Best Friends Animal Hospital
Pride Pools
D&R Student Oil Change
Gateway Animal

The Georgia Southern Shooting Sports Education Center was a much anticipated draw for the community by way of a collaborative effort of state and local agencies with the help of private donors, but after seventeen months in operation, the facility does not have much to show for the effort. And neither do the taxpayers.

Based on information provided by the University, the center was built with Georgia Southern University considers private funds. $6 million broken down by these “private” donors:

  • The Georgia Department of Natural Resources – Wildlife Resources Division: $3.3 million (through a grant which was secured by DNR)
  • Georgia Southern University/ University System – $1.5 million
  • Easton Sports Development Foundation – $500,000
  • The City of Statesboro – $500,000
  • The Archery Trade Association – $200,000 for operating costs
Central Fence Co.
Honda of Sboro/Adams Motorsports
Metter Ford

For public entities that contributed direct tax dollars, such as Georgia DNR and the City of Statesboro, it does leave a question on the return on investment to the community. At the time of the funding approval, then-Mayor Joe Brannen and council approved a resolution for the money which said that the SSEC was in the “best interest of public welfare and safety of citizens of the City of Statesboro due to the facility providing the citizens of Statesboro the opportunity for education and training in the shooting sports, providing the Statesboro Police Department a state of the art center for training session, and causing an increase in tourism in the City of Statesboro.”

To date, the facility has not been used for training by the Statesboro Police Department in any formal capacity. The tourism effect as a result of the range has yet to be determined.

When the facility opened in September 2015, Georgia Southern issued a press release touting the facility as ‘the first of its kind’ on a college campus that would “provide new experiences for many students and community members by serving as a comprehensive center for education, training, competition and recreation.”

Echoing the release, Executive Director of Campus Recreation, Gene Sherry, said “The educational experiences in the shooting sports we will be able to provide for our students, community and region through this facility may be the only time an individual will have the opportunity for such an experience.” [emphasis added]

Neither of the broad brush predictions seem to have materialized.

The $6 million investment has yielded a mere 50 memberships, none of which are for Georgia Southern students. 6 seniors possess a SSEC membership, one youth, four ‘general public,’ and the remaining 39 belong to law enforcement officers, which is reportedly a result of Georgia Southern public safety officers obtaining certifications at the facility.

The open records request also revealed sources of revenue for the facility. Since September 2015, the GSU Shooting Sports Recreation Center (SSEC) has brought in:

  • $28,032.00 in handgun ammunition
  • $5,435.10 in long gun ammunition
  • $1,520.47 in hand gun rental fees (for 2016 only)
  • $690.15 in long gun rental fees (for 2016 only)
  • $44,220.00 in Approve User Application Fees

$44,220 seems considerable at $20 per Approved User Application, but it only comes to 2,211 applications. Over the course of 17 months, that averages to ~130 applications per month.

What an abysmal statistic. The university has over 20,000 students, Bulloch County has over 71,000 residents, and the surrounding counties – which is assumed to be what GSU mean when they said ‘regional’ use – is home to more are home to more than 36,000 people and the university could only real in 2,211 people to shoot at the facility in 17 months?

Perhaps the lack of membership or repeated use is due in part to cost couple with a series of hurdles to overcome before the facility may be used, at least that is what any gun enthusiasts say.

The University is given wide latitude on restrictions because the range is on campus property, a gun-free zone. One must become an “Approved User” before using either the gun range or the bow range.

To become an “Approved User” at the SSEC, one must do the following, and pay a $20 application fee:

  1. Complete a personal data form and shooting experience questionnaire.
  2. Complete the SSEC criminal background check consent form. (Adults Only)
  3. Successfully complete and pass a criminal background check. (Adults Only)
  4. Complete and sign a liability waiver.
  5. Watch a SSEC Range Safety and Operating Procedures Video.
  6. Pass a written firearms exam with a score of 80% or higher and display the ability to unload and make clear, perform a functions check, load a firearm, and engage a human silhouette target at ten yards seven out of ten times. (Shooters who self-identify as novice, new shooters, or shooters unable to pass both the written and practical exam will have to enroll in and pass a New Shooter Instruction Course.)
  7. Pass a written archery exam with a score of 80% or higher and display the ability to properly and safely do the following; follow all archery center rules including all whistle commands, nock an arrow and demonstrate the ability to safely shoot an arrow down range into a target at 10 meters. (Shooters who self-identify as novice, new shooters, or shooters unable to pass both the written and practical exam will have to enroll in and pass a New Shooter Instruction Course.)
  8. Specify the firearm for which they desire authorization. (Type, Make, Model, and Caliber)
  9. Specify the bow for which they desire authorization. (Type, Make, Model)
    *Information per the SSEC website

All of these things must be completed before an individual is even permitted to bring a weapon the premises.

Law enforcement officers, who are privileged to carry a firearm on a college campus, may opt out of the background check, but must still pay the application fee and any other associated costs.

AllOnGeorgia requested to view the SSEC range safety written exam, however, the University denied the request, citing OCGA 50-18-72(a)(38) which bars the public from obtaining testing materials issued by the University System of Georgia. The practical exam, however, was available for review and simply requires demonstration of properly loading and unloading a firearm.

The procedures are without a doubt at the heavy hand of the vocally anti-gun Board of Regents. It is worth noting that background checks, written exams, the viewing of a gun safety video, registration of firearms to be used, and questionnaires on shooting history are not required at traditional, private gun ranges. The arduous process is a deterrent of community use and burdensome just to practice a Constitutional right at a publicly-funded facility.

AllOnGeorgia sought information on the lists kept for firearm information and the university said no list is kept, however, No. 8 in the criterion list stipulates a user must specify for which firearm(s) they desire authorization. It’s also listed on the Approved User application, as seen in the middle of page 2.

 

Georgia’s weapon code, as currently written, bans people with guns in certain locations – in this case, campuses – and makes no mention of gun types. The justification that the university needs to know what type of gun an individual is shooting in order to comply with a Georgia law is null and void.

Another important point: Georgians are required to obtain a background check in order to purchase a gun and most often, the guns people use for practice at ranges are not the ones they purchased by way of a private, undocumented gun sale. Further, a background check is also necessary in order to obtain a Weapons Carry Permit in Georgia. Does Georgia Southern think a thug with an unregistered gun is going to go “practice” at the university range?

It’s great that students have access to a state-of-the-art facility, but with over 88% of the funding coming from tax dollars by way of the City and a state agency, should there not be fewer hurdles for the people saddled with the bill?

TC Outdoors
SHARE
Previous articleGeorgia’s Gerrymandering Problem : It’s Only Getting Worse
Next articleEx-NBA star Stoudemire sorry about gay teammate comments
Profile photo of Jessica Szilagyi

Jessica Szilagyi is statewide contributor for All On Georgia and Market Manager for Southeast Georgia. Her main focus with All On Georgia is state and local politics as well as agriculture. She’s served as a policy analyst at the State Capitol and as a campaign manager in political races across the state.

She writes for GeorgiaPol.com and has two blogs of her own: ‘The Perspicacious Conservative’, a political blog, and ‘Hair Blowers to Lawn Mowers’, a blog on moving from Atlanta to rural Georgia. Jessica is also a contributor for Fox5 Atlanta’s ‘Like it Or Not.’

7 COMMENTS

  1. This was a truly fascinating read. It’s clear the author has done a good bit of research to prove heir points however much of what has been interjected specifically towards the end of the peice is simply nothing more than an expression of her limited knowledge as to how university standards function in contrast to that of other facilities.

    I would argue that GSU is through their stringent background checks and vetting of users at this facility is effectively doing their due dillegence to further insure the safety of their users and the overall student body. Apparently, “err on the side of caution” is not in keeping with the opinions of this author. If the central goal of this center is to promote education and safe practices of shooting sports in general, to mitigate as many inheritor risks as possible is essential to the well being of this endeavor and I for one applaud the university and its center on these efforts.

    Programs such as these WOULD NEVER continue in the instance of an incident and it is the duty of the center as stewards of the sport and members of the Statesboro community to be hyper vigilant against such occurances.

    It appears that this writer simply needed something to talk about and bad mouthing best practices that encourage a safe and inclusive learning environment for all was all she could dig up. Better luck next time.

    • Beth, Thanks for reading, and more importantly, commenting.
      It’s unfortunate you felt that a dissenting opinion, one not aligned with yours, is “bad mouthing.” I didn’t know facts could be used to bad mouth, either. Regardless, the perceived problem was brought to my attention by several members of the community, as well as law enforcement, over the last few months.

      It appears that you seem to be blurring a disdain for over-regulation with one for safety. That is not the case. Personally, I am in favor of campus carry legislation and it is also my personal opinion that responsible gun owners are already going to be vetted and acting with due care. And let’s be honest, those are the people who would frequent a facility like this.

      The purpose of the facility is to provide education for students, but access to the public. It is a widely held opinion that access is restricted to the public. I respect that you feel differently.

      I do think your comment about the members of the Statesboro community being hyper vigilant against incidents shows your limited knowledge of the rules and how they’re enforced. No one in the Statesboro community has anything to do with the operations, procedures, or enforcement of anything. The city simply made a donation.

  2. This article states exactly why I do not use the facility. Ive been shooting weapons for over 50 years, am a veteran and have been issued concealed carry permits from 3 states, 2 of which require 8 hours of classroom instruction and proof of proficiency with firearms. Going through the front door, according to the information given me and in the article, they consider me unqualified to use the facility.

  3. I have already paid for security and vetted If I am a concealed carry permit holder. Requiring this a second time is no different than requiring a driving test to be bought and performed for anyone wishing to drive on campus. A waste of time and resources.
    If this continues to be run “liberally”, it will never see the recovery cost of construction or even the operating cost after.
    The only classes I have seen and been interested in are more for my daughter are the archery and 22lr courses. I want to see an introduction to handguns for women with safe handling and training on use that goes beyond loading and shooting into shooting well.
    Let’s see a bench rest 22lr group or handgun target group created to generate interest and business.
    Let’s have one night a week where any law enforcement group can shoot with no range fees and discounted rentals and ammo, with the range reserved for the night.
    To attract gun owners and potential gun owners to the range you must have enjoyable activities and a relatively hassle free sign up process.
    Folks who don’t enjoy guns are not going to make you a dime here, so quit letting them establish the policies.
    That is I think what Jessica was trying to say.

  4. Beth, Thanks for reading, and more importantly, commenting.
    It’s unfortunate you felt that a dissenting opinion, one not aligned with yours, is “bad mouthing.” I didn’t know facts could be used to bad mouth, either. Regardless, the perceived problem was brought to my attention by several members of the community, as well as law enforcement, over the last few months.

    It appears that you seem to be blurring a disdain for over-regulation with one for safety. That is not the case. Personally, I am in favor of campus carry legislation and it is also my personal opinion that responsible gun owners are already going to be vetted and acting with due care. And let’s be honest, those are the people who would frequent a facility like this.

    The purpose of the facility is to provide education for students, but access to the public. It is a widely held opinion that access is restricted to the public. I respect that you feel differently.

    I do think your comment about the members of the Statesboro community being hyper vigilant against incidents shows your limited knowledge of the rules and how they’re enforced. No one in the Statesboro community has anything to do with the operations, procedures, or enforcement of anything. The city simply made a donation.

LEAVE A REPLY