Hit this Poll please


PDA






Ryanxia
January 15, 2015, 09:32 AM
http://www.pressherald.com/2015/01/15/loud-gunfire-in-standish-ignites-noisy-rights-debate/

Should towns have the right to restrict the shooting of firearms on private property?

We recently had a town try to shut down shooting on private property which is where most people shoot, it did not pass but if you'd hit this poll I'd appreciate it.

If you enjoyed reading about "Hit this Poll please" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Ryanxia
January 15, 2015, 09:38 AM
After reading the article, maybe we should push for the State to reimburse the tax on suppressors :)

hso
January 15, 2015, 10:35 AM
This is not exactly being represented accurately as a 2A issue. It is a property issue, primarily. The poll also isn't detailed enough since any of us would agree a TOWN has the obligation to restrict certain activities that actually endanger neighbors in close proximity. In this case the Township bungled things by taking a neighborhood committee's concern for commercial range use of a sand pit and trying to apply it across the entire rural township (and badly as well).

If anyone bothers to actually read the article things appear to have been fine having people use the construction company sand pit until a for-profit company started using the site charging for classes. That is not a 2A issue, it is a zoning and noise issue.

Where the township fell down badly was in their response to the situation in proposing changes to existing regulation that were too broad and too "town" biased. They went too far in their proposed controls and they had to back down.

Trouble began last summer when he allowed a firearms instruction company to use the site to train its students, a commercial use that ran afoul of zoning laws in the town.

Weaponcraft, a Saco-based firearms training company, hosted about 10 classes at the pit from roughly July through September, sometimes using high-powered military-style rifles, Maietta said. A message left with Weaponcraft was not immediately returned Wednesday.

“Thousands of rounds a day were being fired up there,” Billington said. “The neighbors were very concerned.”

The town issued Weaponcraft a cease-and-desist order in September based on the zoning rules and the company has not applied for a commercial recreation permit since then, Billington said.


...


Janet Lampron, one of the abutting property owners and a vocal critic of the pit’s operations, said Wednesday she was dismayed that what began as complaints against a single property had expanded to affect every property in town.

“It was just ridiculous that our little petition of 47 people to control our neighborhood went to a whole townwide thing,” Lampron said. “That was not our intention. Our intention was to control our neighborhood, not to get the whole town mad at us. I’m fine with hunting. Just not in my backyard.”


...


After the committee was informed that it could not single out one property in an ordinance without exposing the town to a discrimination claim, it crafted sweeping restrictions on firearms use that would have prohibited landowners from allowing anyone else to shoot a gun on their property outside of hunting season, Billington said.

Outside of hunting season, “only a property owner could fire on his own property,” Billington said. “He couldn’t invite others in.”

Ryanxia
January 15, 2015, 10:46 AM
It's not referring to endangerment rather disturbing the peace. And as the town said, they had to do it 'across the board' since otherwise it could lead to a discrimination suit.

The point is the attempt was to make you carry 3 million dollars of liability insurance if you want to invite your brother to come over and shoot with you. I'm glad the ordinance got shot down, there aren't many official ranges because many people shoot on their own property.

I agree the poll is to vague but I'm taking it in context of the article as I would think other readers will.

Ranger Roberts
January 15, 2015, 12:16 PM
Done. As of right now it's "No - 51% @ 218 votes and Yes - 49% @ 207 votes."

Ryanxia
January 15, 2015, 12:37 PM
Excellent!

Lman57
January 15, 2015, 03:25 PM
Ok done I did the poll.

GAMEOVER44
January 15, 2015, 04:46 PM
voted. Was sad to see the results only 56 percent said no. My grandfather would be rolling in his grave if he seen this stuff going on now.

Ryanxia
January 16, 2015, 08:13 AM
voted. Was sad to see the results only 56 percent said no. My grandfather would be rolling in his grave if he seen this stuff going on now.
As HSO pointed out, the poll is misleading and vague. I've seen a lot of polls posted here and almost all of them are overwhelmingly in our favor.

Jackal
January 19, 2015, 12:33 AM
Not a 2A issue at all. Frankly, they should have an indoor facility, if they are located near/in a residential area. I would not be happy to listen to that noise all day. Its not like we are talking about a few rounds here n there, thousands daily on the days they were instructing. I can understand how people that own homes/property nearby would be very annoyed after a while.

If I'm going to be blasting off more than a few rounds, I call my 2 neighbors and give them a heads up in advance, just to be courteous.

Bob M.
January 19, 2015, 08:01 AM
Done. :)

Ryanxia
January 19, 2015, 08:59 AM
Jackal, the company that was doing training there already stopped, this is about a few weekend shooters definitely not shooting thousands of rounds. And the sand pit they are shooting in is fairly far away from the complaining neighbors, it's not like they are 50 feet away. To each their own opinion though.

Thanks Bob!

Bob M.
January 19, 2015, 09:15 AM
Your welcome, Ryanxia. Always willing to help out. :)

Tony k
January 19, 2015, 10:52 AM
Guns are loud. I have to admit that the noise from formal training classes close to my house would have been a problem for me, but the town's attempted response was WAY over the top and yet another example of misguided restrictions.

The only part that I considered remotely reasonable was the property line decibel limit, but I think something like that should apply broadly, not just to guns. OTOH,65 decibels seems unreasonably low, and more towns have a much bigger problem with loud stereos, cars, and motorcycles than noise from firearms.

Just like my right to swing my fist ends at your jaw, my right to make as much noise as I want ends at your ear. I think it's a bad idea for us to take a strident attitude toward how much noise we make.

Ryanxia
January 19, 2015, 11:25 AM
Tony - it's very simple. If they want it quieter than the State needs to reimburse gun owners the $200 tax stamp for suppressors. Otherwise, they can deal with it. :)

Tcruse
January 19, 2015, 08:22 PM
Suppressors should have never been restricted. I think that it is time that gun owners stop being on the defensive and start to actively seek repeal and changes to the existing federal laws. Suppressors and SBR both need be removed from the NFA restrictions. In fact, the idea of not having to use hearing protection for home defense would be helpful.

Tony k
January 19, 2015, 08:49 PM
Reimburse people for the tax stamp, Ryanxia? How about loosening restrictions on suppressors altogether so that people don't have to get a tax stamp in the first place.

Suppressors seem like a reasonable tools in situations like this. I don't understand why they are still restricted.

medalguy
January 19, 2015, 10:41 PM
What wasn't told was how long the nearby homeowners had lived there. This might be like people building homes at the end of an airport runway and then complaining about the noise. If the homes were built after shooting began at the pit, tough. On the other hand, if the shooting is a recent phenomenon and the homes have been there for a hundred years, that's different.

However, I can tell you I used to have a sand pit to shoot in, and the reports rarely carry up and outside the pit. Sand has a definite dampening effect on sound. A gravel pit I'm not sure about. I need more information to make a reasonable decision here. However, if they are going to make a noice restriction law, it should apply to every kind of business: shooting ranges, auto repair shops, junk yards, you get the idea.

Ryanxia
January 20, 2015, 08:23 AM
Reimburse people for the tax stamp, Ryanxia? How about loosening restrictions on suppressors altogether so that people don't have to get a tax stamp in the first place.

Suppressors seem like a reasonable tools in situations like this. I don't understand why they are still restricted.
The restrictions on suppressors are a Federal law and out of the hands of the State (except for having our two congress critters try to get a federal Bill put in which won't happen). I'm just speaking on the local level. But of course it would be best if the NFA just went away. At the very least for suppressors and SBRs.

In any case, I think this thread did its job. Thanks to those who voted.

Nick Burkhardt
January 20, 2015, 08:59 PM
Voted.

If you enjoyed reading about "Hit this Poll please" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!