DelayedReaction
Member
- Joined
- May 18, 2004
- Messages
- 645
I got this in the mail from a friend of mine. His shooting buddy is the son mentioned in the e-mail, and several of my friends were at the property shooting. Believe me when I say they all acted in a safe and appropriate manner, and the accusations are totally false.
I can't find the original article online, but there's an editorial referencing it here:
And here is the Garcia's response...
So basically we have a supposedly "pro-gun" state senator attempting to push around people legally (and safely) target shooting. The fact that he's even stooped to calling on off duty cop people to harass my friends is particulalry low.
I thought you people would be interested in hearing about this. He's definitely getting a letter from me.
Where does Senator David Brinkley really stand on gun rights?
He ran on a “strong proponent of gun rights” platform, won the election, but has harassed us, his neighbor, since April, 2003 about target practicing on our 15+ acres.
Please read these documents. Then, if you’re as confused as we are, send an e-mail to Senator Brinkley ([email protected]) and to the editor of the Frederick News Post ([email protected]) requesting an answer to the following question:
Senator Brinkley: As a law-maker, what parameters would you impose upon a landowner’s right to hunt or target practice on his/her own property?
In a nutshell: We are recreational shooters that have shot a total of approximately eight hours in the past two years at a target that has been deemed safe and legal by the Frederick County Sheriff's Department. We own 15+ acres in an agricultural area. Since April 2003, Senator Brinkley, who owns 30 acres, has repeatedly stated that our target shooting is "illegal activity" and has tried various avenues to stop the shooting – including making threats of arrest. Last November, Sheriff Hagy informed Brinkley that our shooting is legal and that Hagy and his deputies cannot enforce the disturbing the peace law. On September 11, 2005, Brinkley circumvented Hagy's decision by contacting an off duty deputy who threatened our son – on our property – with arrest for disturbing the peace. We sent a certified request to the Brinkleys requesting they stop harassing us. The Brinkleys response was to file a Petition for a Peace Order … the relief requested was NO shooting on our property. Although the Peace Order was dismissed, it is our understanding (from our lawyer) that the Brinkleys now intend to bring another action against us - this time for "disturbing the peace".
We believe the Brinkleys are attempting to set a precedent that will have a devastating impact on Maryland gun and land owners… Anyone who shoots a gun – for any reason – can be subject to disturbing the peace charges by anyone who doesn’t like guns.
Since we can’t go to Senator Brinkley, we’ve requested a Senator from another district sponsor an amendment that excludes legal gunfire from the "disturbing the peace" law. (Unadilla Township in Michigan has already successfully exempted it there.) We ask that you contact your senator to put a stop to the inappropriate use of this law.
Our son said it best: If a car is loud, you can put a muffler on it; guns are loud - but you can't put a silencer on all guns – it's simply not in the best interest of the public. We believe gun and land owners rights would best be protected by amending the current Disturbing the Peace law.
Richard & Amy Galica
I can't find the original article online, but there's an editorial referencing it here:
Publication:Frederick News-Post; Date:Sep 29, 2005; Section:Editorial & Opinion; Page Number:10
News-Post EDITORIAL
Being neighborly
Disputes among neighbors are as old as civilization itself, we suspect, and they involve an endless variety of issues: property lines, spite fences, rock music, gaudy paint, animals — you name it.
A recent “neighbor vs. neighbor” case heard in District Court involved a complaint by Sallie Brinkley, state Sen. David Brinkley’s wife. She sought a “cease and desist” type order against her Mount Airy neighbors for target shooting on their property.
Judge W. Milnor Roberts ultimately ruled that Ms. Brinkley had failed to make her case that the shooting was a safety issue for the Brinkleys. During the case, Ms. Brinkley testified that bullet fragments from the nextdoor neighbor Galica family’s target practice had landed on her property, creating a safety hazard.
Judge Roberts declined to watch a 35-minute videotape she made of her neighbors shooting, in which she claims bullet fragments can be heard hitting the ground around her. Ms. Brinkley testified that she was 300 feet inside her property line while filming the shooting, which she described as taking place about 400 feet from her.
Judge Roberts apparently ruled against Ms. Brinkley because the firing took place on her neighbors’ land, and that no evidence of bullet fragments could be found on the Brinkley property.
Judge Roberts may have ruled properly on the legal merits of this case, but we wonder why such a situation has to arise in the first place. Why would someone be engaged in target shooting so close to his “neighbor’s” property line? Wouldn’t common sense and common courtesy suggesst that another location would be better?
The “it’s my property, I can do as I please on it” principle is as American as apple pie, mom and baseball, but should it be applied without discretion or consideration of one’s neighbors?
According to the story, the Galicas’ property comprises 16 acres. Is there anywhere on that large parcel that would be a quieter, safer and more neighborly place to take target practice? The story also indicated that the shooting was in close proximity to the Galica family’s house. Wouldn’t it be safer for them, also, to shoot in a more isolated, less-open spot?
Some weeks ago the Sunday Commentary page carried a letter from an Adamstown man whose neighbor had turned part of his property into an ATV track for his children and their friends. His complaints involved the commotion, noise and safety issues these ATVs, and their juvenile operators, had created for him and his neighborhood. Apparently, current law or zoning codes don’t prohibit what his neighbor was doing any more than they prohibit what the Brinkley’s neighbors are doing.
But the question remains, does one engage in something that is violative of the peace and contentment of one’s neighbors simply because they can?
Of Mr. Brinkley, Richard Galica commented, “I find it really incredible that our senator who runs on a pro-gun platform doesn’t want to allow us to target practice.” We find that comment a bit disingenuous, as it seems clear that the Brinkleys’ concern lies with the proximity of the shooting and has nothing to do with the right to own and use firearms.
Following the hearing, Galica lawyer Marc Ward said he would attempt to get both families to sit down and negotiate a compromise to the dispute. For good neighbors, that should be a snap: The Galicas continue to take target practice on their properly, as is their right, but move it to another location where the sight, sound and fear of bullet fragments isn’t a concern to their neighbors.
Why can’t we all just get along?
And here is the Garcia's response...
Letter to the Editor
Re: September 29, 2005 “Being Neighborly” editorial
Sir:
The topic of guns and gunfire can be an emotional issue. Your editorial questioned why we would shoot so close to the Brinkley’s property line and if there was anywhere on our property that would be a quieter, safer, and more neighborly place to take target practice. Following is our response to your questions. We hope you have the courage to print it – in its entirety.
• Our range was constructed in compliance with the recommendations set forth by the National Association of Shooting Ranges and was strategically placed to ensure the safety of all concerned.
• There is a 90’ high, 12 acre wooded hill that forms the back stop to the range (it is not in the open).
• A Frederick County sheriff deputy reviewed the target range and deemed it safe and legal.
• The acreage on which our respective homes are located is separated by a 14 acre parcel of land that the Brinkleys purchased approximately three years ago.
• If one did the research and understood the physics involved in bullet trajectory and ricochets, one would come to the educated conclusion that bullets do not bounce straight backwards 400 feet (a city block) as claimed by the Brinkleys.
• Bullet fragments the Brinkleys may find on their property are most likely proof of the hunting they allow on their property.
• We are recreational shooters. In fact, our target practicing on our 15+ acres has totaled less than eight hours in the last two years.
• We have extended offers to the Brinkleys, both in writing and verbally, to discuss their concerns. They have never responded.
• As to the comment “I find it really incredible that our senator who runs on a pro-gun platform doesn’t want to allow us to target practice”? The Brinkleys have repeatedly stated that they want NO gunfire on our property.
We, as we’re sure many of his constituents, would like to know what parameters Senator Brinkley, as a lawmaker, would impose upon a landowner’s right to hunt or target practice on his/her own property.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond.
Richard and Amy Galica
So basically we have a supposedly "pro-gun" state senator attempting to push around people legally (and safely) target shooting. The fact that he's even stooped to calling on off duty cop people to harass my friends is particulalry low.
I thought you people would be interested in hearing about this. He's definitely getting a letter from me.
