the code which may or may not come along at some future point.

Again though, fundamentally there must be a clear evidentiary reason for every element of the current template or future templates. This obsession the current CFO has with ground strikes borders on madness.

[RUSTY262]

One thing I know for sure as previously stated is the rules for certification will continue to change
We as a range can either fight in court or work to manage those changes
I know for sure a court battle will definitely keep our range closed
I was told by a Sherwood park member that they just recently had to increase height of birms to meet new rules
Work was complete and certification was maintained
Do they report to a different cfo?

[6MT]

Originally Posted by purgatory.sv

The next meeting for CHAS is February 6th; they also indicated the next newsletter will have information about the lawsuit. This information was taken from the link provided at the top of this section.

There was a meeting in November where the lawyer gave everyone an update. None of this is being made public. For many reasons.

It will take time. The next court date I believe is in April. The lawyer said this will take time. Years perhaps.

[elkhunter11]

The rules are constantly changing, according to the CFO this is to keep up with new technology in firearms and ammunition. I for one an not familiar with technological advances that are making projectiles significantly more dangerous, at much greater distances, than they were a few years ago. Given that ballistics are not advancing significantly anymore, I am not all that convinced that there is merit to this excuse.

[Bergerboy]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

The rules are constantly changing, according to the CFO this is to keep up with new technology in firearms and ammunition. I for one an not familiar with technological advances that are making projectiles significantly more dangerous, at much greater distances, than they were a few years ago. Given that ballistics are not advancing significantly anymore, I am not all that convinced that there is merit to this excuse.

Increased popularity of 50BMG and 338 Lapua is the only thing recently that I can think of they would require template modification .

[purgatory.sv]

Originally Posted by 6MT

There was a meeting in November where the lawyer gave everyone an update. None of this is being made public. For many reasons.

It will take time. The next court date I believe is in April. The lawyer said this will take time. Years perhaps.

Good to know, I assume rusty262 wasn’t at that meeting.

Nothing is easy when you are dealing with administrators that do not seem to be accountable to the people they should be serving?

[catnthehat]

Originally Posted by Bergerboy

Increased popularity of 50BMG and 338 Lapua is the only thing recently that I can think of they would require template modification .

Not so much in advances in technology but in popularity and availability maybe?
Personally, I looked at the 50BMG in 1980 as a long range target rifle but after looking at the set up and operating cost ran away as fast as I could!
I understand our range just got re- templated after some berm reconfiguration and land lease changes

Cat

[qwert]

Originally Posted by purgatory.sv

snip
Nothing is easy when you are dealing with administrators that do not seem to be accountable to the people they should be serving?

We need to recognize that they have no interest in serving Canadian shooters,
They serve those who appoint and pay them, and also control their advancement and promotion.
Their end goal is citizen disarmament and confiscation.
They are not happy till we are not happy.

Good Luck, YMMV.

[RUSTY262]

I understand and appreciate that all the rules may not seem fair but if Sherwood park can find a way to work within the new template I would rather see my membership fees going towards meeting the new template instead of filling some lawyers pocket
I wasn't at the November meeting but I will definitely be attending the February meeting

[purgatory.sv]

Originally Posted by qwert

We need to recognize that they have no interest in serving Canadian shooters,
They serve those who appoint and pay them, and also control their advancement and promotion.
Their end goal is citizen disarmament and confiscation.
They are not happy till we are not happy.

Good Luck, YMMV.

yes

[Erik]

Originally Posted by RUSTY262

I understand and appreciate that all the rules may not seem fair but if Sherwood park can find a way to work within the new template I would rather see my membership fees going towards meeting the new template instead of filling some lawyers pocket
I wasn't at the November meeting but I will definitely be attending the February meeting

That is before you consider the effect on attracting new members. I was considering a Genesee membership before I learned of this court battle, but now I think I will hold off and shoot elsewhere. Probably more than just me in that bucket. Seems like it could be a revenue squeeze for Genesee that could have long-term impacts. I will wait til the dust settles.

[Skytop B]

When did the templates change? The most recent copy of the guidelines I have is dated 2010, the templates are the same as the 1999 copy. The last time I met our CFO he was really good. It's gotta be a tough job. I guess It's just a matter of how you read the guidelines but overall I think they are pretty straight forward. What is the issue with Genessee? Ground baffles? I know the Rocky club long range proposal was killed due to the requirement of ground baffles every 200m to the proposed 1500m and basically the requirement of building a mountain on top of an existing swamp/muskeg with no suitable fill material in the area. I think lawsuit would be the wrong way to go unless you are ok with the range being shut down for possible years. They are by the book, if it's in the book you have to have it before they will sign off on approval.

[RolHammer]

Originally Posted by purgatory.sv

yes

+1

[RUSTY262]

Originally Posted by Erik

That is before you consider the effect on attracting new members. I was considering a Genesee membership before I learned of this court battle, but now I think I will hold off and shoot elsewhere. Probably more than just me in that bucket. Seems like it could be a revenue squeeze for Genesee that could have long-term impacts. I will wait til the dust settles.

I will certainly wait to get more info at the February meeting before I hand over my money
I can't imagine too many members sticking around if the ****ing contest continues

[260 Rem]

For Edmonton area shooters, I doubt there are many Ranges within an hours drive accepting members, so giving up a membership.... even to shoot out to 100M, is a conundrum.

[6MT]

Originally Posted by 260 Rem

For Edmonton area shooters, I doubt there are many Ranges within an hours drive accepting members, so giving up a membership.... even to shoot out to 100M, is a conundrum.

Wildwood, with 304 yards, is a very viable option.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by 260 Rem

For Edmonton area shooters, I doubt there are many Ranges within an hours drive accepting members, so giving up a membership.... even to shoot out to 100M, is a conundrum.

Our membership at Camrose is increasing as a result of the fact that we have no cap yet, but our facility is small, so we can't handle many more members.

[RUSTY262]

Originally Posted by 260 Rem

For Edmonton area shooters, I doubt there are many Ranges within an hours drive accepting members, so giving up a membership.... even to shoot out to 100M, is a conundrum.

Remember it won't be long before the 100 meter needs improvements to keep up with the safety standards
If they approach it the same way there won't be a range

[260 Rem]

If my recall is correct, you will need to maintain a 6M backstop at 100M. Not sure, but I think most Range approvals are issued for a five year term?

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by 260 Rem

For Edmonton area shooters, I doubt there are many Ranges within an hours drive accepting members, so giving up a membership.... even to shoot out to 100M, is a conundrum.

You are kidding, right? An abandoned oil lease is 100m x 100m for goodness sakes.