U.S.ConstitutionalRepublic

There can be a conflict between local regulations, county and state law. Sometimes the conflict is between state and federal laws or regulations. For example, when state law says no firearms discharged within 500 feet of a dwelling in use, this is often interpreted to include "out" buildings on neighboring property that are not actually "dwellings" in the usual sense as a place to live. With the yardage discrepancies between state and local law, such as 200 yards of a right of way (or dwelling), and 500 yards of a dwelling in use it becomes more problematic. Also, the real "trip-up" in these laws or regulations is the language "...within the urban services district of the metropolitan government." To be safe I would find out exactly where the current boundaries of the "services district...metropolitan government" is located. Do not take a verbal confirmation on this, rather ask to see the most current map, description by "metes and bounds" or other official governmental designation of this "...metropolitan government" area, and if necessary, pay for a certified official copy of the documents or maps, along with that certification showing that it is the current and most recent such designation of the area in question. Then you should err on the side of caution and use the most restrictive limit, i.e. 200 yards vs. 500 yards. Until we petition the legislature to enact laws or amendments to these laws that will make the limits standardized, so that all residents can rely on the same rules from town to town, city to city and county to county, we will have too many law abiding firearms and air gun owners subject to fines, criminal prosecution or incarceration because of this "patchwork" of firearms and air gun regulations; this when the Second Amendment firmly and clearly states such rights shall not be infringed. Now of course, regulatory rules are sometimes needed to prevent the indiscriminate and unnecessary or unsafe or negligent discharge of firearms or airguns, due to personal injury or property damage concerns in heavily populated, closely built up neighborhoods. The balance can go too far when all that is needed is a good, mandatory, hunter-safety or firearms competency course (or in lieu of a course), or test, (just like a driver's license), so that beginning firearms and airgun enthusiasts can learn the basics of firearms and airgun safety, particularly how to properly handle and shoot these arms. For an interesting case about "arms" that cites the earlier U.S. Supreme Court "Heller" 2nd Amendment Rights decision, please see and read in its entirety "Caetano vs. Massachusetts". In Caetano, the U.S. Supreme Court over-turned a felony conviction for possessing a so-called "stun gun". The decision was UNANIMOUS, with four liberal and four conservative Justices joining in the decision. The case is a great one about what "arms" consist of, and why the Supreme Court opinion stated that the Justices were all concerned more about state bureaucrats disarming citizens (in the name of safety that the bureaucrats could not guarantee or deliver) while these same politicians and their leagues of bureaucrats were UNconstitutionally disarming or convicting free citizens. Another interesting conflict of firearms laws is on National Park or National Wildlife and / or National Wildlife / Recreation areas. Depending on the park, or area in the context of the underlying state or local laws; there can be similarly disturbing convictions, eventhough the use of firearms may be allowed on a particular federal (U.S.) wildlife or recreation area. It is always best to consult an experienced firearms and Second Amendment attorney and obtain and compare the actual federal laws, regulations and permissions to those of the state in which the federal lands are located. This is further reason for all Liberty loving Americans who support Second Amendment rights to take these extra steps. While you are at it, why not write (via email to official email addresses of local officials, state officials, state governor, U.S. Member of Congress, U.S. Senators and Office of the President of the United States) to officials, bureaucrats and elected representatives and administration leaders to explain just how unbelievably burdensome, ( and thus "infringing" ) the "patchwork" of local, municipal, county, state and federal gun laws, regulations and restrictions have become, and how you (and as many like-minded individuals) sincerely, respectfully and strongly urge they enact FEWER, but more "user friendly and 2nd Amendment friendly" firearms / airgun laws including without limitation, Nationwide Firearms Constitutional Carry Reciprocity. In Liberty, I remain, U.S.ConstitutionalRepublic