Allows municipalities to adopt certain zoning ordinances pertaining to outdoor firing ranges.
This bill authorizes and effectively requires municipalities where an outdoor firing range is located to adopt a zoning ordinance establishing safety guidelines for that range. The ordinance must address, at a minimum, conspicuous signage identifying the range and its hours of operation, ammunition caliber and gauge limits consistent with existing law, the placement of side and impact berms, and any additional safety measures the local governing body deems necessary so long as they are consistent with state law and Department of Law and Public Safety guidelines.
The bill also amends the State zoning statute to expressly list outdoor firing range safety guidelines as a permissible subject of municipal zoning ordinances. In addition, it requires notice of the public hearing on such an ordinance not only to residents of the host municipality, but also to residents of municipalities within one mile of the firing range. The act takes effect immediately.
The bill would amend the Municipal Land Use Law, specifically the section governing what zoning ordinances may regulate, by adding a new category for outdoor firing range safety guidelines. It would give municipalities explicit authority to regulate certain operational and site-safety features of outdoor firing ranges through zoning, while tying those local rules to existing state law and Department of Law and Public Safety guidance. The bill would also expand public notice requirements for hearings on these ordinances to nearby residents in adjacent municipalities within one mile of the range.
No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate, amendments, or formal support/opposition in the available record. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears framed as a public safety and local control bill, suggesting a generally precautionary or regulatory intent rather than a punitive one. The absence of recorded legislative history makes the overall sentiment difficult to assess beyond the sponsor’s stated safety rationale.
The likely points of contention are the balance between firearm-range operations and municipal land-use authority, and whether the bill imposes burdensome local regulation on existing ranges. Supporters would likely emphasize neighborhood safety, notice to nearby residents, and clearer standards for signage, berms, and ammunition limits. Opponents, if any, may argue that the bill could create inconsistent local rules, increase compliance costs, or be used to restrict outdoor firing ranges through zoning rather than direct firearms regulation.