PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Oceans.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jul 31, 2008
Target Practice and Marksmanship Training Support Act - Amends the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act to limit the federal share of the cost of acquiring land for, or construction or expansion of, public target ranges in eligible states to 90% of such cost. Defines "eligible state" to mean a state that, since the most recent decennial census, has experienced: (1) at least a 2% growth in population; and (2) a reduction in the acreage of federal lands in such state where target practice and marksmanship training are permitted.
Specifies that amounts made available and apportioned for grants that are provided to eligible states under the firearm and bow hunter education and safety program for acquiring land for, or construction or expansion of, public target ranges shall remain available until they are expended.
Permits not more than 10% of the amounts apportioned to an eligible state under the Act for such state's wildlife conservation and restoration program to be used for acquiring land for, or construction or expansion of, public target ranges or for assisting a federal land-management agency with environmental remediation or other steps needed to allow for public target ranges on federal lands.
People & committees
Rep. Udall, Mark [D-CO-2] · D–CO
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Oceans.
Referred to the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E1660)
Referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 14, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.6767 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.6767 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.6767 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.6767 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.