One man's trash is another man's treasure. I don't think an automatic assertion that it is trash is justified, but if it is, then you have a violation of littering laws involved in tossing it around on public land.
I'm talking about this from strictly an ethical code. Seizure and search of trash cans during an investigation doesn't even require a warrant, once it hits the street. It's not really valid, IMO, to draw the fourth amendment into it. Search and seizure in person, home, etc, it's hard to link that to whether the saloon can seize the aluminum cans that you drank. I'm not well versed in constitutional or other law.
Lots of businesses have the policy that brass that hits the ground is claimed as their property, and so far, I haven't seen it challenged legally, or won. I know that lots of ranges where tournaments are held claim dropped brass as well. scraping up the brass or mining the backstops just doesn't go well at most ranges.
I don't like the idea of a business or government taking what was once private property, the brass, but I can't see that it is inherently a violation of any law. Until enough people gather together and file a class action lawsuit against the numerous private ranges, we are never going to know what the courts will say.
Yes, if this is in fact true that brass dropped at the government owned range becomes property of the owner of the range, it is akin to the five dollar fees for so many things from not only government entities but all sorts of businesses. It's unethical in many cases, but not illegal.
One of the first principles of mankind is "can I get away with it? Woo hoo, I'm going to do it!
then you have a violation of littering laws involved in tossing it around on public land.
That is actually spelled out on a great big sign at our state range. 'fired shotgun shells are litter. collect them and dispose of them along with all targets or other debris.' They will charge you if you walk off and leave them. They could do it with brass, the salvage value of it isn't important. Leaving it there is illegal, but taking it is illegal, quite a conundrum.
Based on personal experience I think you'll find, in the end, there are any number of government rules involving minor costs that violate the constitution in principle but that continue to be enforced because it isn't worth anyone's time or money to sue government in court over it.
The constitution is a few vague principles that are constantly being challenged, and when we get to tiny things like whether a city can legally feed traffic ticket fines into the block party fund instead of a more specific fund, neither the constitution nor the agencies that it is involved in will care. without some sense of urgency or importance, these tiny problems aren't given the time of day. But then something comes along like ATM fees that collect millions of dollars annually, and that gets attention