[[{“value”:”
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to follow and signup for notifications!
Public shooting ranges almost never die in dramatic fashion.
There are no midnight votes. No sweeping bans. No bold headlines announcing “Shooting Declared Illegal.” Instead, ranges vanish the way old trails do—first with a sign, then a study, then a temporary closure that quietly becomes permanent.
Arizona House Bill 2763 exists because two lawmakers decided they’d seen that movie enough times.
Introduced by Representatives Quang H. Nguyen and Gail Griffin, HB 2763 doesn’t expand gun rights. It doesn’t deregulate firearms. It doesn’t even change who can use a range.
Instead, it asks a far more uncomfortable question:
Who gets to quietly erase public access to shooting ranges—and how easy should that be?
Purpose of the Bill
HB 2763 amends Arizona Revised Statutes § 17-621 and establishes strict conditions under which a public shooting range located on Arizona Game & Fish Department land may be closed. The bill is intended to prevent administrative or agency-level closures from occurring without public hearings, unanimous commission approval, legislative action, and executive accountability.
The Problem HB 2763 Is Responding To (And It Isn’t Hypothetical)
Across the United States, public shooting ranges have been disappearing without legislative fights or public consent. The pattern is consistent enough to be recognizable.
The “Quiet Closure” Playbook
- A shooting range operates for decades
- Development expands outward toward it
- New residents file noise or safety complaints
- An agency commissions a study
- The study identifies “mitigation costs” or “liability concerns”
- The range is closed “temporarily”
- It never reopens
No vote. No repeal. No accountability.
Where This Has Happened
- California: State and county ranges closed after housing approvals occurred around them. Environmental standards were applied retroactively. Closures were framed as maintenance pauses.
- Washington: Public ranges closed by the Department of Fish & Wildlife citing staffing and liability concerns, without legislative approval.
- New Jersey: State land was reclassified for conservation purposes. Shooting was declared inconsistent with the new mission.
- Colorado: County-owned ranges shut down following noise complaints from developments approved years after the ranges existed.
In none of these cases did voters outlaw shooting ranges.
They were erased administratively.
What HB 2763 Actually Does (Without the Noise)
HB 2763 amends Arizona law governing public shooting ranges located on Arizona Game & Fish Department land, not private clubs. Its core move is simple:
If a public shooting range is going to be closed, everyone’s name needs to be on it.
Under HB 2763, closing a public shooting range would require:
- A written recommendation from the Arizona Game & Fish director
- A formal report from the Arizona Game & Fish Commission
- Public hearings held in the three most populous counties, including at least one hearing within 60 miles of the range
- Unanimous approval by the Commission after the hearings
- Legislative approval through a joint resolution
- Approval by the Joint Committee on Capital Review
- A Governor’s executive order authorizing the closure
This is not efficiency.
It is intentional friction.
Why Nguyen and Griffin Thought This Was Necessary
To understand HB 2763, you have to understand how modern policy actually moves.
Legislatures pass fewer sweeping laws than they used to. Instead, change happens through:
- agency rulemaking
- “guidance” documents
- enforcement discretion
- administrative reinterpretation
From the sponsors’ perspective, shooting ranges are vulnerable not to bans—but to bureaucratic drift.
HB 2763 is built on a specific belief:
If agencies are left alone, public shooting access will shrink—not because it must, but because it’s easier.
The bill doesn’t accuse agencies of malice. It assumes incentives:
- avoiding controversy
- avoiding litigation
- avoiding pressure from growing urban populations
The result, over time, is erosion without debate.
Treating Shooting Ranges as Public Infrastructure
One of the quiet philosophical moves in HB 2763 is this:
It treats shooting ranges like parks, trails, or wildlife access, not optional amenities.
You don’t quietly sell off a state park.
You don’t permanently close a public trail with a memo.
You don’t erase access without political ownership.
HB 2763 argues that if Arizona values public shooting access, it should protect it at the same level as other state-managed resources.
That premise alone explains most of the bill.
The Case Against HB 2763 (And These Are Real Concerns)
Critics aren’t wrong to raise red flags.
It Reduces Operational Flexibility
If a range:
- becomes genuinely unsafe
- sits on contaminated land
- needs relocation rather than closure
HB 2763 makes those decisions political instead of technical.
It Politicizes Infrastructure
Once closures require legislative approval, ranges can become bargaining chips—tied to unrelated policy fights.
It May Discourage New Ranges
If agencies know that once a range opens it can never be closed without a legislative war, they may decide not to build new ones at all.
This is regulatory sclerosis, and it’s real.
Why Supporters Accept Those Risks Anyway
Supporters would argue this tradeoff is intentional.
They are choosing:
- permanence over flexibility
- transparency over speed
- political accountability over administrative convenience
In their view, losing one range quietly is worse than struggling to manage one openly.
The Bigger Picture: Administrative-State Resistance
HB 2763 doesn’t stand alone. It fits into a broader Republican strategy emerging nationwide.
The core idea is simple:
The most powerful policy actors today aren’t legislators. They’re agencies.
So instead of fighting bans, this strategy fights:
- unilateral authority
- discretionary enforcement
- quiet reinterpretation
HB 2763 does three strategic things:
- Transfers power upward — agencies can’t act alone
- Forces visibility — closures require recorded votes
- Creates political cost — decisions can’t hide behind departments
This isn’t just about guns. It’s about governance.
Does HB 2763 Make Sense?
It depends on what you fear more.
If you fear:
- bureaucratic drift
- quiet erosion
- access disappearing without debate
Then HB 2763 makes a lot of sense.
If you fear:
- rigidity
- politicized infrastructure
- slow response to real safety issues
Then it feels heavy-handed.
What it absolutely is not is accidental.
Bill Status (Live Tracking)
As of now, HB 2763 has been introduced, and LegiScan shows no recorded action history or progression beyond introduction. No hearings or votes are currently listed.
Readers can follow the bill’s progress here: LegiScan — Arizona HB 2763 (2026)
Final Thoughts
Public shooting ranges don’t disappear because voters demand it.
They disappear because:
- development expands,
- complaints rise,
- agencies choose the path of least resistance.
HB 2763 is Arizona lawmakers saying:
If a range goes away, it won’t be quietly—and it won’t be without accountability.
You don’t have to love the mechanism to understand the motive.
And in a political environment where rights and access often erode through silence rather than law, HB 2763 is less about firearms—and more about refusing to let important decisions happen without a fight.
Max Tactical Firearms, LLC is a licensed FFL and SOT dealer with a nationwide online store featuring 40,000+ products from over 500 brands. You’ll find everything from firearms and archery gear to hunting, camping, survival equipment, optics, and more.
“}]]
