Legal threat to paintball in Wisconsin

[billmi]

Please take the time to read:

http://www.warpig.com/paintball/articles/pressreleases/ppma_wis.shtml

There is a bill in the Wisconsin house, ready to go through (one last shot at getting it into committee) that would make it illegal to play paintball on lands administered by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.

This doesn't mean just stopping outlaw play, it means no permits could be issued for legal fields. It is unknown yet whether any existing fields would be shut down by the law, but in many states, there are legal, legit, licensed insured paintball fields run on state or federally administered land.

On this land it would still be legal to use firearms, to hunt, to use off-road vehicles, etc.

It only takes a few minutes to get involved and send some letters or make some phone calls, and make a difference.

See you on the field,
-Bill Mills

[shartley]

You have power. Use it wisely.

You also have the power to actually READ what was written.. not just the lead and ending sentences, the misleading headlines, or the out of context statements.

The Paintball Industry has FAR more important issues to worry about than some Law, that only when taken grossly out of context, would even come close to affecting the Sport of Paintball. But again, everyone is free to do as they please, and to think what they want. I just don't see this as an issue worth anyone's time. When they want to pass laws that directly affect what you can do on your PRIVATELY OWNED lands, or the Paintball Industry DIRECTLY, THEN I say it is time to stand up.

[the JoKeR]

You don't live in Wisconsin, do you?
I do, and don't expect any problems as the fields I play are all private land, not public. Either way, it still gives you a pucker-factor of 8 at first read!

[shartley]

the JoKeR
No, I do not live in Wisconsin... did back in the early 80's though.

You are so very correct, it does give you the pucker factor at first read, but that is what it was designed to do. I am glad some people can get past the shock value and to the actual facts of the matter. That is the only way people can pick the correct battles to fight... and in my opinion this is not one of them (for the reasons I stated, and you mentioned as well). :)

[cphilip]

I haven't read it yet but will. However its important to note the conclusion from PPMA that once this makes committee vote its law. Not so at all. And they also state that no hearing means its law. Not so. Its a committee vote to pass it onto the house or senate (not sure which committee this is yet) but that my friends is only the beginning of a bill becoming a law. There must be three votes in each branch that seem still to come and each branch must have a version so I do not know yet if it was introduced in both their House and Senate or is going to be sent over to the other branch for that process. And possibly committied after the two pass it for changes and to read the same. It could even "Sin Die" (not get voted on andor passed and therefore dropped)if they do not get to it on the legislative calendar. So there are plenty of opportunities to stall or stop it still since it is just in committee at this point. You can even get three Senators or House members to oppose it thereby putting it on the contested calendar and very likely dooming it to Sin Die. Lots of stuff can be done if its necessary. Seems from first glance the PPMA needs to bone up on the legislative process but I could be wrong. I need to read it and find out some more specifics of which branch its in but it appears its very early in the process from what I can see. So it should not be hard to amend or have input even still.

[steveg]

Hi Shartley
I think the real issue, and of concern to everyone is
why the State wishes to ban paintball on public lands.
I would guess that it is either a liability (insurance)
or a perception issue

If the former, that's pretty laughable, if they also allow
real firearms, logging , dirtbikes, etc on the same lands.
This than should be challenged.

If it is preception than how can the paintball community
dare not to challange it.

While I normal find the "slippery slope" argument intellectually
repugnant, If the State or any state "Bans Paintball",
and that IS what people will read, what does that do for
our future.

There are essentially two types of laws, The ones that would
protect our safety,property,and wellbeing and
those that make A once perfectly legal activity Into an
Illegal act.
Even if in this case it's "only paintball" Do we really
not want it rationally challenged ?

[Thordic]

[bofh]

Originally posted by shartley
(on the flip side)

The fact that some fields in other States are being run on State controlled lands does not indicate that MOST are. The major fields that I know of are all privately owned, and on private lands. And that being the case, any such law, even if implemented in ALL States, would not affect those fields. And I would be willing to bet that this is the case in Wisconsin as well.

{snip}
... It is State controlled land, PERIOD ...
{snip}

Shartley,

I disagree, once limitations are placed on a sport, it becomes that much easier for lawmakers to make laws removing it.

If this bill is passed, it will be easier to deny zoning for paintball fields. The State can also restict what people do on their own land too. Once local goverments have the precenedent that paintball is too dangerous to have on public lands, it will that much closer to being removed from private land. Just ask Ray Wong.

In NJ, in the late eighties to the early nineties, Ray Gong had to change his location for Top Gun, because his use zoning was changed because the Marlboro mayor was told that Ray was planning on building a paintball field. This was done without any laws on the books restricting the sport of paintball. It took five years of litigation, and Ray never did get to put a paintball field on his 120 acres. Top Gun is now is Jackson Township.

I believe it is as important to stop a gradule erosion of freedoms, as it is to stop direct infringements.

The State is an extension of the People. I shouldn't need to remind you that "State Land", is also our land. Since this bill has no restrictions on firearm use in it, (I'm sure there *are* restrictions on firearm use is Wisconsin, just not in this bill) I can't believe the ban on paintball is for safety reasons. Otherwise, hunting, which has a death toll, would be banned. Therefore, this seems like an attack on paintball.

Restrictions on our freedoms have to be resisted, at all times, for all reasons.

And Shartley, take a look at your license plate.

{edit - Corrected Ray Gong. Second edit - Replaced the hunting restriction with "ban". I kinda went overboard with the word "restriction"}

[cphilip]

Well guys again I still have not read the law yet. But I can say that it would be hard to enforce paintball on public property to protect innocent bystanders that do not have safety equipment if they wandered into the area. My guess is that is the intent is to stop it as they cannot right now. And it is the lazy way out. I mean they charge Hunters to pay for enforcement and post areas and restrict the activity to them. Are you willing to pay for it? Then ask your representative or Congressman to draft and sponsor a bill to designate areas for paintball and be prepared to pay for a license. This is far more effective to go on the offense with responsible Bill to regulate it than oppose one intended to ban it for fear of an accident. I say the PPMA should start working to draft responsible legislation to allow it under a strict set of rules and licensing fee's to diffuse this if that's what people want. Far more effective.

But this is no where near being law yet so I think we should wait and see and do some homework on it. See what they intended. It's chances of passing are far from great right at this point I think. But hey! this is America. If you want to go ahead and make your input now then go right ahead. Might as well if you feel strongly about it. But I should think its best to counter with a reasonable Bill to regulate Paintball on public land in order to make its passage unnecessary.

[bofh]

That took me an half hour to write, and two people beat me to it... And they said it better than me. :)

Cphillip, the bill isn't about placing restrictions in the name of safety. It's about banning. Personally, I don't think that permits would un-reasonable. And I don't live in the area.

But, I'm sure that the current fields on public lands have safety equipment. This bill, (or pre-bill, whatever it is) would shut those down.

A good question is, why is this bill being brought up? What reason was the bill drafted?

[Thordic]

Ray GONG, with a G :)

http://www.topgunpaintball.com/History_of_Paintball.html

Theres the story... we all love Ray

[cphilip]

Originally posted by bofh
That took me an half hour to write, and two people beat me to it... And they said it better than me. :)

Cphillip, the bill isn't about placing restrictions in the name of safety. It's about banning. Personally, I don't think that permits would un-reasonable. And I don't live in the area.

But, I'm sure that the current fields on public lands have safety equipment. This bill, (or pre-bill, whatever it is) would shut those down.

A good question is, why is this bill being brought up? What reason was the bill drafted?

Your first point: I think it may indeed be about safety and regulating it. I do not know. We should find out. Banning is an effective way of regulating safety for all public users of public land is it not? Of course it is! And like I said its the lazy way!

Second point:I don't know if there are any do you? But you would have to ask a Lawyer to look into your lease. In most cases they would be exempt from new legislation until the lease expires.

Third point: Exactly! We need to find out. Shouldn't the PPMA be asking that? I want to know. But I doubt its a conspiracy against Paintball. I wonder if something happened to instigate this. Something that proper regulating would fix just as well as banning but would obviously cost money to do. I wonder if they know that Paintball players would be willing to pay? And would they be? And who will write this Bill as it would be complex and set up fees and require enforcement personnel? So you can see why they took the easy way out right? Maybe not the best way but for them the easiest. Food for thought...

[billmi]

[note: this post was in reply to Shartly's first post in this thread - I have edited in this note, as a number of other responses popped up while I was writing this :-) ]


Thanks for recommending that people read ALL of what I wrote.

Since none of the headlines or the article says there is a full ban of paintball in all parts of Wisconsin or that the sky is falling, or anything of the like, I'm not sure how you came to the initial viewpoint that the entire paintball community would be devastated.

It's good that you took the time to actually read all of what I wrote rather than just taking things that supported your alarmist view out of context. As you said though, it's important for people to read the whole thing, and not "see what they want to see."

As a writer, I often am taken out of context or misquoted by people which can be very frustrating (a prime example is people saying I wrote a review that says the Z-Body doesn't work - that's not what I wrote, I wrote that the match of both paint and barrel are very critical for it to put backspin on the ball, something even the manufacturer says on their web site).

Some people just have their own agenda though. They either want to use my name to lend credibility to their argument (another couple of gems floating around some discussion boards is the claim that I did a test to prove that a spyder can shoot 30 bps, and that right feed is faster than vertical feed - NEVER HAPPENED). Others want to give the idea that I'm saying something I didn't (such as when Paintball 2 XTremes editor John Henry claimed I was saying that kids shouldn't play paintball) in an effort to discredit me.

Either way it's frustrating. The answer is of course - READ. Don't just skim an article and rely on fragments that jump out because they support your bias or preconceived notion, but actually read an article in its entirety to get all of what the author is saying.

In the Wisconsin DNR article I do seem to have not stressed a specific detail enough, as it appears you didn't understand it properly. I said it, but I don't think you fully understood it. The bill in Wisconsin is not just about state owned lands, it about state CONTROLLED lands. Controlled doesn't mean owned. This includes all lands which fall under the jurisdiction of the Department of Natural Resources, both privately owned and publicly owned.

The PPMA has not yet determined if there are any fields on DNR land in Wisconsin (regardless of ownership), as this bill came to their attention only this Friday.

That is a major part of the concern, is that since no one from the paintball community was involved, it is really not yet known what the full extent of the bill's impact will be on existing businesses (i.e. if there are existing fields that will be shut down, or if it will simply prevent future fields on the 1.6 million affected acres). That is why they want it to go to a hearing, so it can be examined more thoroughly.

If you think it's fine that the concerns of people represented by their government are not considered when laws affecting them are passed, then don't act, that's up to you.

Personally, I don't share your view that government restricting the activity of citizens without hearing their input is not problematic. Our nation was founded to be a government that represents its citizenry, not corrals and controls them. Even the mission statement of the Wisconsin DNR says it is

"To ensure the right of all people
to use and enjoy these resources
in their work and leisure.
To work with people
to understand each other's views
and to carry out the public will."

(http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/aboutdnr/...statement.html
)

Passing a law that singles out paintball as an unacceptable way for the public to enjoy their resources, while allowing environmental impacting activities such as four-wheeling, hunting, etc., seems rather uneven and arbitrary, and worthy of discussion with the parties involved (i.e. a public hearing).

When a governing body won't discuss its policy with the public before making decisions on it, it is pretty difficult to carry out their will.

I don't think the sky is falling, I've never said anything close to this being the end of all paintball, however I am very concerned when a lawmaker anywhere makes a decision that says paintball is not an acceptable activity and that such activities as shooting firearms, riding off road vehicles, snowboarding, mountain biking, etc. are more acceptable activities for the public than playing paintball.

See you on the field,
-Bill Mills

BTW, I own the land in the forest where I live. It's already illegal for me to shoot a paintgun here.

[cphilip]

Originally posted by billmi
If you think it's fine that the concerns of people represented by their government are not considered when laws affecting them are passed, then don't act, that's up to you.

Personally, I don't share your view that government restricting the activity of citizens without hearing their input is not problematic. Our nation was founded to be a government that represents its citizenry, not corrals and controls them.

Good stuff Bill... but I will point out that these committee members are "representing the citizens". That's why you elected them. That is our form of Government. Like it or not. Our beef with this Bill seems to be that the "pro-Paintball citizens" were not heard separately. That is not guaranteed. You got to ask for that but its not guaranteed. Thats why you contact your Representative and Congressman. So he can represent you. I think there is still plenty of time for that. But I feel we should counter with something positive in case they have real concerns of how to regulate it if they do not Ban it. You know it's just possible that far more people want it banned than support paintball in this one. So lets propose something to satisfy that just in case. My thoughts on it anyway...

[billmi]

Originally posted by Thordic

I think you've well summarized one of the reasons I think this is an important issue, and also why the PPMA is VERY concerned about it. The PPMA executive director who is spearheading the effort to get this bill into a hearing is an attorney who has previous experience as a federal lobbyist for the NRA, in addition to assorted pro-paintball lobbying efforts including re-write of the toy gun bill that would have banned paintguns in California in the early 90s, lobbying against the federal ban on paintball in the late 80s, and getting the statewide ban on paintball in New Jersey lifted in the late 80s (or was the Rhode Island? - it was an east coast state that passed a statewide paintball ban into law).

See you on the field,
-Bill Mills