Well, so far no more responses to the emails sent out.

So far NO PROGRESS on the repairs! 

Talked to the pistol side range master, he said repairs to begin monday.  But he also said that 'they' didn't specify which monday the repairs would begin...  next month, next year, next life. ...  who knows? 

man what a beautiful day to go shoot.  Sad day.

problem is, common sense went out the window a long time ago
the reason they are going back to the original design considerations is that if they go beyond the original design and something goes wrong, the city is LIABLE

mac, I know I'm not arguing with you, and I don't doubt that's the argument/excuse that may be put out there, but I don't see how it justifies the decision.  Someone designed KHSC 60 some years ago (or whatever it is) and I imagine there aren't many people who would like to accept the liability of any design changes, but there must be some standards or some agency that can be used/paid to update/approve the other uses that have been going on safely for decades.

Really, if they need to make changes, how hard is it to throw some dirt out at 50 yds so you can place your targets (taller if necessary) so they're right in line with the 100yd berm?

Liability?  I know 2 wrongs don't make a right, but there's a ton of liability for the state continuing to allow people to go hike an unauthorized and unmaintained trail above a shooting range too.  If a sign telling people not to trespass up there is sufficient liability prevention, so should a sign that says don't shoot your rifle over koko head.

To try and keep this constructive, does anyone know who could/would certify a range like this to acceptable safety standards?

I believe .223 has a maximum range of 1.5 miles, so could go over the mountain.  Even 22lr could go 1.5 miles, if you believe the writing on the ammo box.

Any ballistics experts out there know at what range .22LR or .223 ceases to be dangerous in terms of those bullets' horizontal velocity?  I'm assuming since you have to shoot up, the downward velocity can be no more than terminal velocity (and not dangerous- see mythbusters).  And in order to shoot over the mountain, you're already significantly reducing the horizontal velocity that the bullet was travelling initially.  My gut tells me there' no way a .22LR is dangerous at the range.  Not sure about a .223.

Of course according to Mike Muramoto, the only bullets found out in the houses were 30 cal or so.  Sure I'd like to shoot my .308 again, but why not let me shoot my 10/22 while I wait for these people to get their act together.

mac, I know I'm not arguing with you, and I don't doubt that's the argument/excuse that may be put out there, but I don't see how it justifies the decision.  Someone designed KHSC 60 some years ago (or whatever it is) and I imagine there aren't many people who would like to accept the liability of any design changes, but there must be some standards or some agency that can be used/paid to update/approve the other uses that have been going on safely for decades.

Really, if they need to make changes, how hard is it to throw some dirt out at 50 yds so you can place your targets (taller if necessary) so they're right in line with the 100yd berm?

Liability?  I know 2 wrongs don't make a right, but there's a ton of liability for the state continuing to allow people to go hike an unauthorized and unmaintained trail above a shooting range too.  If a sign telling people not to trespass up there is sufficient liability prevention, so should a sign that says don't shoot your rifle over koko head.

To try and keep this constructive, does anyone know who could/would certify a range like this to acceptable safety standards?

no, we're not arguing at all
i think we are likely in agreement on a lot of things
i was just saying what the city's response was going to be
sorry if i am stifling discussion, that is not my desire

the NRA and NSSF (national shooting sports federation) i believe are the leaders in range safety standards

mac, I know I'm not arguing with you, and I don't doubt that's the argument/excuse that may be put out there, but I don't see how it justifies the decision.  Someone designed KHSC 60 some years ago (or whatever it is) and I imagine there aren't many people who would like to accept the liability of any design changes, but there must be some standards or some agency that can be used/paid to update/approve the other uses that have been going on safely for decades.

Really, if they need to make changes, how hard is it to throw some dirt out at 50 yds so you can place your targets (taller if necessary) so they're right in line with the 100yd berm?

Liability?  I know 2 wrongs don't make a right, but there's a ton of liability for the state continuing to allow people to go hike an unauthorized and unmaintained trail above a shooting range too.  If a sign telling people not to trespass up there is sufficient liability prevention, so should a sign that says don't shoot your rifle over koko head.

To try and keep this constructive, does anyone know who could/would certify a range like this to acceptable safety standards?

I'd like to piggyback on that sentiment.  I traveled to NC several times last year, and I took a couple of handguns to shoot at the local ranges (not to mention having the right to open carry!).

Each range requires their customers to join and meet membership requirements.  The process of joining includes reading the range rules, watching a safety video and taking a quick test.  They examine your ammo to make sure it isn't reloads or contains steel cores (indoor range rules). 

By reading the rules, watching the video and passing the test, you satisfy the range's liability requirements for proper safety measures.

I think the C&C, if worried about liability, should start with education of the shooters.  Just a thought.....

I'd like to piggyback on that sentiment.  I traveled to NC several times last year, and I took a couple of handguns to shoot at the local ranges (not to mention having the right to open carry!).

Each range requires their customers to join and meet membership requirements.  The process of joining includes reading the range rules, watching a safety video and taking a quick test.  They examine your ammo to make sure it isn't reloads or contains steel cores (indoor range rules). 

By reading the rules, watching the video and passing the test, you satisfy the range's liability requirements for proper safety measures.

I think the C&C, if worried about liability, should start with education of the shooters.  Just a thought.....

hmm
great idea

To try and keep this constructive, does anyone know who could/would certify a range like this to acceptable safety standards?

The C&C COULD choose to request "standards and regulations" from the military community and use or develop their own "safety standards" based on what the military uses.  They could also consider a sanctioning body like IPSC, IDPA or even the Olympic Committee.  The fact that they are being absolutely lazy is glaringly obvious and goes to prove just how ignorant they are about the things they "govern" over.

Instead of open berms for instance they could build covered traps like I saw and used while stationed in Germany as well as at several range facilities across the country.  Railroad ties are relatively inexpensive but in the case for Hawaii, local materials could be used or even recycled materials from construction sites and so on after demolitions take place.  Build a suitable structure and before the roof/cap is placed, stack discarded tires along the back wall and fill them with sand/dirt and make it two rows deep.  Then in front of the tire stacks, pile in a sloped layer of fill (sand/dirt or mixed).  Sure there will be strays that aren't caught but the vast majority will be and more than safely contained.  This still wouldn't safely open up the hiking trail because one HAS to protect and plan for the strays.  There REALLY are plenty of other places to hike, BTW.

Back to the C&C's liability and even the State's.  If they are going to enforce the language in the law about "competent and proficient with safe operation and handling"....then by default THEY have to provide the venue with public access.  They dictated the conditions in the language used, they cannot implement (directly nor indirectly for an indefinite time period) restrictions preventing law abiding citizens from compliance.

that said, filling in the entire range is one of the possible options

Estimating the time and cost of doing the above, I believe it would be faster and cheaper to lower the shooting bay by building a shooting bay below the existing one !
Scabbing from the existing bay would lower costs even more or if left as is, a GREAT spectator venue / waiting area.

 

Councilmember Anderson asked that I follow-up with you, regarding the status of theKokohead Shooting Range’s closure.  We have made an inquiry with the Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) regarding the timetable for re-opening of the closed area.  As soon as we receive a response from them I will follow-up with you.  As far the possibility of establishing another public shooting range, somewhere on Oahu, this is an issue that the Council has previously discussed with the administration and the underlying issue, as with most things, is the cost.  A few sites were identified as having the physical characteristics necessary to support a new facility but would require significant capital investment that the City currently does not have.  Hopefully, in the future, the City will be able to develop additional locations but until such time as there is sufficient funding we are limited to the one site at Kokohead.

Again, once we receive a response from the department I will follow-up with you.  If you should have any additional comments or questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Mahalo,

Andrew MalahoffSenior Legislative AideOffice of Councilmember Ikaika Anderson

I would be very intersted in the few sites were identified as having the physical characteristics necessary to support a new facility as I'm sure the shooting community could come up with a fair portion of significant capital investment
I'ts much easier to start from scratch and a berm is just a pile of dirt pushed with a loader.
The shooting bays are nothing 2x2's and 4x4's on asphalt  covered by a tin roof.
I could live with a dirt parking lot.

Koko Head rifle range will be closed for a long time.  They'll probably need to do an environmental inpact study, get more funding due to the size of the project, and hazmat now.  I think the positive is it provides a strong reason to open another range somewhere else.  If money is a concern, I wouldn't mind paying range fees as long as it goes back into the range.

http://www.grants.gov/web/grants/search-grants.html?keywords=F14AS00028

http://rangeservices.nra.org/range-grants.aspx

http://rangeservices.nra.org/public-range-fund-grant-program.aspx

http://www.nssfblog.com/nssf-range-grant-program-awards-399456-to-16-shooting-facilities/

There are many opportunities for the city to get funding for repair , maintenance, and building of shooting range facilitties!  They just DON'T CARE TO DO IT. We need to get on their butts, and get them moving!
 
Did you know that every firearm and ammo purchase has an excise tax that is supposed to fund things like these.

emailed City Council and State rep over the weekend with no responses from anyone so far...

I went ahead and emailed again asking for updates and status on repairs and also inquired about opening of new range facilities.

Hello,
 
Thank you for your time in this matter.  As of today, nothing has yet been accomplished at the rifle range.  Also, the silhouette portion of the range has also been shut down.  This portion of the range is used for pistols and .22 rifles only.  There have been no (alleged) complaints of rounds escaping this area, I wanted to know why this area has also been closed.  The material is staged away from the firing area, and this area can still be used if work is not being done.
 
The law requires that firearms owners be proficient in safe handling of their firearms.  The closure of the range make safe practice and handling unobtainable.
 
The city should be looking at opening an additional firing range in central Oahu areas.  These old cane field areas close to the mountain and far from residential area would prove safer and offer longer range rifle training opportunities for the ever growing firearm owners living on this island.
 
There are options from organizations such as the NRA and NSSF for monies to fund new range projects and upkeep of existing facilities.  Also, is there not a federal excise tax placed on all firearm and ammunition purchases that is purposed for hunter education and firing range construction, upkeep, and maintenance?  Why are these funds not being looked into?  Also, local firearms shops have approached the city on occasions willing to assist in funding and opening new firing ranges in joint venture.  What are the status of these options?
 
Included are links to the various organizations that may be able to assist in this.  I ask you to take these into consideration.
 
http://www.grants.gov/web/grants/search-grants.html?keywords=F14AS00028

http://rangeservices.nra.org/range-grants.aspx

http://rangeservices.nra.org/public-range-fund-grant-program.aspx

http://www.nssfblog.com/nssf-range-grant-program-awards-399456-to-16-shooting-facilities/


Thank you for your time and please get back to me with updates on the progress.
Sincerely,
[Heavies]

Great job, heavies

Except for the part about "ever growing firearms owners"
While true for a lot of us, me included, you probably meant something slightly different

haha, my igurish skills got me again..  hehe

I got a rather quick reply from Brenne Harimoto.  Sounds like he might be at least trying to get some answers.  I did see that he is trying to run for state legislature, or something like that, in the news or somewhere, I can't remember, so I hope this isn't just an appeasement measure to garner votes.  So, please take it with a grain... If he is a supporter of anti gun agendas, take that into consideration when the time comes.

[Heavies],

I just spoke with the Director of the Dept. of Parks and Recreation today and she informed me that some work is scheduled to begin on Monday.  My staff and I are scheduled to do a site visit at the shooting range on Monday to get a tour and discuss the situation with the Director.  She informed to today that she will not be prepared to present to me the information I asked for but at least I will be able to tour the facility and discuss my concerns with her, and hopefully understand her plan to re-open the facility.  In addition, the Council's Parks Committee agenda for next week Tuesday's meeting was published the other day with an item for an update on the shooting range but late this afternoon we received a notice informing us that this item is being canceled.  Tomorrow I will try to find out why this item was canceled.

thanks. breene.

Breene Harimoto
Honolulu City Council
District 8 (Aiea - Pearl City - Waipahu)

If repeated postponement and item cancellations continue, the case can be made that the C&C/State is being willful or purposefully negligent in providing a public access facility for citizens to be in compliance with the law as it stands on the books currently....thus opening the door for possible litigation in addition to pending litigation against the Police Chief and Governor in direct relation to Constitutional Rights protected under the 2nd Amendment.  Start ramping up the potential for litigation and liability on the part of C&C and/or the State and the squeaky wheel just may get greased.....additional facility and/or something more than the redundant and repeated "work is scheduled for Monday (but no date) excuse....just sayin.....

I got a rather quick reply from Brenne Harimoto.  Sounds like he might be at least trying to get some answers.  I did see that he is trying to run for state legislature, or something like that, in the news or somewhere, I can't remember, so I hope this isn't just an appeasement measure to garner votes.  So, please take it with a grain... If he is a supporter of anti gun agendas, take that into consideration when the time comes.

I personally know Breene, so I can confirm that he is pressing for answers (as I continuously ask him for updates). He is running for a seat in the State Senate, but I've been pestering him about our very prohibitive gun laws for a long time now so this is not a new issue to him.

Anyway, I hope this gets resolved ASAP...I have 2 new AR's I need to zero! 

Just got this.


Aloha Mr. B
 
I just wanted to follow-up with, regarding the Kokohead complex.  Although we have not yet received a official response to our inquiry, on your behalf, from the administration the Council’s Parks committee will be holding a hearing on this issue next week Tuesday.  The hearing begins at 10:30am and can be viewed, live, on Olelo Channel 54.  If you wish to submit testimony, you may do so by following this link: http://www1.honolulu.gov/council/testify.htm
 
As always, please do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of further assistance. 
 
Mahalo,
 
 
Andrew Malahoff
Senior Legislative Aide
Office of Councilmember Ikaika Anderson
Telephone 808-768-5003
Fax 808-768-1214
********************************

I just got another follow-up:

I just wanted to follow-up with, regarding the Kokohead complex.  Although we have not yet received a official response to our inquiry, on your behalf, from the administration the Council’s Parks committee will be holding a hearing on this issue next week Tuesday.  The hearing begins at 10:30am and can be viewed, live, on Olelo Channel 54.  If you wish to submit testimony, you may do so by following this link: http://www1.honolulu.gov/council/testify.htm