The pristine wilderness of Colorado’s Pike National Forest has become the unlikely stage of a fierce Second Amendment battle after federal officials imposed sweeping restrictions on recreational shooting across nearly three-quarters of the 1.1-million-acre forest.
The decision, which was finalized in January 2025, has ignited a constitutional firestorm that pits Second Amendment advocates against federal land managers in what many view as a critical moment for gun rights on public lands.
On January 17, 2025, Forest Supervisor Ryan Nehl signed the final Decision Notice for the Integrated Management of Target Shooting Project, effectively closing over 800,000 acres of Pike National Forest to dispersed recreational shooting. The sweeping restrictions impact three ranger districts that span El Paso, Teller, and surrounding counties, including popular shooting destinations such as Turkey Tracks north of Woodland Park and areas along Rampart Range Road.
The Forest Service justifies the ban by alluding to growing safety concerns: shooting-related wildfires that spark 5-10 blazes annually at Turkey Tracks alone, at least one verified fatality linked to recreational shooting, and escalating conflicts among the forest’s 2.5 million annual visitors. The plan calls for replacing dispersed shooting with six developed shooting ranges featuring targets, lanes, and noise abatement systems.
The announcement has generated opposition from gun rights organizations who view the restrictions as an unprecedented assault on the right to bear arms. Ian Escalante, Executive Director of Rocky Mountain Gun Owners (RMGO), has emerged as one of the most vocal critics, characterizing the ban as part of a broader assault on Colorado’s gun culture.
“If we don’t fight back NOW, Colorado will never be the same again… This is an attack on our Colorado way of life,” Escalante warns, describing the forest closure alongside recent state legislative efforts to restrict semi-automatic firearms as “a direct and deliberate attack on law-abiding Coloradans.”
RMGO, which boasts over 200,000 members, has mobilized its grassroots network to challenge what Escalante calls an unconstitutional overreach by federal bureaucrats. The organization argues that close to 73% of the forest to recreational shooting violates both the letter and spirit of the Second Amendment, particularly in light of the Supreme Court’s 2022 Bruen decision, which established that firearm restrictions must align with historical traditions of regulation.
The constitutional objections extend beyond grassroots activism into formal legal channels. The Mountain States Legal Foundation’s Center to Keep and Bear Arms has filed an administrative objection arguing the restriction constitutes “a blanket violation of the Second Amendment.” Attorney Greg Sutherland, representing the foundation, contends that “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.”
The legal challenge hinges on the Bruen standard, which requires that any firearm restriction demonstrate historical precedent for such regulation. Gun rights advocates argue that federal land has traditionally been open to recreational shooting, making the Pike National Forest closure an unconstitutional deviation from established practice.
Regardless of who is in office in DC, the threat of unconstitutional actions against the Second Amendment coming from federal agencies is a persistent threat. Unlike politicians, these bureaucrats are not accountable to voters at the ballot box. Nevertheless, pressure can be placed on them through litigation and committee probes in both chambers of Congress to shed light on bureaucratic misbehavior.
This case is a reminder that only constant vigilance can protect the Second Amendment from the many threats it faces — be they from politicians or functionaries in the permanent bureaucracy.
The ultimate resolution will determine whether constitutional rights or bureaucratic safety concerns prevail in America’s public wilderness.
Ken Paxton Emerges as Grassroots 2A Champion Against John Cornyn
About José Niño
José Niño is a freelance writer based in Austin, Texas. You can contact him via Facebook and X/Twitter. Subscribe to his Substack newsletter by visiting “Jose Nino Unfiltered” on Substack.com.
How about, “build it and they will come”. If I had my choice of shooting in the forest anywhere or a 1,000 yard range that has flat ground, there is no question where I would be if it were not that far away. I think people would gravitate to those places with the exception of pistol shooters who would shoot right where they are because of convenience and if safe, who cares. This closing of practice shooting in forests makes me think the final objective is to stop hunting too. If they accomplish that, then in the minds of the… Read more »
” at least one verified fatality linked to recreational shooting,”First, this statement is misleading, it implies that there could be many more fatalities, but they were just not reported. Ya, because deaths are so easy to cover up. If there is one accidental fatality from target shooting in the area, it is unlikely there are more than 1 other unverified death.How many people have died in car accidents driving to and from the shooting range? Of course this statistic is pretty much unknowable, but, statistically, the odds show there have likely been significantly more auto accident deaths while driving to and… Read more »
My favorite range IS a designated (and built) area in a national forest. It is not supervised and anytime I go I assess whether I want to stay and shoot or wait for another day. Completely unsupervised means there can be absolute idiots playing with the gun they got for Christmas, but most times there are people just like me. Hot-range, Cold-range is decided be agreement on the firing line, the system works. The state builds target frames once a week, bring your own target. Now in this case, it seems that some like to just shoot at the frame… Read more »
IMOA, build shooting ranges in the national parks and people wouldn’t need to go out and shoot up the countryside. Give them a place to shoot in a safe environment might be a better option than an outright ban.
People were shooting in the national and state parks where I hunt, camp and fish, they shot up the trees, buildings, road signs, info signs etc. I’ve found bullet holes and bullet fragments that passed through the door of the campsite toilet building. The buffoons leave their brass and trash on site when they’ve finished shooting.
I lived in Tucson for many years, on the East side near the Rincon Mountains. When I first got there I drive around exploring. One day I drive the dirt roads up into the Rincons. Several miles in, I started hearing gun fire, but I couldn’t tell where it was coming from. The further I went the more I heard. I decided to turn around. I pulled into an open area. The ground sparkled. I got out to look around. The ground was completely covered with casings of every caliber imagine able. Not only that, people had tricked in washing… Read more »
We can either shoot in the city or in the rural forest. Pick one.