Last spring, Kansas state Sen. Kay O'Connor seized an opportunity to shield shooting ranges, particularly one in her western Johnson County district, from pesky noise ordinances and complaining neighbors.

With some Senate leaders away from the chamber, she tacked an amendment onto an important Wildlife and Parks bill. It sailed through and eventually won the governor's signature.

Thanks to lawmakers like O'Connor, the gun lobby has successfully pushed its agenda in statehouses from coast to coast.

Along with measures to protect shooting ranges, the National Rifle Association is pursuing legislation across the country, including in Kansas and Missouri, to shield gun manufacturers from lawsuits by municipalities that want to recoup damages from gun dealers and manufacturers.

The two issues are top priorities of statehouse gun lobbyists, said Randy Kozuch, the NRA's director of state and local affairs.

Kansas' shooting-range bill is one of 36 signed into law since the National Rifle Association began pushing the issue in 1994. At that time, eight states, including Missouri, already had laws protecting shooting ranges.

Now the NRA is working on passing similar laws in the remaining six states.

The lobby has persuaded 27 states to pass laws protecting gun manufacturers from product liability and similar lawsuits since municipalities began suing the industry in 1998. Maryland already had such a law.

Liability shield bills have been unsuccessful in Kansas and Missouri.

"We're trying to get as many states as possible," Kozuch said.

Critics call the measures "gun gag laws" and say the gun lobby is working to carve out protections afforded only to the gun industry.

The laws are "taking away the fundamental right of every citizen to have access to the court system to settle differences," said Tom Diaz, senior policy analyst for the Violence Policy Center, a gun-control group.

"If they want to spend a tremendous amount of energy to lock courthouse doors, fine," Diaz said. "There's always going to be a courthouse open to Americans."

Gun-control advocates and gun-rights supporters agree the stakes for the firearms industry are high.

For example, target shooting makes up 25 percent of industry revenue from nonmilitary sales, said Bob Delfay, president of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, an industry trade association.

"It's a significant part of the business," Delfay said.

Manufacturers do not have the deep pockets of the tobacco industry to fend off lawsuits aimed at crippling the industry, gun-rights advocates say. One California company has had to declare bankruptcy in part because of the cost to defend itself from a product liability lawsuit, according to gun-rights supporters.

"These are ludicrous lawsuits designed to bankrupt a legitimate American enterprise," said Andrew Arulanandam, an NRA spokesman. "The premise of the lawsuits is to hold lawful American companies liable for the actions of criminals."

Nancy Hwa, spokeswoman for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said the legislation would create a special protection for the industry from not only cities but individuals -- while the industry already is exempted from consumer product safety oversight.

In Kansas and Missouri, the gun lobby's success has been mixed.

In 1988, Missouri passed a law that makes owners of shooting ranges immune from nuisance ordinances if the range is at least 1,000 yards from the nearest dwelling, if it is enclosed and muffles the noise, or if it is in compliance with local zoning laws on noise control.

Last year, Missouri Senate President Pro Tem Peter Kinder sponsored a bill that would have prohibited cities from suing gun manufacturers. The bill was in response to the city of St. Louis' lawsuit against gun makers, which charges that the firearms industry historically opposed laws on safety devices, warnings and tighter regulation of gun purchases.

The bill passed the Senate but died in the House. Legislation has not been filed so far this year, but some lawmakers still support the proposal.

The product liability legislation has not passed in Kansas, either. A hearing was conducted Wednesday on an O'Connor-sponsored measure to prohibit cities and counties from suing gun dealers or manufacturers, except for a breach of contract or warranty.

The Senate Judiciary Committee is expected on Monday to take action on the measure.

The shooting-range legislation passed last year in Kansas was typical of the NRA's national effort to win proposals protecting the ranges.

The organization first approached Kansas legislators in 1998, said Jeff Freeman, a former lawmaker who lobbied for the NRA at the statehouse from 1992 through 1999.

The shooting-range bill had passed in the House in 1998, 2000 and 2001, but not in the Senate.

In 2001, O'Connor, a freshman senator from Olathe, took over the effort to get the bill passed.

O'Connor sprang her amendment on May 1 during the chaotic closing days of the legislative session.

She told no one about the amendment, she said, because opposition lawmakers would have found a procedural way to kill it. At that time, the bill was stalled in the Senate Judiciary Committee headed by Sen. John Vratil, a Leawood Republican who opposed the measure.

There were several bills to be acted on that day by the Senate, including one correcting a mistake in a previous bill dealing with the Department of Wildlife and Parks. They were considered uncontroversial "cleanup" bills.

When they were brought up, some senators were attending a party for a retiring doorman. Kimberly Gulley, a lobbyist for the League of Kansas Municipalities, said many of those absent senators opposed O'Connor's legislation.

In their absence, O'Connor's amendment passed easily on an unrecorded voice vote. Later that day, the entire bill was approved 30-9.

Three days later, House members formally agreed to the amendment and the bill was sent to Gov. Bill Graves, who reluctantly signed it. He suggested that cities and gun-range owners work out their differences and propose changes in the 2002 session, which began this month.

Vratil said he was unaware Tuesday of any efforts or requests in the current session for any change. That may be due to the power of the gun lobby in Topeka.

"They have influence with a large segment of the Legislature," he said.

O'Connor said she has long been a supporter of Second Amendment issues and gun rights. For her, it is a self-defense issue.

O'Connor supported NRA legislation in 1997 allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons. It passed both chambers of the Legislature but was vetoed by Graves.

The senator has received $2,500 in contributions from the NRA: She received $2,000 for her Senate campaign and $500 for a House race in 1994.

O'Connor said she receives NRA support because she believes in their issues.

"They didn't buy my support," she said. "There was no quid pro quo."

She said that she couldn't remember who suggested the gun-range bill to her and that she didn't know it was part of a national NRA strategy at the time. To her, it was just a good idea.

Lenexa officials, however, disagreed. They were concerned about the measure because 84-acre Powder Creek Shooting Park is on Monticello Road in Lenexa, where suburbs are growing out to meet the 52-year-old shooting range.

The law makes it nearly impossible for local governments to enforce noise ordinances and allows shooting ranges to expand without government consent, said David Cooper, a Lenexa senior assistant city attorney.

Lenexa Mayor Joan Bowman said O'Connor was pursuing the NRA's narrow interests at the expense of the people in her district.

"She's elected to represent her constituents, not a national organization that contributes to her campaign," Bowman said.

The Star's Kameron Murphy also contributed to this report.