Posted on 06/26/2012 12:02:58 PM PDT by marktwain
PARKERSBURG - Sundowner Gun Range owner Kendall Richards said his private members-only Gihon Road range is safe, that it presents no danger to nearby residential neighborhoods.
During a meeting last week, representatives of the Wildwood Homeowner's Association and other neighbors lodged complaints about what they contend are bullet holes in their homes, bullets found in various locations and noise of constant gunfire with the range open seven days a week.
"We've had shooting on this property for nearly 20 years and we've had no injuries that I'm aware of, and no confirmed reports of bullets from the range going anywhere," Richards said.
Richards' attorney James Tinney said there is an earthen area built up for safety and large tires set up, that the range has been inspected by the National Rifle Association as well as the Department of Natural Resources and approved by both entities.
Richards said gun range members are given a safety course, must do safety orientation, be NRA members and have no criminal record. He said members must sign in, including the time and type of weapon being used so if any bullets were found outside the gun range they could be checked and traced back to the person who fired the weapon. Tinney said to date there has been no evidence offered to definitively show bullets left the range.
"The sheriff's deputies have been out there. I invited them in, answered their questions, opened up all my records, they didn't take them," Richards said. "The range is safe and there is no evidence otherwise."
"Capt. Smith and I went out there in response to a complaint two years ago and measured and the range is within the legal limits. When we've gotten complaints, they've been referred to the prosecutor," Sheriff Jeff Sandy said.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsandsentinel.com ...
The reporter did a lousy job with this story. You have to read the comments (written by locals) to get the full story.
1) Up until 2011, this was a PAINTBALL range. So, when the owner says “people have been shooting here for 20 years,” he is telling a bold-faced lie.
2) This is not in the country, it is in a heavily populated area. It is close to residential homes, a heavy traffic road, a cemetery, and...a golf course! All close enough that people can easily hear the gunshots from the range.
This might be more about noise than safety (you can’t really tell from the article), but a couple of things: (1) the owner the owner has lied about how long the range has been there (imho, once someone is caught in a lie this big you should question their veracity), and (2) the homes and everything else were there long before the gun range.
This is NOT a case of a bunch of city folks moving out to the country and then complaining about a pre-existing gun range. This is a case of a guy opening an outdoor gun range in what is essentially a heavily populated suburban area.
Oddly enough, in Europe it is much harder to get a firearm but once you do, you are encouraged to get a suppressor, which are much less regulated.
“Another resident turned over a bullet he found in the street. “
Yea, right.
The real question is why do you non-critically accept comments to an article written by obvious anti-gun progressives?
Brookhaven reports from comments on the original article:
“2) This is not in the country, it is in a heavily populated area. It is close to residential homes, a heavy traffic road, a cemetery, and...a golf course! All close enough that people can easily hear the gunshots from the range.”
marktwain reports from another article:
“During the meeting Thursday, Nelson said he contacted the Department of Natural Resources and was told they have no authority over private gun ranges, only public ones. “There are apparently no West Virginia regulations on them either. The only limitation is you can’t shoot on a road or within 500 feet of a domicile, and apparently they are within those restrictions, so they are legal in that sense,” Nelson said.”
It seems less than likely that this is a heavily populated area when there are no domicieles within 500 feet of the range. More research is necessary, but I have seen many more exagerations and lies by people who wish to shut down ranges than I have seen from range proponents. I have not found any more information on the paintball information.
That's not the impression I got. Most of the comments seemed pretty middle-of-the-road.
How come there couldn't have been a shooting range there (along with paintball) and the person writing the comment didn't know that?
Because (1) someone said that up until a few years ago the land area had been used as a dump (he even admitted dumping stuff there), and (2) the noise of the gunfire is one of the complaints; if it had been used as a shooting range along with a paintball facility, people would have heard the gun noise a long time ago. The evidence seems to backup the comment that the shooting range has only been there since 2011.
I know of a place where people have shot for more than 50 years. It's never been an official shooting range but if someone were to open a range there some progressive anti 2nd amendment nut could then write "but they've only been there a year Wah Wah Wah".
I doubt "a place where people have shot" out in the country would have nearly as much traffic/usage as an organized shooting range.
As far "only been there a year," that's the reason there are zoning laws. To ensure people that have been living in an area for a long time don't suddenly wake up one morning to find someone has built a factory, pig farm, or shooting range next to their home.
If someone tried to turn your "place where people shoot" (which is probably an open field someplace that gets light usage) into an organized outdoor shooting range (which would need to be heavily used to stay in business), then it would be reasonable for someone to point out that they would impact the surrounding community differently.
The real question is why do you non-critically accept comments to an article written by obvious anti-gun progressives?
The real real question is why do you assume that people that might have questions about a shooting range are "obvious anti-gun progressives?" We're talking West Virginia here, not San Francisco. There probably aren't 4 anti-gun progressives in the entire state.
Says a lot about you. Do you think that a shooting range should be at least a mile and a half away from any residence? Who do you think would make a comment like that?
Because (1) someone said that up until a few years ago the land area had been used as a dump (he even admitted dumping stuff there), and (2) the noise of the gunfire is one of the complaints; if it had been used as a shooting range along with a paintball facility, people would have heard the gun noise a long time ago. The evidence seems to backup the comment that the shooting range has only been there since 2011.
Anonymous comments based on a puff piece article does not rise to the level of "evidence".
I doubt "a place where people have shot" out in the country would have nearly as much traffic/usage as an organized shooting range.
There was a time not too long ago when the overwhelming majority of people didn't shoot at an organized gun ranges.
If someone tried to turn your "place where people shoot" (which is probably an open field someplace that gets light usage) into an organized outdoor shooting range (which would need to be heavily used to stay in business), then it would be reasonable for someone to point out that they would impact the surrounding community differently.
I remember two "places where people shoot" that were sand pits. One of those places on a weekend day there could be 100 people there. People would line up not 20 feet from the road to shoot. Of course you can't shoot in either place now. Not for actual safety reason but because of liberal anti-2nd amendment nuts in collusion with people that are afraid of everything, and/or people that want to control every human action possible. (Which are typically liberal anti-2nd amendment nuts) You also have to understand that most shooting ranges in America, while formed under corporations or trusts, are not "for profit" businesses per se, but are organized in such a way to provide for legal liability and control of the organization.
As far "only been there a year," that's the reason there are zoning laws. To ensure people that have been living in an area for a long time don't suddenly wake up one morning to find someone has built a factory, pig farm, or shooting range next to their home.
It doesn't appear that any zoning laws were broken or the town would simple be able to slap a "cease and desist" order on the guy which they haven't done.
The real real question is why do you assume that people that might have questions about a shooting range are "obvious anti-gun progressives?"
Because only a progressive thinks that a shooting range has to be a mile and a half from residence to be safe, because only a progressive thinks that 650 yards from a residence is "too close". Because only progressives are against gun ranges generally. Because only progressives would think that an NRA certified range is "unsafe".
We're talking West Virginia here, not San Francisco. There probably aren't 4 anti-gun progressives in the entire state.
BS, you have your head in the sand. West Virginia is still a conservative state but not as conservative as it has been in the past, regardless, it's never hard to find Progressives in any town in America. They are the ones always vociferously complaining (they are not above lies), always trying to get something, (votes, exceptions, exemptions, taxes raised, fines levied) and trying to increase the size and scope of government. Go to your next town meeting or state legislature session and you will see them, it doesn't matter where you live. Don't be fooled by them having an (R) or (D) by their name.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.