Colorado – The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) has finalized a sweeping ban on dispersed recreational shooting – where forest visitors set up targets and practice shooting in an undesignated, undeveloped location – across 73% of the 1.1 million-acre Pike National Forest, a move that has drawn significant opposition from Second Amendment advocates.
The decision, part of the agency’s Integrated Management of Target Shooting Project, aims to address what officials call “unacceptable risks to public safety” as the forest sees increased use from hikers, cyclists, and off-roaders.
Under the new policy, over 800,000 acres will be off-limits to dispersed target shooting, while six designated shooting ranges will be developed with noise abatement features and safety measures. The closures will be implemented in phases, with areas near Rampart Range Road, previously subject to emergency orders, among the first to be restricted. The agency insists that the plan balances public safety, resource management, and recreational shooting opportunities.
“This decision marks the transition from one era of recreational shooting into the next,” said Douglas County Board of Commissioners Chair George Teal, who supports the ban.
The move has also been praised by the Southern Shooting Partnership, a coalition of government and utility agencies that have worked for years to address shooting-related conflicts in the region.
However, gun rights advocates argue that the ban is a clear violation of the Second Amendment.
The Mountain States Legal Foundation’s Center to Keep and Bear Arms has filed an official objection, challenging the Forest Service’s authority to restrict firearms-related activities on such a massive scale.
“By restricting the people’s right to engage in dispersed target shooting within the Pike National Forest, the USFS is attempting to regulate arms-bearing conduct in violation of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution,” the foundation’s objection states.
Critics argue that the ban disproportionately punishes law-abiding shooters while failing to address enforcement issues. “Target practice is one of the most basic uses of a firearm and is an integral part of being a responsible gun owner,” said Greg Sutherland, a Colorado gun rights advocate working with the Mountain States Legal Foundation. “This move unfairly restricts safe, law-abiding target shooters while providing no real evidence of safety concerns.”
The Forest Service defends its decision, asserting that the closure is necessary due to increased user conflicts, environmental concerns, and at least one confirmed fatality linked to recreational shooting.
The agency claims the new shooting ranges will provide a safer, more controlled environment while preserving public access to firearms training.
Opponents, however, are skeptical about the feasibility of the plan.
“They are talking about consolidating shooting that previously took place over 800,000 acres into a handful of shooting ranges,” Sutherland said. “There is no guarantee that more than three ranges will even be built, nor that they will be able to handle demand. The numbers just don’t add up.”
Under the Supreme Court’s 2022 Bruen decision, gun rights organizations argue that any restriction on firearm-related activities must align with historical traditions of firearm regulation. “There is no historical precedent for this kind of restriction on public lands,” said Mountain States Legal Foundation in a statement. “The Forest Service must justify its regulation in accordance with the Second Amendment, and so far, they have failed to do so.”
The Forest Service maintains that its decision does not infringe on the right to bear arms but rather delineates where target shooting may take place. However, enforcement remains a key concern, with critics questioning how effectively the government can monitor compliance across such a vast area.
For now, the battle over, dispersed shooting, in Pike National Forest appears far from over. With legal challenges mounting, the Forest Service’s plan may soon face judicial scrutiny as Second Amendment advocates prepare to fight what they see as an overreach by federal authorities.