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]

(on the flip side)

LOL I hope people actually read what Bill wrote and what he posted on Warpig. I mean really READ it, not skim it and see what they want to see.. but what it REALLY said.

“The sky is falling. The sky is falling.” Comes to mind.

At first glance it looks as if the Paintball Community will be devastated…but when you actually read everything in context, you see that virtually nothing will change. 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.

If I were a Lawmaker I would not schedule a meeting with the Paintball Community, so that they can “educate” me, either. It is State controlled land, PERIOD. They often do things we citizens don’t like, but so be it. There are more than enough privately owned fields on private lands, to worry about some laws that ONLY effect lands directly controlled by the State.

Want to make the public perceive the “Paintball Community” in a worse light? Go ahead and make your calls, and send your letters. They will be, in my opinion, sent from a lack of understanding and ignorance. Unless there is more to this than what Bill posted, or put on his Warpig site, this does not affect any private person from using their own private lands to build paintball fields or gain the permits needed to run them as a legal business… it will ONLY prevent someone from doing so on State Controlled Lands.

Again, it is made to look like some terrible thing that will bring a ban to ALL Paintball.. when it is not anything close to that. The only thing I personally found to be right on target was when they said…
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. :D

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? :D
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. :D

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]

Shartley –


Regardless of whether or not it will close any fields, even if it closes NO fields, it is still a legal ban on paintball in an area. It sets what it called a precedent. Anti-paintball activists can point at the Wisconsin ban and say “They banned paintball, why can’t we?”

Any anti-paintball law should be fought by the paintball community. The more laws that come into effect that hinder paintball, the easier it will be to pass MORE anti-paintball laws in the future. You claim to have a knowledge of the law, if so, you should realize that the concept of “legal precedent” comes into play. First Wisconsin, then Michigan, then Illinois, then state after state bans paintball on state land. Then a township won’t let a field open, they deny a permit and claim that since the states ban it on their land, they don’t want it in their town.

It may not look threatening now, but we can’t take the chance that this becomes a bill that damages paintball. Look how the NRA goes after any possible gun control laws. They do it for the same reason, to keep any bill from slipping by and then biting them later.

And if we don’t fight it, what will they say later on? “You had your chance, and you never spoke out against it”

It appalls me that you would think this is trivial. “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.” What if by then its too late?

I’d rather over-react than not react at all…

[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 :D

[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/missionstatement.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...:D

[billmi]

Originally posted by Thordic

It may not look threatening now, but we can’t take the chance that this becomes a bill that damages paintball. Look how the NRA goes after any possible gun control laws. They do it for the same reason, to keep any bill from slipping by and then biting them later.


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

[Thordic]

It was New Jersey, Bill. The link to that story is in one of my above posts. Paintball was illegal in New Jersey until 1988.

When you mentioned the NRA lawyer, I had a thought. Wouldn't these sort of laws (anti-paintball) have some sort of interest to the NRA? They have IMMENSE lobbying power, if one could get the NRA behind paintball, we would have a much stronger legal position.

I am very aware that paintball tries to distance itself from firearms as much as possible, and that the association isn't healthy for the sport, but if there wasn't a vague association, but the full swing of the NRA behind paintball, then maybe it wouldn't matter since we would gain lobbying power?

Just something to toss up for thought. It may be bad for public opinion but a good idea legally, or maybe just a bad idea all around. It just popped into my head, so I figured I'd mention it. It probably deserves its own thread. :)

[cphilip]

Originally posted by billmi
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

Perfect! Then he knows how to do it then. Good luck to him on this. Can we get him on the AO from time to time for an update on this Bill...uh...er...Bill? :rolleyes:

[shartley]

I fully understand everyone's points and stances. I am also glad they posted them... THAT is what a discussion is, and THAT is what is best for Paintball. And I am also glad that we live in a society that ALLOWS differences in opinions. And differences in opinions do not make people BAD. They also do not denote any LESS caring for the Industry as a whole, just a difference in opinion(s). :)


Bill, thank you for your response. You bring up some good points, again thank you. However,
Personally, I don't share your view that government restricting the activity of citizens without hearing their input is not problematic. I never stated that view, nor do I agree with it either. I said that I would not schedule a meeting so that I could be "educated" by some paintball people. There is a BIG difference between the RIGHT way to provide input into the Law Making process, and acting as if anyone BUT Paintball Players and Industry people know anything. That was my point. There is a process, and like Phil stated, it is not a short one.... there are ways your voices can be heard. And Phil touches on that issue as well, and very nicely.

This Thread has come a LONG way from the initial post, and THAT is a good thing. Various sides are being looked at, and rational arguments formed. Again, this is a GOOD thing, unless people want to form a group that does not allow differing opinions... something like what people are saying the Wisconsin Government is doing.

Just because you can not be heard how you want to be heard (as Phil stated) does NOT mean you can not be heard. To think that is simply not correct. There are procedures that must be followed. I strongly support people following them, and letting their Law Makers know how they feel. This will not guarantee that anything will change, but I get the feeling if it does not, people will cry "injustice" until they are blue in the face. Sometimes things happen that we don't want, and sometimes Laws are made that are just silly... but they are made.

We must pick our battles. And like I said, THIS is one that I personally would not fight.... at this stage in the game. Does that make me evil? Does that mean I care less about the paintball industry and the sport in general? I think not. And anyone who would like to claim that needs to do some self reflection. Do not assign me views or opinions that I do not have. Do not assign my position on ONE issue as what it would be for ALL issues. This concerns me greatly.

We all have important things going on in our lives, and even more so during the Holiday Season... And disagreeing with someone's views is not all that important in the big picture. Being CIVIL is. And realizing that you CAN have differences in opinions and still be nice people.

I will leave it at that.... Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays.

(Note: Bill, much of this was not directed at your post. I am sure you can see that.)

[skipdogg]

all us wisconsinites please take the time to write a NICE letter to DuWayne and ask him to speak with the PPMA.

Bill - check your AO mailbox

[shartley]

Merry Christmas.

[billmi]

Originally posted by cphilip

Good stuff Bill...


Thanks.



Thats why you contact your Representative and Congressman. So he can represent you.


I couldn't agree more.

I disagree with Shartly's view that putting forth one's views to legislative representative will only "make the public perceive the 'Paintball Community' in a worse light"

The ONLY way they can represent your ideas is if you tell them your ideas.



I think there is still plenty of time for that.


According to the attorney who is lobbying this for the PPMA, and who is an experienced lobbyist, there is not. I've asked for more information on the details of why, in light of your post.

It is very possible that this is something that doesn't go through the full legislative process, yet gets the power of law because of a law giving the committee jurisdiction over a sub-set of laws. This would be like the recent law which makes it illegal to feed fish in Florida. It didn't have to go through the house and senate or go before the governor, because the existing laws give the relevant committee the ability to enact it. And talk about a hot debate in public hearings.... It went through anyway despite a total lack of evidence by its proponents. The committee (I believe from the house of representatives) claimed their sudden reversal of their viewpoint had nothing to do with the widely publicized shark bites on New Smyrna beach this summer (though there were less shark attacks this year than last year in FL - those attacks got big publicity because it was a slow news weak). So, starting in January you can only feed wild fish if you put a hook in the food and intend to kill them. I've never fed wild fish, but that's entirely beside the point - I've had another freedom (i.e. choice of personal recreational activities) removed without cause.



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...

So lets propose something to satisfy that just in case. My thoughts on it anyway...:D

That's all in the PPMA's game plan, but they can't do that unless it goes into a hearing.

See you on the field,
-Bill Mills

[billmi]

Originally posted by Thordic
It was New Jersey, Bill. The link to that story is in one of my above posts. Paintball was illegal in New Jersey until 1988.


Thanks for the confirmation



Wouldn't these sort of laws (anti-paintball) have some sort of interest to the NRA? They have IMMENSE lobbying power...


I am very aware that paintball tries to distance itself from firearms as much as possible...

It's my understanding that this situation has really been the other way around. The NRA has not been getting behind paintball, due to fear of associating itself with an activity where a "gun" is pointed at people in anything other than defending life/liberty/property.

I know for certain that this is the reason paintball is not allowed at the SHOT (Shooting Hunting Outdoor Trade) show.

See you on the field,
-Bill Mills

[cphilip]

You could be correct and this is not even a Bill (again... I have not seen it or read it yet) but an amendment to powers already invested in DNR. But the fact it is in a Legislative Committee seems to indicate it might just be a full bill. If thats the case we are in good shape but....If not then yes its imperative that that be discovered quickly. I would love to hear what you can find out.

[steveg]

Thordic,shartley ,and billmi everyone has made their statements
and responses so please let it go now.

Bill has made everyone and especially Wisconsin aware of
a Law that appears to have no merit.

A while back Bill, amongst others brought to everyone's
attention that The Canadian Government completely by
accident, was going to classify paintball markers a lethal
and therefore regulated weapon.

A lot of people contacted the government
pointed out the error, the error was corrected paintball
was "saved'

the error was the use of OR instead of AND

Lets not hijack this thread.

[bofh]

Originally posted by Thordic
"“The sky is falling. The sky is falling.” Comes to mind."

Calling Bill the boy who cries wolf isn't a peronal attack?

Whoa! Hold on there. If I'm not mistaken, Shartley was referring to Chicken Little, not "the boy who cried wolf"... :)

Let's keep things straight here. :)

But, arguing among ourselves is not to really do anything, so can we keep this to a minimum? Pretty please?

[shartley]

Bill
I disagree with Shartly's view that putting forth one's views to legislative representative will only "make the public perceive the 'Paintball Community' in a worse light" That is take out of context, sorry. ;)

When reading my other posts it is clear what I mean.. or should be. But I will not get into it here. Too easy to take things out of context to prove any point a person wants to make. :D

The actual conversations have begun and that is great. And that was my intent. Sort of what everyone is saying the Government should do.. right? ;)

[cphilip]

steveg & bofh

Good points you two. Thats why I am heavily editing the thread as it goes. I want this one to live...

[billmi]

Status of NR 45.04(3)(q)

I've just received e-mail confirming my understanding of NR 45.04(3)(q).

It does not have to go through the full legislative process to become a law, because it is a modification of existing regulations that are given power by law.

Unless a hearing is scheduled today, it will be enacted as a regulation that is given legal power under an already existing law.

See you on the field,
-Bill Mills

[cphilip]

Bad news...:(

[shartley]

But... would I be correct in assuming that if it can be modified, it can be modified AGAIN? I look through the NH RSA's all the time and a good portion of them are in constant "flux" due to modifications. It is not the end of the world. Just needs more modifications. ;)

[cphilip]

Yes it could be changed. It is not even a bill as we first thought and Bill found out later. I should have noticed the reference to NR 45.04(3)(q). I completely missed that at first. That is the State Register. 45 being the title, .04 the reference section and (3)(q) the exact section and paragraph. Same process to change it. They do have to take public comment and probably did so for 6 months without anyone discovering it. There is advertisement but its in the State Register where its published. Points out the need for a Lobbyist to read the state and Federal registers every week. I use a service to do that for EPA regs. Not one for Paintball I guess. But you can hire one that looks for other stuff to do it.

[Webmaster]

UGH - most not of had enough caffine this morning... Didnt see this post - so I will "stick" it up too.

I will unstick both posts tomarrow because then it will be over...

But I urge you to be proactive with this.

While it isnt the "end" of our sport - when restrictions are placed, it makes it easier for more restrictions to come. They can use this law as a bases to ban paintball period in wisconsin later. Or other states could use it as a case study for thier own anti paintball laws.

They start to chip away your rights, and then you have nothing left.

[billmi]

Originally posted by shartley
But... would I be correct in assuming that if it can be modified, it can be modified AGAIN? I look through the NH RSA's all the time and a good portion of them are in constant "flux" due to modifications. It is not the end of the world. Just needs more modifications. ;)

Yes, that is correct. The big difference is that modifying it NOW can be done in a matter of hours. Modifying it later, it may close down commercial fields (again, it's not yet known if there are any existing fields that are on DNR administered land) and it is a 6 month + process.

See you on the field,
-Bill Mills

[shartley]

So, this process takes 6 months or more? (playing the Devil's Advocate now..) And the PPMA puts out a Legal Alert in the 11th hour? In the business world they have a saying... "Poor planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part." Closer attention to these types of things would be well advised.. or I would think so.

Bill, you only put out what you got, and WHEN you got it.. and that is admirable. But this seems more like cleanup and scrambling, then a proactive dedication to the Paintball Industry on the part of the PPMA. Do you know if they have any proactive measures in place for other things like this? Honestly, I can not see what a handful of e-mails and phone calls will do at this point to change today's events.

I see some major cleanup having to be done, and it only starts today. But it should have started 6 months ago. And I feel that no matter how anyone feels about this issue NOW, it will do little good to change events happening today. I may very well be wrong, but those are my gut instincts.

Am I saying that people should NOT call or send in e-mail? Heck no! They SHOULD! But not because it will actually change things today, but because it will help change them starting tomorrow.

But.. on another note, do we know if this has any sort of Grandfather Claus in it? I know many of the Gun Laws provide for such things.

And one more thing... do you know if anyone that would be affected by this new change were notified of the planned changes? I know that when we go through zoning changes, or business laws, I get notification of the planned changes well before they take place. I have never been blindsided by this process. So this 11th hour thing confuses me just a bit in that aspect. I know that if I owned an affected field, and was notified in advance, I would have shouted from the rooftops LONG ago.

Thanks in advance.

[billmi]

Originally posted by shartley
So, this process takes 6 months or more? (playing the Devil's Advocate now..) And the PPMA puts out a Legal Alert in the 11th hour? In the business world they have a saying... "Poor planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part." Closer attention to these types of things would be well advised.. or I would think so.

There was no PPMA 6 months ago.

Previous attempts to form industry associations fell flat, and the APIC lobbying group founded in the 1980s fell apart because the paintball industry did not financially support it.

PPMA still only consists of a handful of paintball companies who are choosing to do something, while the rest sit idle.

I know they pay for services which monitor things like this - and what I've been told from PPMA was that announcements of this went only into a couple of very obscure publications, and thus hadn't been picked up by the monitoring services. I suspect a slim budget and relying on volunteer efforts are a factor in keeping track of legal threats to paintball in the federal government, 50 state governments, untold numbers of county governments, and Canadian agencies as well.

Obviously more effective work could have been done had earlier, but I don't see how that affects the importance of the issue now. It seems to me it is more important to deal with something that has a short deadline than a long one.



Bill, you only put out what you got, and WHEN you got it.. and that is admirable. But this seems more like cleanup and scrambling, then a proactive dedication to the Paintball Industry on the part of the PPMA. Do you know if they have any proactive measures in place for other things like this? Honestly, I can not see what a handful of e-mails and phone calls will do at this point to change today's events.


Yes, at the present the PPMA is lobbying I believe a total of 5 other governmental agencies regarding state or local laws that would either ban, or heavily restrict paintball. Most of this is kept quiet to avoid rallying anti-paintball lobbyists to the same issue. It's made public when lobbying efforts up to that point have failed (like with the issue in Canada earlier in the year) - this is the methodology in use with the NRA and other similar interest groups.



But.. on another note, do we know if this has any sort of Grandfather Claus in it? I know many of the Gun Laws provide for such things.


The drafts I have seen do not.



And one more thing... do you know if anyone that would be affected by this new change were notified of the planned changes? I know that when we go through zoning changes, or business laws, I get notification of the planned changes well before they take place. I have never been blindsided by this process. So this 11th hour thing confuses me just a bit in that aspect. I know that if I owned an affected field, and was notified in advance, I would have shouted from the rooftops LONG ago.

Thanks in advance.


That's part of the problem. It appears that very little notification was made, and a number of the other changes have affect on other uses besides paintball (limiting access by divers to specific locations, etc.)




And to add further info that I have just received:
"this reg does get looked at by a committee in
both of the houses, though it still is on a regulatory tract that does not follow the same track as a bill exactly"

However the likelyhood of keeping it from passing is super slim, because it is a large packet of changes, not just one thing dealing with paintball. This is as opposed to changing the wording to something like only allowing paintball by use permit or something like that while it is still in committee.

It has been worked on first by the senate committee, and then the house committee (this is the last shot for changes by the house committee). The house committee did at least change the wording - one of drafts I have seen, I believe from the senate committee had a ban on paintball equipment possession, not just use.

I will continue to update info as I receive it.

See you on the field,
-Bill Mills


Edited to fix errors in UBB code.

[shartley]

Thanks Bill. I look forward to seeing how this progresses. It looks like a good example to learn from for future things.

[BTAutoMag]

NO NO no i refuse to belive that i cant play no more:eek: :confused: :( :mad:

[raehl]

I wish I had caught this thread earlier. ANYWAY:

First: This isn't a law. It's not even a proposed law. The press release is *TREMENDOUSLY* inaccurate.

I spent a half hour on the phone this morning with the committee chairman's office both as a WI resident and the President of the NCPA, as I was concerned what impact this rule would have on WI college clubs ability to conduct their activities.

The more I learn about this, the more disappointed I am in the way this has been handled.

First, some history. Earlier this year one of the WI DNR technical advisory committees decided that it would be a good idea to prevent a potential surge in outlaw paintball play on DNR lands by making it clear with a rule that the POSSESSION or USE of paintball equipment on DNR lands was not acceptable. This went through at least one and maybe up to FIVE public hearings at the department level.

The DNR submitted their proposed new statutes to the Natural Resources Cemmittee in November. The NRC has 30 days to review such statutes, and *MAY*, if it wants, hold a public hearing regarding them. They did, on December 5th. No one from the paintball community showed up, presumably because paintball hadn't been specifically mentioned as under consideration, but given the number of rules being proposed and its status as a one-liner, that's not surprising. Nevertheless, one of the committee members pointed out that banning the possession of paintball equipment on DNR land was rather extreme, and the committee reworded the statute to only prohibit the use of paintball equipment.

The PPMA apparently got wind of this last week and asked for another hearing. They were denied, as I was when I called and asked for one this morning, still thinking this was an actual law under consideration (as the PPMA has indicated and Bill has repeated - even though it is *NOT*.) While the PPMA suggests that it is up to the chairman to have another hearing, having one doesn't do any good if they can't get the quarum of votes necessary to conduct buisiness, and they didn't think they could pull that off given the proximity to the holidays.

I was also informed that this is HARDLY the last stand in this. The DNR can overturn its own rules, as can the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules, a combined committee of members of the WI House and Senate.

Furthermore, paintball is banned on DNR land because it isn't authorized. Since it is the DNR who came up with this rule in the first place, the DNR obviously has no intention of issuing permits for paintball use of their land to begin with (it was, after all, the LEGISLATURE that revised the rule to make it less restrictive).

There are other points to note here. The vast majority of DNR land is secluded, undeveloped land. Hunting is only allowed on about half of it, and snow mobiling only on a tiny fraction of pre-approved trails.

It should also be noted that hunting and fishing are BOTH heavily regulated by the state, to the point where you need to register your equipment and pay annual licensing fees, just like you do for every other recreational activity using DNR land. On top of that, WI has some very detailed laws regarding how you may hunt and how you may snow mobile. So unless you want WI to come up with one of these:

http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/caer/cs/regs/Snomo.pdf

for paintball, like it does for every other activity on DNR land, and unless you want the WI government making you buy a permit, license and tags to affix to your marker, I would suggest you not beg them to make paintball permitted on DNR land.

The fact of the matter is that the use of state land is *NOT* free for anyone. Hunters support their access through registration and licensing fees and snowmobiliers are limitted to predesignated paths which are maintained by snow mobile clubs and paid for through snow mobile registration and licensing fees as well as snow mobile gasoline taxes. (Wouldn't you love to see a special tax levied on paintballs you buy at the store to cover paintball play on DNR land?)


PPMA and everyone else needs to realize that the ALTERNATIVE to the proposed DNR rule is a system that's even worse. If paintball were around 100 years ago, this would have been in place 80 years ago. As paintball gets more prominent, there *WILL* be government regulation. We have to decide what kind of regulation is acceptable. Hunting, fishing, snow mobiling, ATV riding, etc, are *ALL* *VERY* well regulated activities, and are *ALL* activities that are restricted both in WHERE you can do them and WHEN you can do them.

The only special treatment paintball is getting is *NOT* being subject to the kind of regulation that all those other sports are. This is a rule that says you're not allowed to play paintball where you already wern't allowed to play paintball.

Getting people to write letters and emails and make phone calls to legislators about a proposed paintball law that doesn't even exist just makes us all look silly. I know I certainly felt silly when I took the PPMA press release at face value, called the Committee Chair's office, and then was told what the REAL story is.

So, as I've said elsewhere, if anyone tells you that there is a law being proposed to ban paintball ANYWHERE in Wisconsin, they are mistaken. If they say that a new DNR rule treats paintball much more harshly than other activities, they are also mistaken - we're actually being given preferential treatment by *NOT* being subject to state regulation and *NOT* having to play licensing and registration fees and special taxes.


So, if you're going to call the WI government, be careful what you ask for. As a WI resident myself, I'd much rather have this rule than the alternative.

- Chris

[raehl]

To say that this was only published in obscure newspapers is also misleading. This set of administrative statutes received the same treatment as any other similer set. What did happen is that PAINTBALL specifically, occupying only one line of the whole package, only got mentioned in one or two publications.

Again though, there is nothing wrong with this rule.

- Chris