Quantcast
Hit this Poll please - THR
THR  

Go Back   THR > Social Situations > Activism

Welcome to THR
You are currently viewing our site as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions, articles and access our other FREE features. By joining our free community you will have, access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!


If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please visit the help section.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old January 15, 2015, 10:32 AM   #1
Ryanxia
Member
 
 
Join Date: June 18, 2010
Location: In the trenches for Liberty.
Posts: 3,315
Hit this Poll please

http://www.pressherald.com/2015/01/1...rights-debate/

Quote:
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.
__________________
Join NRA Today!
Right now there are anti & pro gun laws being proposed in YOUR State, get involved!

www.odb.org
Ryanxia is offline  
Old January 15, 2015, 10:38 AM   #2
Ryanxia
Member
 
 
Join Date: June 18, 2010
Location: In the trenches for Liberty.
Posts: 3,315
After reading the article, maybe we should push for the State to reimburse the tax on suppressors
__________________
Join NRA Today!
Right now there are anti & pro gun laws being proposed in YOUR State, get involved!

www.odb.org
Ryanxia is offline  
Old January 15, 2015, 11:35 AM   #3
hso
Moderator
 
 
Join Date: January 3, 2003
Location: 0 hrs east of TN
Posts: 41,202
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.

Quote:
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.”
__________________
SAF Life Member/NRAILA Contributor
******************
Please Read The Forum Rules

TheHighRoad exists to provide a higher grade of discussion than is found on some other gun forums so antis and undecideds can see that gun owners and RKBA advocates are not the reckless misanthropes they tell everyone we are. Personal attacks, group stereotyping, macho chest-thumping, and partisan hackery are low road and hurt all of us.

Last edited by hso; January 15, 2015 at 11:40 AM.
hso is offline  
Old January 15, 2015, 11:46 AM   #4
Ryanxia
Member
 
 
Join Date: June 18, 2010
Location: In the trenches for Liberty.
Posts: 3,315
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.
__________________
Join NRA Today!
Right now there are anti & pro gun laws being proposed in YOUR State, get involved!

www.odb.org
Ryanxia is offline  
Old January 15, 2015, 01:16 PM   #5
Ranger Roberts
Contributing Member
 
 
Join Date: January 3, 2012
Location: South Eastern, PA
Posts: 622
Done. As of right now it's "No - 51% @ 218 votes and Yes - 49% @ 207 votes."
__________________
"The problem is not the availability of guns, it is the availability of morons."

"A man with a gun is a citizen. A man without a gun is a subject." - John R Lott
Ranger Roberts is offline  
Old January 15, 2015, 01:37 PM   #6
Ryanxia
Member
 
 
Join Date: June 18, 2010
Location: In the trenches for Liberty.
Posts: 3,315
Excellent!
__________________
Join NRA Today!
Right now there are anti & pro gun laws being proposed in YOUR State, get involved!

www.odb.org
Ryanxia is offline  
Old January 15, 2015, 04:25 PM   #7
Lman57
Member
 
 
Join Date: April 22, 2014
Location: So Cal
Posts: 66
Ok done I did the poll.
Lman57 is offline  
Old January 15, 2015, 05:46 PM   #8
GAMEOVER44
Member
 
 
Join Date: January 4, 2015
Location: Detroit
Posts: 220
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.
GAMEOVER44 is offline  
Old January 16, 2015, 09:13 AM   #9
Ryanxia
Member
 
 
Join Date: June 18, 2010
Location: In the trenches for Liberty.
Posts: 3,315
Quote:
Originally Posted by GAMEOVER44 View Post
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.
__________________
Join NRA Today!
Right now there are anti & pro gun laws being proposed in YOUR State, get involved!

www.odb.org
Ryanxia is offline  
Old January 19, 2015, 01:33 AM   #10
Jackal
Member
 
 
Join Date: March 9, 2006
Location: Northwest Washington
Posts: 2,914
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.
Jackal is offline  
Old January 19, 2015, 09:01 AM   #11
Bob M.
Member
 
 
Join Date: January 12, 2007
Location: Tampa, Fl
Posts: 213
Done.
Attached Images
File Type: png Votes.png (12.0 KB, 4 views)
__________________
Samuel Colt did more for equality in America than any civil rights activist.
Bob M. is offline  
Old January 19, 2015, 09:59 AM   #12
Ryanxia
Member
 
 
Join Date: June 18, 2010
Location: In the trenches for Liberty.
Posts: 3,315
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!
__________________
Join NRA Today!
Right now there are anti & pro gun laws being proposed in YOUR State, get involved!

www.odb.org
Ryanxia is offline  
Old January 19, 2015, 10:15 AM   #13
Bob M.
Member
 
 
Join Date: January 12, 2007
Location: Tampa, Fl
Posts: 213
Your welcome, Ryanxia. Always willing to help out.
__________________
Samuel Colt did more for equality in America than any civil rights activist.
Bob M. is offline  
Old January 19, 2015, 11:52 AM   #14
Tony k
Member
 
 
Join Date: March 31, 2013
Posts: 376
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.
Tony k is offline  
Old January 19, 2015, 12:25 PM   #15
Ryanxia
Member
 
 
Join Date: June 18, 2010
Location: In the trenches for Liberty.
Posts: 3,315
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.
__________________
Join NRA Today!
Right now there are anti & pro gun laws being proposed in YOUR State, get involved!

www.odb.org
Ryanxia is offline  
Old January 19, 2015, 09:22 PM   #16
Tcruse
Member
 
 
Join Date: October 24, 2011
Posts: 363
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.
Tcruse is offline  
Old January 19, 2015, 09:49 PM   #17
Tony k
Member
 
 
Join Date: March 31, 2013
Posts: 376
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.
Tony k is offline  
Old January 19, 2015, 11:41 PM   #18
medalguy
Contributing Member
 
 
Join Date: March 20, 2009
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 2,902
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.
medalguy is online now  
Old January 20, 2015, 09:23 AM   #19
Ryanxia
Member
 
 
Join Date: June 18, 2010
Location: In the trenches for Liberty.
Posts: 3,315
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tony k View Post
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.
__________________
Join NRA Today!
Right now there are anti & pro gun laws being proposed in YOUR State, get involved!

www.odb.org
Ryanxia is offline  
Old January 20, 2015, 09:59 PM   #20
Nick Burkhardt
Member
 
 
Join Date: December 25, 2013
Location: Rural Oregon
Posts: 97
Voted.
Nick Burkhardt is offline  
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:18 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
vBulletin Optimisation by vB Optimise.
This site, its contents, Shooting Reviews, and its contents are Copyright (c) 2010-2013 Firearms Forum, Inc.
IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER
Although The High Road has attempted to provide accurate information on the forum, The High Road assumes no responsibility for the accuracy of the information. All information is provided "as is" with all faults without warranty of any kind, either express or implied. Neither The High Road nor any of its directors, members, managers, employees, agents, vendors, or suppliers will be liable for any direct, indirect, general, bodily injury, compensatory, special, punitive, consequential, or incidental damages including, without limitation, lost profits or revenues, costs of replacement goods, loss or damage to data arising out of the use or inability to use this forum or any services associated with this forum, or damages from the use of or reliance on the information present on this forum, even if you have been advised of the possibility of such damages.