HR-788-115
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 546.
What it does
This bill would amend the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act to allow states to use up to 10% of their federal wildlife restoration funds to build, expand, or acquire land for public shooting ranges, with the federal government covering up to 90% of those costs. It would shield the federal government from most lawsuits related to injuries or property damage at federally funded or federally located public shooting ranges, with limited exceptions under the Federal Tort Claims Act. It would also encourage the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management to work with state and local authorities on waste cleanup and maintenance at shooting ranges on federal land.
Who benefits
Recreational shooters and hunters who would gain access to more public shooting ranges. States and local governments that would receive federal cost-sharing (up to 90%) for range construction or expansion. Rural communities near federal lands where new or improved ranges would be built. Wildlife conservation programs indirectly, as the Pittman-Robertson fund is sustained by excise taxes on firearms and ammunition. Federal land management agencies (Forest Service, BLM) that would receive cooperation support for range maintenance.
Who is hurt
Residents or visitors near federally funded shooting ranges who are injured or suffer property damage would face a narrowed path to sue the federal government, limited to the Federal Tort Claims Act's discretionary function exception. Environmental groups and nearby landowners concerned about lead contamination, noise, or habitat disruption from expanded shooting range activity on or near federal lands. States that prefer to allocate their full Pittman-Robertson apportionment to wildlife habitat or other conservation priorities may face pressure to redirect funds. Taxpayers who fund the federal 90% cost share through the wildlife restoration fund.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that public shooting ranges provide a safe, supervised environment for hunters and recreational shooters, reducing the likelihood of unsafe shooting on unmanaged federal lands. They contend that the Pittman-Robertson Act — already funded by excise taxes paid by firearms and ammunition purchasers — is the appropriate and self-sustaining mechanism for this purpose, meaning general taxpayers bear no new burden. They assert that the 90/10 federal-state cost-sharing structure mirrors existing Pittman-Robertson programs and gives states flexibility without mandating spending. Supporters also argue that the federal liability shield is a reasonable protection that encourages agencies to support range development without fear of open-ended litigation, while still preserving individual rights under the Federal Tort Claims Act.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that redirecting up to 10% of Pittman-Robertson funds toward shooting range infrastructure diverts money that would otherwise go to wildlife habitat restoration, research, and conservation — the fund's original purpose. They contend that the federal liability shield would leave injured individuals with limited legal recourse, particularly given the Federal Tort Claims Act's broad discretionary function exception, which frequently bars recovery. Opponents also raise environmental concerns, noting that shooting ranges can generate lead contamination in soil and water, and that expanding range activity on federal lands without strong cleanup mandates could harm ecosystems and nearby communities. They argue that the bill's encouragement of Forest Service and BLM cooperation lacks enforceable standards, making cleanup commitments uncertain.
Constitutional context
The bill rests primarily on Congress's Commerce Clause authority (Art. I, Sec. 8), which underpins the original Pittman-Robertson Act and federal management of public lands. The federal liability shield implicates sovereign immunity doctrine and the Federal Tort Claims Act (28 U.S.C. § 2671 et seq.), including the discretionary function exception established in Dalehite v. United States (1953) and refined in Berkovitz v. United States (1988). Federal land management authority derives from the Property Clause (Art. IV, Sec. 3). The Takings Clause (5th Amendment) could be relevant if range expansion affects adjacent private property. Post-Loper Bright (2024), any agency guidance issued under this bill's cooperative framework would be subject to independent judicial interpretation rather than deference.
Checks and balances
Congress would expand the executive branch's discretionary authority by encouraging — but not requiring — the Forest Service and BLM to cooperate on range maintenance, leaving implementation largely to agency discretion. The federal liability shield shifts power away from the judicial branch by narrowing the circumstances under which federal courts can hear tort claims arising from range activities. States gain flexibility in allocating Pittman-Robertson funds but remain within a federally defined cost-sharing framework, preserving the existing federal-state cooperative structure without commandeering state action.
Historical precedent
The Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act (1937) established the original federal-state cost-sharing framework for wildlife restoration funded by firearms and ammunition excise taxes. Prior amendments have expanded eligible uses, including a 2000 amendment that first authorized shooting range funding under the Act.