Jump to content

Recommended Posts

http://news.yahoo.com/florida-mayor-fights-backyard-gun-ranges-gunshine-state-160945847--sector.html

 

What could possibly go wrong?

 

Although nothing in the state law specifically required him to try to block errant bullets, Varrieur mounted his target on a 7 X 7-foot backstop which he installed against a 12-foot-tall shed. When he fires his weapon, Varrieur is shooting in the direction of a canal used by boaters to reach open water.

 

Varrieur said he stations his wife and father on the edge of the canal to warn him if a boat is coming. And he said he informs the sheriff's department of when he will be shooting.

 

Recognizing that other gun owners will want to follow his lead, Varrieur now offers upon request instructions for building his backstop and his personal set of "Varrieur Range Rules," which recommend weapons should not exceed a .357 Magnum and a ban on alcohol consumption.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 345
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

, in Dog's "what kind of gun to get" thread,

 

in your post # 31 you said,,

,,,

Come the apocalypse, I'll load the 12GA pump with the 4 rounds of double OO shot I have and head over to the neighbors. I think I'll be able to convince them to open their armory to me and my kin. From that, we will be well supplied to further pillage the survivors.

,,,

Tell us more of this "progressivism"
Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this good? Do the people of the gun support backyard suburban firing ranges?

Why not? I put one up here in 'Zona the third day I got here.....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Define 'suburban backyard'.......

By Floriduh law, you can even have a personal firing range in an urban setting too. I was giving you some latitude on the definition of suburban, so for the sake of argument lets say 3000 sq ft. with a common fence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I'm against untrained people setting up firing ranges in suburban backyards.

The usual suspects differ.

What constitutes training?
The law requires none. So the degree is irrelevant.

What kind of training would be acceptable to you?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Define 'suburban backyard'.......

By Floriduh law, you can even have a personal firing range in an urban setting too. I was giving you some latitude on the definition of suburban, so for the sake of argument lets say 3000 sq ft. with a common fence.

Spatial,Spatial,Spatial...

Why do you concern yourself with matters that have no effect on you? Do you have that empty of a life? Come on you little shit stirrer step away from the keyboard and go outside, get some fresh air it will do you some good.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

What kind of training would be acceptable to you?

Civil engineering, physics, materials engineering, industrial hygiene, certified safety engineer. You know, the typical suite of professionals that make up any general contracting company.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

What kind of training would be acceptable to you?

Civil engineering, physics, materials engineering, industrial hygiene, certified safety engineer. You know, the typical suite of professionals that make up any general contracting company.

Huh? Are you saying one needs to be trained by these folks to fire a gun?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Fir$t Amendment is alive and well in Tallaha$$ee, where the brave can purchase a statute to prevent pediatricians from asking parents if they keep guns in the house, regardless of the hopelessly unconstitutional nature of the law that takes a giant shit on that same First Amendment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

What kind of training would be acceptable to you?

Civil engineering, physics, materials engineering, industrial hygiene, certified safety engineer. You know, the typical suite of professionals that make up any general contracting company.

Huh? Are you saying one needs to be trained by these folks to fire a gun?

No, to setup a firing range. Reading is not your strong suit is it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Fir$t Amendment is alive and well in Tallaha$$ee, where the brave can purchase a statute to prevent pediatricians from asking parents if they keep guns in the house, regardless of the hopelessly unconstitutional nature of the law that takes a giant shit on that same First Amendment.

Love this tidbit….

After seeing a news account about the controversy in the Keys over Varrieur's gun range, mayor Ryan wrote in February to Governor Rick Scott asking him to explicitly promise not to exercise his authority to remove from office any local public official who imposes reasonable restrictions on target shooting in residential neighborhoods.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What kind of training would be acceptable to you?

Civil engineering, physics, materials engineering, industrial hygiene, certified safety engineer. You know, the typical suite of professionals that make up any general contracting company.
Huh? Are you saying one needs to be trained by these folks to fire a gun?
No, to setup a firing range. Reading is not your strong suit is it?

I'm pretty good at reading, not so good at reading minds. You can ask my lady about that. You kinda act like her, little girly man...

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'm against untrained people setting up firing ranges in suburban backyards.

The usual suspects differ.

What constitutes training?

Here was my quote, you took that in relationship to firing the gun. Please review. I was referring to setting up firing ranges.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there certification requirement to set up a gun range?

 

We had one in the hall as kids.

Not in Floriduh.

"The irony is if someone wants to put in an addition to their home or an in-ground pool, they have to come through code enforcement and zoning. Here we can't say anything," Ryan said.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We should set up a govt run certification program for breathing.. how bout wiping our butts too? Everyone should be locked in a padded cell until the govt certifies us to come out.

 

Of course spatial ed would be exempt...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Firing ranges that I have darkened their doors were all well engineered. Berms sufficiently high, downrange clear within the range of the shot. Indoor ones all had positive ventilation systems to evacuate the lead dust. Those in urban settings were sufficiently noise proofed to not be a nuisance to neighbors. There is a science to it. To allow the uneducated redneck to setup his own range in his backyard just seems reckless and inviting disaster.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is almost like the lizard never left.

 

This seems like a local zoning issue. and not political at all. I would not be happy if my neighbors were shooting all the time, but one does have a range set up to sight in his rifle. Doesn't bother me at all. I suppose if you felt the need to try and control your environment and all the people around you, something like this could really put a bug up your ass.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is almost like the lizard never left.

 

This seems like a local zoning issue. and not political at all. I would not be happy if my neighbors were shooting all the time, but one does have a range set up to sight in his rifle. Doesn't bother me at all. I suppose if you felt the need to try and control your environment and all the people around you, something like this could really put a bug up your ass.

It should be a local issue, but purchasing all of those local governments is way too expensive, so the fix came in from Tallahassee, where the whores are cheap and reliable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It is almost like the lizard never left.

 

This seems like a local zoning issue. and not political at all. I would not be happy if my neighbors were shooting all the time, but one does have a range set up to sight in his rifle. Doesn't bother me at all. I suppose if you felt the need to try and control your environment and all the people around you, something like this could really put a bug up your ass.

It should be a local issue, but purchasing all of those local governments is way too expensive, so the fix came in from Tallahassee, where the whores are cheap and reliable.

 

Localities are prohibitted from addressing it in zoning? Might have been in a link, but I avoid links from some of our more questionable posters. I just assumed it was a local issue, as it is here. One interesting thing about PA, localities have full power to manage zoning for firing ranges and to prohibit discharging firearms, however not when it comes to hunting. Since hunting comes solely under the purview of the game commission, localities may not interfere with that and have been slapped down in court several times when they have tried. I can understand that one though, since the PGC is responsible for maanging herd size, and the only real tool at their disposal in that effort is letting people shoot them (the animals, not the politicians).

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Fir$t Amendment is alive and well in Tallaha$$ee, where the brave can purchase a statute to prevent pediatricians from asking parents if they keep guns in the house, regardless of the hopelessly unconstitutional nature of the law that takes a giant shit on that same First Amendment.

 

Malarkey.

 

Privacy of Firearm Owners: Provides that licensed practitioner or facility may not record firearm ownership information in patient's medical record; provides exception; provides that unless information is relevant to patient's medical care or safety or safety of others, inquiries regarding firearm ownership or possession should not be made;

 

What does that bolded part mean, counselor? Looks to me like doctors are not prevented from practicing medicine nor from asking questions relevant to their practice.

 

This is what taking a giant shit on an amendment looks like:

 

 

 

 

Advocating against our rights:

 

American Academy of Pediatrics Position on Guns

 

This statement reaffirms the 1992 position of the American Academy of Pediatrics that the absence of guns from children's homes and communities is the most reliable and effective measure to prevent firearm-related injuries in children and adolescents. A number of specific measures are supported to reduce the destructive effects of guns in the lives of children and adolescents, including the regulation of the manufacture, sale, purchase, ownership, and use of firearms; a ban on handguns and semiautomatic assault weapons; and expanded regulations of handguns for civilian use.

Those are their stated political goals, many of which strike me as unconstitutional, unAmerican, unrelated to medicine, and extreme. If they changed these goals and quit lying about guns, they might get a bit less hostility from the gun rights community.

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

It is almost like the lizard never left.

 

This seems like a local zoning issue. and not political at all. I would not be happy if my neighbors were shooting all the time, but one does have a range set up to sight in his rifle. Doesn't bother me at all. I suppose if you felt the need to try and control your environment and all the people around you, something like this could really put a bug up your ass.

It should be a local issue, but purchasing all of those local governments is way too expensive, so the fix came in from Tallahassee, where the whores are cheap and reliable.

 

Localities are prohibitted from addressing it in zoning? Might have been in a link, but I avoid links from some of our more questionable posters. I just assumed it was a local issue, as it is here. One interesting thing about PA, localities have full power to manage zoning for firing ranges and to prohibit discharging firearms, however not when it comes to hunting. Since hunting comes solely under the purview of the game commission, localities may not interfere with that and have been slapped down in court several times when they have tried. I can understand that one though, since the PGC is responsible for maanging herd size, and the only real tool at their disposal in that effort is letting people shoot them (the animals, not the politicians).

 

Sol is giving you part of the story. The rest of it is: anti gun local governments were effectively making state-issued concealed carry licenses invalid. The state stepped in and said no, the people with a license can carry.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

It is almost like the lizard never left.

 

This seems like a local zoning issue. and not political at all. I would not be happy if my neighbors were shooting all the time, but one does have a range set up to sight in his rifle. Doesn't bother me at all. I suppose if you felt the need to try and control your environment and all the people around you, something like this could really put a bug up your ass.

It should be a local issue, but purchasing all of those local governments is way too expensive, so the fix came in from Tallahassee, where the whores are cheap and reliable.

 

Localities are prohibitted from addressing it in zoning? Might have been in a link, but I avoid links from some of our more questionable posters. I just assumed it was a local issue, as it is here. One interesting thing about PA, localities have full power to manage zoning for firing ranges and to prohibit discharging firearms, however not when it comes to hunting. Since hunting comes solely under the purview of the game commission, localities may not interfere with that and have been slapped down in court several times when they have tried. I can understand that one though, since the PGC is responsible for maanging herd size, and the only real tool at their disposal in that effort is letting people shoot them (the animals, not the politicians).

 

Sol is giving you part of the story. The rest of it is: anti gun local governments were effectively making state-issued concealed carry licenses invalid. The state stepped in and said no, the people with a license can carry.

 

Ah. That sounds a bit more like our pre-emption law, which I fully support as it is implemented here. No locality may regulate ownership, purchase, or posession of guns, but they can regulate the firing of guns except in the case of hunting. I really have a hard time finding fault with our laws in regards to this at all. We also had some localities trying to pass laws regulating posession of guns, but it makes no sense for me to become a criminal as I pass through Philly, just because they decided they did not like the state law. I can understand letting Philly regulate where people can shoot guns.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

It is almost like the lizard never left.

 

This seems like a local zoning issue. and not political at all. I would not be happy if my neighbors were shooting all the time, but one does have a range set up to sight in his rifle. Doesn't bother me at all. I suppose if you felt the need to try and control your environment and all the people around you, something like this could really put a bug up your ass.

It should be a local issue, but purchasing all of those local governments is way too expensive, so the fix came in from Tallahassee, where the whores are cheap and reliable.

 

Localities are prohibitted from addressing it in zoning? Might have been in a link, but I avoid links from some of our more questionable posters. I just assumed it was a local issue, as it is here. One interesting thing about PA, localities have full power to manage zoning for firing ranges and to prohibit discharging firearms, however not when it comes to hunting. Since hunting comes solely under the purview of the game commission, localities may not interfere with that and have been slapped down in court several times when they have tried. I can understand that one though, since the PGC is responsible for maanging herd size, and the only real tool at their disposal in that effort is letting people shoot them (the animals, not the politicians).

Yeah, it was a lesson taught by the builders trade groups after Hurricane Andrew wiped South Dade off of the map. They poured money into local governments to keep them from strengthening the building codes that had been watered down bit by bit for decades, until they allowed paper houses, until after most of the houses had been rebuilt to the old code. Once the local governments got around to strengthening coastal building codes, the builders had to find another way to sell shoddy homes to people, so they went to Tallahassee under the guise of strengthening the building codes for the whole state, and got a statewide building code done, so that they didn't have to meet such stringent requirements on the coast.

 

This issue is just another example of federalism being good sometimes. In Tallahassee, if you have the money, the Legislature has the time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Is there certification requirement to set up a gun range?

 

We had one in the hall as kids.

Not in Floriduh.

>"The irony is if someone wants to put in an addition to their home or an in-ground pool, they have to come through code enforcement and zoning. Here we can't say anything," Ryan said.

 

Hey specious dipshit - some of us disagree with the idea that putting a shed up on our property requires us to ask permission too....

Link to post
Share on other sites
Re: Like a Backyard Range?

icon_post_target.gifby Rentprop1 » Fri Jan 31, 2014 10:52 pm

 
dougvarrieur wrote:

Backstop Instructions


Material


Twenty six 6”X6”X8’ timbers

Three 2”X12”X8’ boards

One 2”X6”X8’ board


Directions


1. Level the ground.

2. Cut an 8 foot 2x12 in half for the legs.

3. Place two 6X6 timbers on the ground next to each other.

4. Place the two four foot 2X12 legs at each end of the timbers square with the outside edges of the timbers.

5. Screw the 2X12 legs into the 6X6 timbers with 3 inch deck screws.

6. Now flip the base over.

7. Once flipped over place the 2X6X8 on top of the back wall timber and secure with a couple of deck screws, (this insures that your seams will be staggered as you stack you timbers).

8. Now stack the remaining timbers one by one making sure to keep the stack straight and true.

9. Once both the back wall and the front wall are stacked have one person or even two (one on each side hold the stacks steady. Now place a 2X12 at the end of the timbers upright and secure it with deck screws.

10. Repeat for the opposite side.


VARRIEUR RANGE RULES


• Only small arms may be used, nothing to exceed a 357 Magnum.

• Only low grain ammo can be used, all with dispersible slugs.

• No rifles or long guns allowed.

• Maximum distance to target, 7 yards (21 feet)

• All shooters discharge from behind a firing table.

• Only 1 shooter at a time may discharge.

• All weapons at all times must be aimed directly at the target, this includes reloading, placing a round in the chamber and weapons at rest.

• All shooters are to pay attention to each other and police each other.

• Prior to each shooter firing their magazine of rounds a rear range inspection is done to assure no-one has wandered down range.

• Shooting occurs 1 hour per week between three and four on Wednesday.

• Range is Hot must be spoken out loud by the shooter prior to discharge.

• Range is Cold must be spoken by the shooter once discharge is completed, the weapon is inspected to assure its empty and the weapon is laid to rest on the table.

• No alcohol to be consumed prior to or during discharge.

• All shots are to be accounted for.

• Any shooter invited to be a guest must have a valid Florida concealed firearms permit.

Another post on that thread

Re: Like a Backyard Range?

icon_post_target.gifby wjbarricklow » Fri Jan 31, 2014 8:49 pm

You're asking us to compromise. Not actually compromise, because generally compromise means you give up a little of something to get a little of something else. You're asking up to give up a choice to the government. Worse yet, you're asking people to give up their rights, to prevent something that has not yet happened since the preemption law was passed in 1987.

Right now, I can take my young son in the backyard, and teach him to shoot a 22 rifle prone with CB caps into a backstop that isn't much more complicated or permanent than a BB gun target. What you're proposing is to create a law to regulate that activity. Obviously, I'd need more backstop for full power 22LR. More for centerfire handguns. I'd need even more for a 30-06.

Everybody's situation is going to be different. There isn't any one type of range construction that fits every solution. To discharge a firearm at home, someone who does a little gunsmithing and just wants to fire a handgun to check function might be able to set up a clearing barrel in the garage- this can literally be a bucket of sand. I know someone who used electrical putty against a concrete wall as a backstop for standard velocity 22s in his garage. I know other people who are a little further out of town and shoot into a pile of dirt.

You're proposing to outlaw this. Because unless we have an inspected, permitted range to fit every situation, it won't be legal to discharge a firearm at home.

There is no one solution that fits everyone. But a set of uniform or minimum standards, enforced by the government must fit everyone, so it has to be far above my minimum standard for a backyard 22. And honestly there are people out there who probably need a shipping container in the backyard to be safe. You're asking for suggestions, but the best suggestion I can give is that people need to set up ranges that are not "reckless or negligent". And the law is already there.

On a personal note, I find it laughable that you didn't ask for this attention, and yet you're willing to do an interview on CNN. And now you're telling us that since you've opened up a can of worms that has been just fine shut for the last 20 years, we need to work with you to set up some regulating body to further run our lives.

I really don't know what to say.
...and they think I'm compensating for something?

wjbarricklow Life Member
bullet_ranks1a_5.gifPosts: 3175 Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 10:04 pm Location: Stuart, Florida 34997
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Ah. That sounds a bit more like our pre-emption law, which I fully support as it is implemented here. No locality may regulate ownership, purchase, or posession of guns, but they can regulate the firing of guns except in the case of hunting. I really have a hard time finding fault with our laws in regards to this at all. We also had some localities trying to pass laws regulating posession of guns, but it makes no sense for me to become a criminal as I pass through Philly, just because they decided they did not like the state law. I can understand letting Philly regulate where people can shoot guns.

This is the section of law that the topic article says prevents any local regulation

 

790.33 Field of regulation of firearms and ammunition preempted.—

(1) PREEMPTION.—Except as expressly provided by the State Constitution or general law, the Legislature hereby declares that it is occupying the whole field of regulation of firearms and ammunition, including the purchase, sale, transfer, taxation, manufacture, ownership, possession, storage, and transportation thereof, to the exclusion of all existing and future county, city, town, or municipal ordinances or any administrative regulations or rules adopted by local or state government relating thereto. Any such existing ordinances, rules, or regulations are hereby declared null and void.

(2) POLICY AND INTENT.—

(a) It is the intent of this section to provide uniform firearms laws in the state; to declare all ordinances and regulations null and void which have been enacted by any jurisdictions other than state and federal, which regulate firearms, ammunition, or components thereof; to prohibit the enactment of any future ordinances or regulations relating to firearms, ammunition, or components thereof unless specifically authorized by this section or general law; and to require local jurisdictions to enforce state firearms laws.

(B) It is further the intent of this section to deter and prevent the violation of this section and the violation of rights protected under the constitution and laws of this state related to firearms, ammunition, or components thereof, by the abuse of official authority that occurs when enactments are passed in violation of state law or under color of local or state authority.

 

It's outrageous.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Localities are prohibitted from addressing it in zoning? Might have been in a link, but I avoid links from some of our more questionable posters. I just assumed it was a local issue, as it is here. One interesting thing about PA, localities have full power to manage zoning for firing ranges and to prohibit discharging firearms, however not when it comes to hunting. Since hunting comes solely under the purview of the game commission, localities may not interfere with that and have been slapped down in court several times when they have tried. I can understand that one though, since the PGC is responsible for maanging herd size, and the only real tool at their disposal in that effort is letting people shoot them (the animals, not the politicians).

Yes. Local governments cannot enact any laws that restrict firearms. And if they do, the governor must remove them from office. All laws regarding firearms must be managed at the state level.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There ought to be a state law. It should look something like this:

 

790.15 Discharging firearm in public or on residential property.—

(1) Except as provided in subsection (2) or subsection (3), any person who knowingly discharges a firearm in any public place or on the right-of-way of any paved public road, highway, or street, who knowingly discharges any firearm over the right-of-way of any paved public road, highway, or street or over any occupied premises, or who recklessly or negligently discharges a firearm outdoors on any property used primarily as the site of a dwelling as defined in s. 776.013 or zoned exclusively for residential use commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. This section does not apply to a person lawfully defending life or property or performing official duties requiring the discharge of a firearm or to a person discharging a firearm on public roads or properties expressly approved for hunting by the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission or Florida Forest Service.

If we had a law like that, douchenozzles could not set up firing ranges in areas zoned residential. People like me who live in the sticks could continue to shoot in our yards.

 

Alas, the gun lobby (who represent only dollars, not citizens) would never allow such a law to appear on a page like this one

 

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0790/0790.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

they will fine and fire any local official who knowingly violates the statute.

 

Someone has pull at the state house...

Wait wait. You were supposed to overlook that part.

 

That's nothing. An early draft of the Pediatrician muzzle law (no pun intended) would have sent pediatricians to jail for asking parents if they kept firearms in the house. A lovely bit of reverence for the First Amendment, demonstrated by our freedom lovers. http://www.parents.com/kids/safety/other-safety-issues/a-pediatricians-role-in-the-gun-debate/

Link to post
Share on other sites

people of the gun

Did anyone find this a disturbing label?

It's like saying "you people" or "Colored People" or "Dark Skinned People"

You, who ever you are, are a disturbed person.

 

But I think if this guy had half a brain, he would frame, w/footing and rebar a proper back stop at least 6" thick and use proper concrete.

Then on the front side put 4x4 Pressure treated (to withstand the weather) and Hay Bails to put the target on.

That is how I would build a target range on my property if I had some.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

people of the gun

Did anyone find this a disturbing label?

It's like saying "you people" or "Colored People" or "Dark Skinned People"

You, who ever you are, are a disturbed person.

 

But I think if this guy had half a brain, he would frame, w/footing and rebar a proper back stop at least 6" thick and use proper concrete.

Then on the front side put 4x4 Pressure treated (to withstand the weather) and Hay Bails to put the target on.

That is how I would build a target range on my property if I had some.

Its a term used by the people of the gun to describe themselves. I forget where, but I thought it was appropriate.

 

As for your ad hoc firing range engineering, how about having some standards that local governments can impose on would be range officers?

Link to post
Share on other sites

how about having some standards that local governments can impose on would be range officers?

You mean have more government employees stand over someone shooting on private property out in the country?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

how about having some standards that local governments can impose on would be range officers?

You mean have more government employees stand over someone shooting on private property out in the country?

Yes, and protecting the neighbors.

Some people of the gun are not very safety conscious.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

how about having some standards that local governments can impose on would be range officers?

You mean have more government employees stand over someone shooting on private property out in the country?

How about in the city?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

how about having some standards that local governments can impose on would be range officers?

You mean have more government employees stand over someone shooting on private property out in the country?

How about in the city?

Most Cities have gun discharge laws.

 

Out on my parents property, 40 acres in the country 30 miles out side town we target shoot when visiting.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

how about having some standards that local governments can impose on would be range officers?

You mean have more government employees stand over someone shooting on private property out in the country?

How about in the city?

Does it really matter? How about allowing local communities set their own standards? Why is the gun excluded from regulation?

 

One would think that if Jesus Christ Hisself, showed up and proclaimed that all men should put their armament down, the atheist movement would get a huge boost in membership.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

how about having some standards that local governments can impose on would be range officers?

You mean have more government employees stand over someone shooting on private property out in the country?

How about in the city?

Most Cities have gun discharge laws.

 

Out on my parents property, 40 acres in the country 30 miles out side town we target shoot when visiting.

That's the rub here, man. It should be an issue decided locally, but our state legislature is the biggest bunch of whores south of DC, and is in the pocket of the gun lobby. Local governments have no say in the issue, and can be removed from office for doing anything like discharge laws. Section 3 of this statute is the one that puts the bite on the locals: http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0790/Sections/0790.33.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Most Cities have gun discharge laws.

 

Out on my parents property, 40 acres in the country 30 miles out side town we target shoot when visiting.

That's the rub here, man. It should be an issue decided locally, but our state legislature is the biggest bunch of whores south of DC, and is in the pocket of the gun lobby. Local governments have no say in the issue, and can be removed from office for doing anything like discharge laws. Section 3 of this statute is the one that puts the bite on the locals: http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0790/Sections/0790.33.html

So you are saying that Florida is really a State run by Hillbilly Politicians?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Most Cities have gun discharge laws.

 

Out on my parents property, 40 acres in the country 30 miles out side town we target shoot when visiting.

That's the rub here, man. It should be an issue decided locally, but our state legislature is the biggest bunch of whores south of DC, and is in the pocket of the gun lobby. Local governments have no say in the issue, and can be removed from office for doing anything like discharge laws. Section 3 of this statute is the one that puts the bite on the locals: http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0790/Sections/0790.33.html

So you are saying that Florida is really a State run by Hillbilly Politicians?

Lobbyists. Government to the highest bidder.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a link to the whole statute. Section 3 is the part Tom left out in the interest of honesty.

 

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0790/Sections/0790.33.html

 

 

Actually, that's a link to a section. It has a link on the page that says View Entire Chapter and if you follow it, you can see that the link to the entire chapter is the one I provided.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

they will fine and fire any local official who knowingly violates the statute.

 

Someone has pull at the state house...

Wait wait. You were supposed to overlook that part.

 

That's nothing. An early draft of the Pediatrician muzzle law (no pun intended) would have sent pediatricians to jail for asking parents if they kept firearms in the house. A lovely bit of reverence for the First Amendment, demonstrated by our freedom lovers. http://www.parents.com/kids/safety/other-safety-issues/a-pediatricians-role-in-the-gun-debate/

 

 

They put penalties in the law because anti-gun local politicians continued to pass and enforce laws nullifying state concealed weapons permits even after being informed that what they were doing was illegal. Informing them that they were breaking the law did not work, so punishment for breaking the law seems the next step. That or tolerate their illegal efforts to undermine state law. Punishing offenders seems a better choice to me.

 

As for the article,

 

pediatrician Anne Edwards, M.D. "It concerns us that there are policies that may prohibit us from discussing risk factors when it comes to safety,"

 

...

 

"We are not anti-gun, we are pro-child," says M. Denise Dowd, M.D., M.P.H., pediatrician in Kansas City, Missouri, and an author of the American Academy of Pediatrics' most recent policy statement on firearm-related injuries.

 

The law did not prohibit discussions related to safety, despite your earlier malarkey that such discussions were "prevented" by the law.

 

Privacy of Firearm Owners: Provides that licensed practitioner or facility may not record firearm ownership information in patient's medical record; provides exception; provides that unless information is relevant to patient's medical care or safety or safety of others, inquiries regarding firearm ownership or possession should not be made;

 

 

As for whether they are anti-gun, I think anyone who advocates unconstitutional gun bans fits that description. That includes the person who wrote this policy statement:

 

 

This statement reaffirms the 1992 position of the American Academy of Pediatrics that the absence of guns from children's homes and communities is the most reliable and effective measure to prevent firearm-related injuries in children and adolescents. A number of specific measures are supported to reduce the destructive effects of guns in the lives of children and adolescents, including the regulation of the manufacture, sale, purchase, ownership, and use of firearms; a ban on handguns and semiautomatic assault weapons; and expanded regulations of handguns for civilian use.

 

I wonder if she also shares the New Jersey view that this is a semi-automatic assault weapon that should be banned? Something tells me she does.

 

 

New Jersey banning ordinary rifles

 

 

 

So this tube-fed .22 is an "assault weapon" according to these pols:

 

zoom_60.jpg

 

How are we supposed to have an intelligent gun discussion with these people?

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Re: Like a Backyard Range?

icon_post_target.gifby Rentprop1 » Fri Jan 31, 2014 10:52 pm

 
dougvarrieur wrote:

Backstop Instructions

 

Material

 

Twenty six 6”X6”X8’ timbers

Three 2”X12”X8’ boards

One 2”X6”X8’ board

 

Directions

 

1. Level the ground.

2. Cut an 8 foot 2x12 in half for the legs.

3. Place two 6X6 timbers on the ground next to each other.

4. Place the two four foot 2X12 legs at each end of the timbers square with the outside edges of the timbers.

5. Screw the 2X12 legs into the 6X6 timbers with 3 inch deck screws.

6. Now flip the base over.

7. Once flipped over place the 2X6X8 on top of the back wall timber and secure with a couple of deck screws, (this insures that your seams will be staggered as you stack you timbers).

8. Now stack the remaining timbers one by one making sure to keep the stack straight and true.

9. Once both the back wall and the front wall are stacked have one person or even two (one on each side hold the stacks steady. Now place a 2X12 at the end of the timbers upright and secure it with deck screws.

10. Repeat for the opposite side.

 

VARRIEUR RANGE RULES

 

• Only small arms may be used, nothing to exceed a 357 Magnum.

• Only low grain ammo can be used, all with dispersible slugs.

• No rifles or long guns allowed.

• Maximum distance to target, 7 yards (21 feet)

• All shooters discharge from behind a firing table.

• Only 1 shooter at a time may discharge.

• All weapons at all times must be aimed directly at the target, this includes reloading, placing a round in the chamber and weapons at rest.

• All shooters are to pay attention to each other and police each other.

• Prior to each shooter firing their magazine of rounds a rear range inspection is done to assure no-one has wandered down range.

• Shooting occurs 1 hour per week between three and four on Wednesday.

• Range is Hot must be spoken out loud by the shooter prior to discharge.

• Range is Cold must be spoken by the shooter once discharge is completed, the weapon is inspected to assure its empty and the weapon is laid to rest on the table.

• No alcohol to be consumed prior to or during discharge.

• All shots are to be accounted for.

• Any shooter invited to be a guest must have a valid Florida concealed firearms permit.

Another post on that thread

Re: Like a Backyard Range?

icon_post_target.gifby wjbarricklow » Fri Jan 31, 2014 8:49 pm

You're asking us to compromise. Not actually compromise, because generally compromise means you give up a little of something to get a little of something else. You're asking up to give up a choice to the government. Worse yet, you're asking people to give up their rights, to prevent something that has not yet happened since the preemption law was passed in 1987.

 

Right now, I can take my young son in the backyard, and teach him to shoot a 22 rifle prone with CB caps into a backstop that isn't much more complicated or permanent than a BB gun target. What you're proposing is to create a law to regulate that activity. Obviously, I'd need more backstop for full power 22LR. More for centerfire handguns. I'd need even more for a 30-06.

 

Everybody's situation is going to be different. There isn't any one type of range construction that fits every solution. To discharge a firearm at home, someone who does a little gunsmithing and just wants to fire a handgun to check function might be able to set up a clearing barrel in the garage- this can literally be a bucket of sand. I know someone who used electrical putty against a concrete wall as a backstop for standard velocity 22s in his garage. I know other people who are a little further out of town and shoot into a pile of dirt.

 

You're proposing to outlaw this. Because unless we have an inspected, permitted range to fit every situation, it won't be legal to discharge a firearm at home.

 

There is no one solution that fits everyone. But a set of uniform or minimum standards, enforced by the government must fit everyone, so it has to be far above my minimum standard for a backyard 22. And honestly there are people out there who probably need a shipping container in the backyard to be safe. You're asking for suggestions, but the best suggestion I can give is that people need to set up ranges that are not "reckless or negligent". And the law is already there.

 

On a personal note, I find it laughable that you didn't ask for this attention, and yet you're willing to do an interview on CNN. And now you're telling us that since you've opened up a can of worms that has been just fine shut for the last 20 years, we need to work with you to set up some regulating body to further run our lives.

 

I really don't know what to say.

...and they think I'm compensating for something?

wjbarricklow Life Member

bullet_ranks1a_5.gifPosts: 3175 Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 10:04 pm Location: Stuart, Florida 34997

 

 

 

Our intrepid gun range builder got tossed from that forum.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What are the rights of the neighbors that are annoyed by loud noise?

 

Here in Paradise, 2 of the upscale subdivisions are squawking about the noise of a few planes at the local airport.

 

But it get even better.

 

A large national developer has purchased land near our sheriff's department gun range. The range has been there for better than 20 years and is used by local, state and federal law enforcement. The developer is concerned that the range will disturb their customers and wants something done. At this point it is unclear who will pay for either moving or enclosing the range. But I sure hope that Tom and I do not have to pay for it from our local taxes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, when I was a kid in HS, I grew up on a working farm (not our farm, but some friends of ours). I don't recall the number of acres. But its was a LOT. I used to shoot all the time. I even had my own guns that I bought myself. A .22 bolt rifle but I also had a .303 Lee Enfield. I used to shoot all over the farm, most of the time at targets, tin can, water jugs, etc. Sometimes at game (dove, groundhogs, etc). I was always conscious of my backdrop and what was behind the target. Should the state have regulated what, when and where I could shoot on that private very large farm? We were probably a good couple of miles from the nearest house in any direction.

 

As for specious ed..... trolls gotta troll.

Nope. Should be a local issue. Who better to decide what works in a a small rural town than the folks who live there? Certainly not some well paid suit in DC or Tallahassee. Who better to decide what works in a densely populated city than the folks who live there?

 

These big government types always see solutions coming from higher levels of government.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Here's a link to the whole statute. Section 3 is the part Tom left out in the interest of honesty.

 

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0790/Sections/0790.33.html

 

 

Actually, that's a link to a section. It has a link on the page that says View Entire Chapter and if you follow it, you can see that the link to the entire chapter is the one I provided.

 

 

 

Exactly, so you cut and paste the partial clip, leaving out the part that you don't like, and then give a link to the Chapter, to overwhelm with more stuff than anyone could need, to keep them from finding the part you don't like. I give the statute, so people can read the thing for themselves and make up their own minds. You big government types sure are slippery.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What are the rights of the neighbors that are annoyed by loud noise?

 

Here in Paradise, 2 of the upscale subdivisions are squawking about the noise of a few planes at the local airport.

 

But it get even better.

 

A large national developer has purchased land near our sheriff's department gun range. The range has been there for better than 20 years and is used by local, state and federal law enforcement. The developer is concerned that the range will disturb their customers and wants something done. At this point it is unclear who will pay for either moving or enclosing the range. But I sure hope that Tom and I do not have to pay for it from our local taxes.

 

 

Plenty of construction activities make more noise, but I'd be annoyed by more than the noise if I were a neighbor. If I'm reading his plans right, he has a 6' high by 8' wide backstop and the plan to keep all rounds on the property is to never, ever miss it. And never, ever have a visitor miss it, even one trying out an unfamiliar gun.

 

That's not a good enough plan. I think it's a reckless plan and illegal under state law. Keeping all rounds on the property is one of my main rules and I have never depended solely on the target backstop to achieve it. We shoot downhill toward the swamp, though I doubt any stray shots could penetrate the damn Florida holly infestation and get to the actual swamp. Oh, and we own the swamp.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So, when I was a kid in HS, I grew up on a working farm (not our farm, but some friends of ours). I don't recall the number of acres. But its was a LOT. I used to shoot all the time. I even had my own guns that I bought myself. A .22 bolt rifle but I also had a .303 Lee Enfield. I used to shoot all over the farm, most of the time at targets, tin can, water jugs, etc. Sometimes at game (dove, groundhogs, etc). I was always conscious of my backdrop and what was behind the target. Should the state have regulated what, when and where I could shoot on that private very large farm? We were probably a good couple of miles from the nearest house in any direction.

 

As for specious ed..... trolls gotta troll.

Nope. Should be a local issue. Who better to decide what works in a a small rural town than the folks who live there? Certainly not some well paid suit in DC or Tallahassee. Who better to decide what works in a densely populated city than the folks who live there?

 

These big government types always see solutions coming from higher levels of government.

 

 

The state government, that's who, and if they won't do it, the feds.

 

The local governments were nullifying the right of concealed weapons permit holders to bear arms in public places. Since our state also bans open carry unless on the way to/from hunting or fishing, that meant that the second amendment in those areas was effectively nullified outside the home.

 

Some of us think the second amendment applies outside the home and that some form of carry must be allowed outside the home. When local governments obliterate that right outside the home, I have no problem with higher levels of government intervening to restore them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Here's a link to the whole statute. Section 3 is the part Tom left out in the interest of honesty.

 

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0790/Sections/0790.33.html

 

 

Actually, that's a link to a section. It has a link on the page that says View Entire Chapter and if you follow it, you can see that the link to the entire chapter is the one I provided.

 

 

Exactly, so you cut and paste the partial clip, leaving out the part that you don't like, and then give a link to the Chapter, to overwhelm with more stuff than anyone could need, to keep them from finding the part you don't like. I give the statute, so people can read the thing for themselves and make up their own minds. You big government types sure are slippery.

 

Leaving out critical information that undermines your argument when making your point is almost as egregious as editing someones comments when replying to them to change its meanings. I'm glad he doesn't do that! :ph34r:

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, when I was a kid in HS, I grew up on a working farm (not our farm, but some friends of ours). I don't recall the number of acres. But its was a LOT. I used to shoot all the time. I even had my own guns that I bought myself. A .22 bolt rifle but I also had a .303 Lee Enfield. I used to shoot all over the farm, most of the time at targets, tin can, water jugs, etc. Sometimes at game (dove, groundhogs, etc). I was always conscious of my backdrop and what was behind the target. Should the state have regulated what, when and where I could shoot on that private very large farm? We were probably a good couple of miles from the nearest house in any direction.

 

As for specious ed..... trolls gotta troll.

So you think its ok for children to design, setup and use ad hoc firing ranges without regulation. Doesn't surprise me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If I were in FL, I would support the preemption law for the same reasons I support the one here in PA. On the particular issue of zoning laws and firearms dischanrges, I can see both sides of the issue. There are lots of areas here, and I imagine there, which were and still are primarily rural or lightly developed, but which had sections of the township (usually a few farms that were sold off) subdivided and turned into developments with the homes being sold to people moving here from NY and NJ. The newcomers show up and start trying to stop people from doing things they have been doing on the same property all their lives. At the same time, I have seen some of the newcomers show up here and think that a 1 acre plot is a farm and try to act accordingly, and that can create all sorts of other issues. While imperfect, I think I would support the preemption law there and encourage the township to put in place noise ordinances (which would help with noise pollution beyond gunfire) and to have the police enforce the state provisions against reckless shooting or shooting in strictly residential properties. It seems like that worked for the most part until this dummy and maybe a few others decided to push it and make it an issue.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Ah. That sounds a bit more like our pre-emption law, which I fully support as it is implemented here. No locality may regulate ownership, purchase, or posession of guns, but they can regulate the firing of guns except in the case of hunting. I really have a hard time finding fault with our laws in regards to this at all. We also had some localities trying to pass laws regulating posession of guns, but it makes no sense for me to become a criminal as I pass through Philly, just because they decided they did not like the state law...

 

That is exactly the reason we passed a preemption law here. Concealed weapons permit holders like myself could become criminals by just driving around the state from place to place. The spin that it was passed because the gun lobby owns Tallahassee is just more malarkey. It was passed because anti-gun governments were making criminals out of people like me and we did not like it.

 

They continued to do it after court rulings saying it was illegal, so penalties were added. Of course, we can't talk about the actual reasons the penalties were added to the law. It's much more important to talk about me and the fact that I did not mention the penalties initially.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It would seem that the Floriduh law would make it illegal to pass a local noise ordinance if that noise was related to a firearm. And if you did pass it, the governor would remove you from office.

 

They can pass a noise ordinance that covers all noises. Singling out gun noises would be illegal because it would not then be about noise control but about gun control.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If I were in FL, I would support the preemption law for the same reasons I support the one here in PA. On the particular issue of zoning laws and firearms dischanrges, I can see both sides of the issue. There are lots of areas here, and I imagine there, which were and still are primarily rural or lightly developed, but which had sections of the township (usually a few farms that were sold off) subdivided and turned into developments with the homes being sold to people moving here from NY and NJ. The newcomers show up and start trying to stop people from doing things they have been doing on the same property all their lives. At the same time, I have seen some of the newcomers show up here and think that a 1 acre plot is a farm and try to act accordingly, and that can create all sorts of other issues. While imperfect, I think I would support the preemption law there and encourage the township to put in place noise ordinances (which would help with noise pollution beyond gunfire) and to have the police enforce the state provisions against reckless shooting or shooting in strictly residential properties. It seems like that worked for the most part until this dummy and maybe a few others decided to push it and make it an issue.

 

Therein lies the rub, and the reason that statutes are written to address the lowest common denominator of behaviors. It's not what most would want, but, some people feel compelled to push the bounds of behavior just to see what they can get away with.

 

Speaking of shooting in the backyard - my 13 yr old daughter is having 3 friends sleepover tonight, and I'm teaching them how to shoot clays in the backyard this afternoon. Oughta be fun, gotta remember to pick up another couple boxes of .20 gauge shells.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It would seem that the Floriduh law would make it illegal to pass a local noise ordinance if that noise was related to a firearm. And if you did pass it, the governor would remove you from office.

 

They can pass a noise ordinance that covers all noises. Singling out gun noises would be illegal because it would not then be about noise control but about gun control.

Not sure about that Tommy. They can pass noise ordinances, but if they tried to violate someone with it because of a firearm, I'm sure they would be removed from office. Because if they prosecuted a noise violation due to gunplay, it would be about gun control. Feel free to edit my comments to fit your argument.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

So, when I was a kid in HS, I grew up on a working farm (not our farm, but some friends of ours). I don't recall the number of acres. But its was a LOT. I used to shoot all the time. I even had my own guns that I bought myself. A .22 bolt rifle but I also had a .303 Lee Enfield. I used to shoot all over the farm, most of the time at targets, tin can, water jugs, etc. Sometimes at game (dove, groundhogs, etc). I was always conscious of my backdrop and what was behind the target. Should the state have regulated what, when and where I could shoot on that private very large farm? We were probably a good couple of miles from the nearest house in any direction.

 

As for specious ed..... trolls gotta troll.

Nope. Should be a local issue. Who better to decide what works in a a small rural town than the folks who live there? Certainly not some well paid suit in DC or Tallahassee. Who better to decide what works in a densely populated city than the folks who live there?

 

These big government types always see solutions coming from higher levels of government.

 

So if a local gov't decided it would be a good idea to abridge your freedom of speech, religion the press or any number of other things like that - you would be ok with it? I mean - who better to tell you what you can say, where you can go to church, what you can write in the paper than the folks who live there, right?

Imagine if I said such a thing. Imagine it!

 

My freedom of speech is not limitless. It cannot come at the expense of someone else's freedoms. Imagine if I felt like encouraging others to commit a crime. Lets imagine that I was a KKK leader and I called for "revengeance" against prosecutors. Not calling for any specific crime, just "revengeance". It puts prosecutors in danger. Not protected speech. Advocacy: protected. Incitement: not.

 

Freedom of religion? There is no such thing. I pay more in taxes to subsidize religions than I would if they paid taxes. Besides, local governments can pass zoning ordinances that prohibit churches in a certain area, so you might want to rethink using that one.

 

Press? The last time I checked, local governments could tell media outlets that they were not allowed to put a TV station in the middle of a residential neighborhood.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

It is almost like the lizard never left.

 

This seems like a local zoning issue. and not political at all. I would not be happy if my neighbors were shooting all the time, but one does have a range set up to sight in his rifle. Doesn't bother me at all. I suppose if you felt the need to try and control your environment and all the people around you, something like this could really put a bug up your ass.

It should be a local issue, but purchasing all of those local governments is way too expensive, so the fix came in from Tallahassee, where the whores are cheap and reliable.

 

Localities are prohibitted from addressing it in zoning? Might have been in a link, but I avoid links from some of our more questionable posters. I just assumed it was a local issue, as it is here. One interesting thing about PA, localities have full power to manage zoning for firing ranges and to prohibit discharging firearms, however not when it comes to hunting. Since hunting comes solely under the purview of the game commission, localities may not interfere with that and have been slapped down in court several times when they have tried. I can understand that one though, since the PGC is responsible for maanging herd size, and the only real tool at their disposal in that effort is letting people shoot them (the animals, not the politicians).

That makes sense to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Imagine if anyone here was arguing that the second amendment didn't apply outside the home? Imagine it!

 

 

Should local governments be able to eliminate any legal method to keep and bear arms outside the home?

 

The state government said no through the preemption law.

 

Imagine Peruta vs San Diego was not about exactly these issues.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Ah. That sounds a bit more like our pre-emption law, which I fully support as it is implemented here. No locality may regulate ownership, purchase, or posession of guns, but they can regulate the firing of guns except in the case of hunting. I really have a hard time finding fault with our laws in regards to this at all. We also had some localities trying to pass laws regulating posession of guns, but it makes no sense for me to become a criminal as I pass through Philly, just because they decided they did not like the state law...

 

That is exactly the reason we passed a preemption law here. Concealed weapons permit holders like myself could become criminals by just driving around the state from place to place. The spin that it was passed because the gun lobby owns Tallahassee is just more malarkey. It was passed because anti-gun governments were making criminals out of people like me and we did not like it.

 

They continued to do it after court rulings saying it was illegal, so penalties were added. Of course, we can't talk about the actual reasons the penalties were added to the law. It's much more important to talk about me and the fact that I did not mention the penalties initially.

 

I forgot to add, the penalties actually worked and the lower governments stopped trying to nullify concealed weapons permits.

 

I think the fact that they worked is responsible for some of the butthurt on that issue. You can see how some are extremely irritated that there are penalties in the law. It's outrageously unfair that the local governments could not go on thumbing their noses at state law. Outrageously unfair. Sob.

Link to post
Share on other sites

People shouldn't make noise and endanger people with unsafe gun ranges. Making sure there is no boat traffic? That's not a properly built backstop.

 

If people want backyard gun ranges in the suburbs, then it should be with air guns and subsonic .22 with well-engineered, county-inspected backstops. Nothing to do with guns, it's about public safety and nuisance, no different from burning trash, dogs that won't stop barking, garage spray booths that use toxic VOCs, pet tigers, etc..

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Ah. That sounds a bit more like our pre-emption law, which I fully support as it is implemented here. No locality may regulate ownership, purchase, or posession of guns, but they can regulate the firing of guns except in the case of hunting. I really have a hard time finding fault with our laws in regards to this at all. We also had some localities trying to pass laws regulating posession of guns, but it makes no sense for me to become a criminal as I pass through Philly, just because they decided they did not like the state law...

 

That is exactly the reason we passed a preemption law here. Concealed weapons permit holders like myself could become criminals by just driving around the state from place to place. The spin that it was passed because the gun lobby owns Tallahassee is just more malarkey. It was passed because anti-gun governments were making criminals out of people like me and we did not like it.

 

They continued to do it after court rulings saying it was illegal, so penalties were added. Of course, we can't talk about the actual reasons the penalties were added to the law. It's much more important to talk about me and the fact that I did not mention the penalties initially.

 

I forgot to add, the penalties actually worked and the lower governments stopped trying to nullify concealed weapons permits.

 

I think the fact that they worked is responsible for some of the butthurt on that issue. You can see how some are extremely irritated that there are penalties in the law. It's outrageously unfair that the local governments could not go on thumbing their noses at state law. Outrageously unfair. Sob.

Are there other state laws that fine local officials for passing ordinances, or is this (like consumer safety exemptions, etc) just for the poor little picked on gun industry?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ah. That sounds a bit more like our pre-emption law, which I fully support as it is implemented here. No locality may regulate ownership, purchase, or posession of guns, but they can regulate the firing of guns except in the case of hunting. I really have a hard time finding fault with our laws in regards to this at all. We also had some localities trying to pass laws regulating posession of guns, but it makes no sense for me to become a criminal as I pass through Philly, just because they decided they did not like the state law...

 

That is exactly the reason we passed a preemption law here. Concealed weapons permit holders like myself could become criminals by just driving around the state from place to place. The spin that it was passed because the gun lobby owns Tallahassee is just more malarkey. It was passed because anti-gun governments were making criminals out of people like me and we did not like it.

 

They continued to do it after court rulings saying it was illegal, so penalties were added. Of course, we can't talk about the actual reasons the penalties were added to the law. It's much more important to talk about me and the fact that I did not mention the penalties initially.

I forgot to add, the penalties actually worked and the lower governments stopped trying to nullify concealed weapons permits.

 

I think the fact that they worked is responsible for some of the butthurt on that issue. You can see how some are extremely irritated that there are penalties in the law. It's outrageously unfair that the local governments could not go on thumbing their noses at state law. Outrageously unfair. Sob.

Are there other state laws that fine local officials for passing ordinances, or is this (like consumer safety exemptions, etc) just for the poor little picked on gun industry?

It was not passed for the industry, but for people like me who simply wanted to drive from place to place in our state without becoming criminals. The fact that local officials continued to make criminals out of people like me even after the courts told them to stop pissed me off. I'm glad they can now be held personally responsible for their illegal efforts to infringe on second amendment rights.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ah. That sounds a bit more like our pre-emption law, which I fully support as it is implemented here. No locality may regulate ownership, purchase, or posession of guns, but they can regulate the firing of guns except in the case of hunting. I really have a hard time finding fault with our laws in regards to this at all. We also had some localities trying to pass laws regulating posession of guns, but it makes no sense for me to become a criminal as I pass through Philly, just because they decided they did not like the state law...

That is exactly the reason we passed a preemption law here. Concealed weapons permit holders like myself could become criminals by just driving around the state from place to place. The spin that it was passed because the gun lobby owns Tallahassee is just more malarkey. It was passed because anti-gun governments were making criminals out of people like me and we did not like it.

 

They continued to do it after court rulings saying it was illegal, so penalties were added. Of course, we can't talk about the actual reasons the penalties were added to the law. It's much more important to talk about me and the fact that I did not mention the penalties initially.

I forgot to add, the penalties actually worked and the lower governments stopped trying to nullify concealed weapons permits.

 

I think the fact that they worked is responsible for some of the butthurt on that issue. You can see how some are extremely irritated that there are penalties in the law. It's outrageously unfair that the local governments could not go on thumbing their noses at state law. Outrageously unfair. Sob.

Are there other state laws that fine local officials for passing ordinances, or is this (like consumer safety exemptions, etc) just for the poor little picked on gun industry?
It isn't such a hard question, certainly less scary than a pediatrician asking if there are guns in the house...so I'll take a stab at it.

 

No.

Link to post
Share on other sites

...I agree that in many cases, the local gov't should have the authority to make laws that best suits them. But not when it comes at the expense of other guaranteed state or national level rights....

 

So if a local government completely eliminated any legal method of bearing arms outside the home, you imagine this somehow has something to do with the second amendment applying outside the home? The imagination police will be along shortly to call you out for your silliness.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Where does my "pursuit of happiness" fit in?

 

Does the Constitution have precedence over Declaration of Independence?

 

Some of my pursuit is a reasonably quiet time in my back yard enjoying a cold adult beverage. The unannounced volley of target practice will certainly diminish my achieving happiness.

 

Shooting ranges dot not belong in residential neighborhoods.

 

Noise Ordinance?

 

How much does It cost to pass an ordinance?

 

I'll guess between staff and attorney time, probably starting in the $10,000 range. But that is just the beginning.

 

 

Due to our rules of evidence we must have a trained police officer or 4 (must cover 24/7/365) I'll guess another $10,000 min training. But said officers must have a calibrated noise measuring device, the $49.95 Radio Shack sound pressure meter will not make the standard. I'll guess another $5,000 to $10,000 for a proper device.

 

So my neighbor uses his back yard gun range and interrupts my pursuit of happiness. I call the cops. The officer arrives and the neighbor stops shooting. As the officer was unable to measure the noise, he is unable to issue a citation for a noise violation. Cost, another $500.

 

A few weeks later the same thing happens this time officer and this time he gets his measurement and issues a ticket. This is a misdemeanor and not a felony so he is not arrested.

 

Cost of officer and county time to process ticket maybe $1,000 for a $100 ticket.

 

Said neighbor gets ticketed 5 more times.

 

At what point is he is a public nuisance?

 

Shooting ranges do not belong in residential neighborhoods.

 

I'll let you dig through the Mullet Wrapper archives to find the articles, but the developer did not do his due diligence. It was not until the sheriff's chief deputy called the developer and told them about the range. In a recent article, these was talk of building an indoor range on the same property at a cost of $1.5 mil and no one stepping up with an open wallet This is not about the 2nd amendment, rather it is a business dispute about how much it will cost either the tax payers or the developer so that the developer can more easily sell his product, reduce his expenses and increase his profit.

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites