Minutes 02-16-2016 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

21 Where I'm going with this is, if the county is going to require that I erect and maintain said signs, of a certain type, in a certain manner, for the protection of others, then will the county step in and protect me from civil and criminal lawsuits in the event of an injury or death? In other words, since the county is requiring me as a land owner and shooter to do this, then it seems only logical that the county has removed my responsibility and liability for injury or death (criminal and civil) due to firearm activity. Since the property is clearly marked (by county regulation) then the argument of"I didn't see it," by a Trespasser should thereby be null and void, as the county has recommended, required, and concluded that this is more than adequate to prevent wrongful injury or death to those unknowing of the discharge of firearms on said property. That in turn, puts a tremendous legal burden on the county if something like this should occur. In addition, this amendment could potentially and inadvertently pave the way for further amendments that incorporate even more cumbersome restrictions. As I stated earlier, for me and many others, it is very foreseeable the installment of an inspection process for backstops or properties where private landowners shoot on a regular basis (see previous paragraph and apply accordingly). Could this amendment lead into further restrictions on shooting times and dates? No shooting on certain holidays? Noise ordinance restrictions? Excessive calls to law enforcement for perceived violations? In many ways, this amendment seems to burden the average land owner and shooter with requirements that aren't even as strict as they are for currently operated for-profit shooting ranges, according to the existing regulations. With those things said, let me attempt to reason through the perceived need for such a restrictive amendment. In my mind I can foresee where the perceived need for this amendment came from. Likely a "backyard shooter" or shooters who are constantly and recklessly engaging in the unsafe discharging of firearms, likely, in an area of higher population density. No shock there, I've seen it myself and was simply left to shake my head at the complete ignorance and stupidity of such actions. With the proposal of this amendment, and this sort of situation, my thoughts take off into how the county could deal with this type of situation without restricting the rights of so many others. We have all seen too many times in the history of legislation, where good intentions with a law often restrict many that it was never intended to affect. Why let the actions of a few "bad apples spoil it for the rest of us," one could ask. So I question the county about such a situation with the laws and tools that is already has available to it. If someone were constantly shooting, in close proximity, to others at "all hours of the night", wouldn't that constitute as a noise violation? Could someone who engaged in this sort of behavior, for valueless reasons, be considered to be disturbing the peace? Especially if it is something that happens in a regular manner and easily definable as a deliberately harassing gesture. If someone is shooting in an unsafe manner (firing on to someone else's property or discharging a firearm without means for ensuring the safety of others), wouldn't that be considered reckless endangerment or better yet criminal negligence? Surely both carry a higher penalty and fine than a simple misdemeanor, which I would much rather see someone charged with for this type of behavior. As I repeat, any person who pick-ups a firearm, in my opinion, has immediately signed a binding contract that requires them to protect the safety of everyone and everything around them. I mean that in a literal sense. Any responsible shooter knows several things right off the bat; treat every firearm as if it were loaded, keep