TexasCHLforum.com

WildBill wrote:

Keith B wrote:Read the part about short exposure to 150 - 155 for short spans of time can be damaging. I know when my wife was expecting we went to a Randy Travis concert. The sound level was NOT loud at all. When Steve Warner opened up the show the baby started dancing and danced every song they played. My wife was worn out by the time the concert was over. However, the daughter still loves country music today!

Talk about thread drift. For some of you old folks, I read a story about an ancient singer named Neil Sedaka. When his wife was pregnant he sang to his baby every day. He said that he didn't care if he had a son or daughter as long as his firstborn had perfect pitch. His daughter Dara was born with "extraordinary musical abilities," according to her father. "She had had nine months of training," says Neil. "I used to sing to her mother's belly."

The only problem is she had to listen to her father's music.

Back on topic, I besides the hearing issue there is no reason to submit the baby to the loud shock of multiple pistol shots, muffled or not. We have had a few pregnant women attend class and then come back after the baby was born to do their range qual. It totally eliminates any potential risk that way.

Best wishes on the coming baby. I am a father, and currently expectant grandfather, and I think that babies are God's gifts to us. But I also think that you are overstating the dangers of lead exposure to your pregnant wife and unborn child from one single range session. The qualification lasts maybe 10-15 minutes, and there are only 50 rounds fired. If there are 8-10 lanes in use, that's 400-500 rounds fired during the qualification. Most commercial indoor ranges are ventilated and filtered—some more than others, admittedly, but in a state with Texas' climate, they all have AC, which means ventilation and filtration. The volume of lead particulate matter from individual rounds isn't that much, so the effect is one of cumulative exposure, not single exposure. To draw an analogy, one cigarette isn't going to cause lung cancer. One pack of cigarettes isn't going to cause lung cancer. But a steady habit of 10 years just might cause lung cancer.

That isn't to say that there is no risk from exposure, and I certainly acknowledge that the dangers are not just to your wife, but also to the baby, but those risks are easily mitigated. Even this pro-gun-control advocating website offers some easy protective measures for shooting indoors:

http://www.organicconsumers.org/article ... e_8875.cfm

Some of the best ways to prevent lead poisoning and exposing others to lead contamination include:

• If you visit a firing range, wash your hair when you get home to remove lead particles.
• Always wash your hands and face before eating.
• Wear an air filtration mask while spending any time on the firing range.
• Clear you sinuses by blowing your nose after using the firing range. Yoga practitioners often use a neti pot to wash the sinuses with salt water, but it's probably not likely that many people are both yoga practitioners and shooting range customers.
• Change your clothes and shoes so you do not contaminate your home, your office or your car. Wash them separately from your family's clothing.
• Have a regular medical checkup and request that you be checked for lead levels.
• Switch to ammunition that contains lead-free primers -- this is widely available from most makers in many popular calibers.
• Take up archery.

Obviously, the last one is ridiculous, but the first four are easy to follow and make some sense. Lead exposure at a shooting range for a pregnant woman is like wine exposure. Regularly consuming a bottle of wine a day is going to lead to a baby with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_alcohol_syndrome), but a single glass of wine on a romantic date with your expectant wife is not going to harm your baby. I grew up in a wine-drinking environment. My mother drank a little bit of wine in all three of her pregnancies. Before meeting and marrying my father, she had survived a war zone in which there was a lot of lead in the air at any given moment—both as particulate matter, and as projectiles—and my two brothers and I turned out fairly normal (despite having been raised in California).

You're right to be cautious and concerned, but I think your concerns can be easily dealt with by wearing a filtration mask (easily obtained) and washing up afterwards (easily done); and if the class goes to an outdoor range, I think the risks of exposure during one brief range visit drop to pretty near zero.

That's just my 2¢.

Lead exposure I don't see as a problem. Sound exposure I doubt would be a problem. This has been brought up multiple times in the medical literature on the issue of sonograms (ultrasounds) and possible fetal injury. And we know that if you are pregnant you probably have had multiple ultrasounds. I don't know of any literature that has shown damage to the fetus. Doing testing for gunshot levels of sound injury would be impossible unless they are retrospective studies. I think the idea of a suppressor woud not hurt. You fire 50 rounds for your test. Not a lot. I would bet that many women shooters fire much more at the range and don't even know they are pregnant. To be absolutely safe delay your shooting. I would think an outside range would be better than indoors though. This might make an interesting retrospective medical study though if we could test hearing levels of children at intervals to see if gunshot sounds as a fetus caused any future hearing loss.

Not worth the risk, imo. If her obgyn clears her, then who am I? Otherwise, vague comments like " not that loud" Or references to lead exposure facts that don't even address fetal exposure seem to be irrelvant to me.

No offense meant to anyone.

Thanks all for the reply and the discussion. I was not worried about lead, only sound. With sound I think that while there is a good chance that everything would be OK, why not give the little guy the best chance and not take any risk that is unnecessary. I would hate to look back and second guess myself. While the suppressed, alone qualifying at an outdoors range would be best case for sound reduction, I think we'll probably just not do it at this time. It's good to know that suppressed is an option though. We will discuss and either take the class together and have her wait until after the baby is born to do the shooting portion or just do a FL non-resident license.
Thanks again for the input !

Do you think female pregnant LEO are restricted from the firing range? Perhaps one of the LEO will enter into the conversation.

I would wait.

TexasVet wrote:Thanks all for the reply and the discussion. I was not worried about lead, only sound. With sound I think that while there is a good chance that everything would be OK, why not give the little guy the best chance and not take any risk that is unnecessary. I would hate to look back and second guess myself. While the suppressed, alone qualifying at an outdoors range would be best case for sound reduction, I think we'll probably just not do it at this time. It's good to know that suppressed is an option though. We will discuss and either take the class together and have her wait until after the baby is born to do the shooting portion or just do a FL non-resident license.
Thanks again for the input !

If she is currently unlicensed, why not get her a VA non-resident license using the online training with no range qualification. That at least makes it legal to carry in Texas. Then after the baby is born, go through the Texas CHL process.

rotor wrote:Do you think female pregnant LEO are restricted from the firing range? Perhaps one of the LEO will enter into the conversation.

If their doctor says they are, they are. Most I know usually end up on desk duty at some point shortly into their pregnancy. First because they are pregnant and don't want to run the risk of injury during an altercation, and second because their uniform and duty belt no longer fit.

jbarn wrote:Optical enhancing devices are not permitted during the shooting test. That includes lasers, red dots and the like.

What about Trijon or night sights?

Keith B wrote:

rotor wrote:Do you think female pregnant LEO are restricted from the firing range? Perhaps one of the LEO will enter into the conversation.

If their doctor says they are, they are. Most I know usually end up on desk duty at some point shortly into their pregnancy. First because they are pregnant and don't want to run the risk of injury during an altercation, and second because their uniform and duty belt no longer fit.

What I specifically was questioning was is it policy for pregnant LEO to be exempted from the firing line because of possible fetal risk? Please don't give me "if they get a doctors note" as there is no literature that I know of warranting this. I am surprised to hear that they are desk bound early in pregnancy. Is there wriiten police policy that takes pregnant officers away from the shooting range because of possible fetal injury?

rotor wrote:

Keith B wrote:

rotor wrote:Do you think female pregnant LEO are restricted from the firing range? Perhaps one of the LEO will enter into the conversation.

If their doctor says they are, they are. Most I know usually end up on desk duty at some point shortly into their pregnancy. First because they are pregnant and don't want to run the risk of injury during an altercation, and second because their uniform and duty belt no longer fit.

What I specifically was questioning was is it policy for pregnant LEO to be exempted from the firing line because of possible fetal risk? Please don't give me "if they get a doctors note" as there is no literature that I know of warranting this. I am surprised to hear that they are desk bound early in pregnancy. Is there wriiten police policy that takes pregnant officers away from the shooting range because of possible fetal injury?

Depends on the department and their individual policy and YES, doctors instructions. If there are complications or it is a risky pregnancy they may not want shock on the fetus so they could tell the mother to stay away from loud noises, physical exertion, etc.

EDIT TO ADD: Forgot to add this http://www.theppsc.org/Staff_Views/Czar ... fficer.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

WildBill wrote:

jbarn wrote:Optical enhancing devices are not permitted during the shooting test. That includes lasers, red dots and the like.

What about Trijon or night sights?

I think you know the answer. I actually had this conversation with a DPS RSD employee and asked about contact lenses and glasses, as they are optical enhancing devices. I don't think she thought I was funny.

rotor wrote:

Keith B wrote:

rotor wrote:Do you think female pregnant LEO are restricted from the firing range? Perhaps one of the LEO will enter into the conversation.

If their doctor says they are, they are. Most I know usually end up on desk duty at some point shortly into their pregnancy. First because they are pregnant and don't want to run the risk of injury during an altercation, and second because their uniform and duty belt no longer fit.

What I specifically was questioning was is it policy for pregnant LEO to be exempted from the firing line because of possible fetal risk? Please don't give me "if they get a doctors note" as there is no literature that I know of warranting this. I am surprised to hear that they are desk bound early in pregnancy. Is there wriiten police policy that takes pregnant officers away from the shooting range because of possible fetal injury?

Each department would be have their own policy.