Londonderry Country Club Owner Asks Town Council To Ban Outdoor Shooting

"If you can keep playing tennis when somebody is shooting a gun down the street, that's concentration." This week, the Union Leader treated us to the pithy headline, Fairways Firing Ranges dont mix in Londonderry.  Interestingly enough, UL Correspondent April Guilmet, never contacted Londonderry Fish & Game Club Leadership for comment or input. She did today after the story was written and posted.   

Bread and Circus: A cliché aptly suited in describing the Londonderry Town Council. Council Chariman John Farrell (not the John Farrell of Country Pond Fish & Game) granted Londonderry Country Club Owner Tom Kimball his wish for the Council to hold a council meeting at the Golf Club. The purpose of which is that the council can hear the gunfire from the Londonderry Police Range..er, the Londonderry Fish and Game Club..wait? which is it, Tom? Ah! both.

Tom Kimball, owner of the Londonderry Country Club, many times since 1990, has requested the town to enact and ordinance banning all outdoor shooting from taking place, except indoors at an indoor shooting range. During one such effort he was actually successful to get the signatures needed in a petition drive to have the ban put in a warrant article...which was voted down. Hasn't Tom Kimball ever seen the Man of LaMancha? His most recent attempt to get some face time for his quest to ban outdoor shooting was a year ago this month when the council examined the feasibility of building a public shooting range. In a strange twist of irony, one of the sites on the Musquash Conservation Land examined was a parcel that would have placed the public range considerably closer to his property than either LPD's range or LFGC's club facility. The parcels were all disqualified as not viable, however Kimball's complaints were not a factor....funny.

On July 23, I detailed the nature of whiny sniveling residents in Anatomy of Gun Range Neighbors the all too predictable behavior of people who create conflict with long- established Gun Ranges. The Range de jour was the Monadnock Road and Gun Club in Peterborough, New Hampshire. And another entry on July 24 entitled, "Idiots And Cowards Who Complain About Gun Ranges."  I detailed the New Hampshire Law pertaining to ranges, some discussion on precedent-setting cases and elaborated why the sound of gunfire does not rise to a nuisance level.  The links are above, so there is no  need for me to rehash the arguments.

At present, the Londonderry Town Council will hold their "bread and circus" council meeting at the Londonderry Country Club, the purpose of which is for counselors to hear the gunfire.  So, the meeting takes place and they all hear the gunfire. Then what?   

How will Tom Kimball be mollified? How will he be appeased? What edict will the council make? What fact will be found? "By Joe! Listen! Gunfire...Hey! You people shut up back there, we are trying to hear the gun fire!" The end game for Tom Kimball is an ordinance banning all outdoor shooting. And if you think I am being a charlatan, just ask him. He will tell you. It's in the town records. The councilors will go, will hear gunfire and will probably not agree on its' nuisance value. Big deal. Even if they wanted to, they can do nothing. Perhaps they have full control over the Londonderry Police Range; Perhaps they could even shut it down. But certainly not the Londonderry Fish & Game Club. [Insert Charlie Sheen - "Winning"] Moreover, if they attempt that, we will clearly carry the water on that issue for the town employees (Cops) who might otherwise have to remain silent and moderate, accepting whatever fate is dealt them.

First, RSA 159-B:1 exempts LFGC, Its' Officers and Members from civil liability or prosecution for noise pollution when in compliance with noise control ordinances at the time the range was established, constructed, or otherwise began operations. So you can't sue us for private nuisance. 

Second, Kimball's ordinance would violate RSA 159:26 where the legislature has reserved exclusive authority over firearms laws in the state.  To paraphrase, "all municipal ordinances relating to use of firearms shall be null and void."

Finally, the Londonderry taxpayers are not going to pony up the millions it costs to build an indoor shooting range. Jim McCloud of Manchester Firing Line, (Also an LFGC Club member) can attest to just how very expensive it is to build, operate and maintain an indoor range. Moreover, indoor shooting ranges are limited to handguns and certain few long guns. Hunting rifles and Muzzle loaders are generally used out of doors with terra-formed-berms.

Tom Kimball's ban on outdoor shooting in Londonderry enjoys no obvious support in the court of public opinion. Look at all the of 48 comments at the Union Leader online story. At the very least Tom could find a few fellow curmudgeons to help him along on his Quixotic journey. [insert] crickets chirping.

Council Chairman John Farrell in an e-mail response to me stated that he knows all the laws I cited in an e-mail to him about Kimball's ubiquitous and inane babbling. So if he knows, and is armed with the facts, then why is he undertaking this exercise in futility, entering onto Kimball's turf to hear the gun fire? He has to know that whether he agrees or disagrees with Kimball, there can be no measure that serves to curtail our operation. So again, why the bread and circus?

 Rick Olson is the current Londonderry Fish & Game Club President.

CROSS-POSTED AT GRANITE GROK

Idiots And Cowards Who Complain About Gun Ranges

"Once you're able to look like an idiot and be OK with it, it opens up your potential." —Nicole Sullivan

Irascible Cowards are idiots willing to  spew their opinion as if it means something, is always a great source of amusement to me. And sometimes they do so anonymously. Such is the case with this silly anonymous e-mail message I received yesterday morning.

Such e-mails are instructive in helping the reader observe the depths of ignorance to which some have succumbed, in spite of  any tone, word usage or voice which might suggest otherwise. The e-mail received is errant on two levels: factually and conceptually.  

An argument could be made this particular entry is a waste of time...a, "suffering of fools," if you will. I do think its necessary because tom-foolery like this is reaching epidemic proportions.  And if conversations with idiots are the order, then we need to present at least one intelligent side.

The mystery e-mailer refers to my previous entry, Anatomy Of Gun Range Neighbors, and she states,

"I am sending you this e-mail anonymously because, I do not want to be slandered and spoken ill of in your writings like the way you did to Janet Luongo."

slan·der/slander/ —Noun: "The action or crime of making a false spoken (my emphasis, here) statement damaging to a person's reputation." The problem is, I did not "speak" about Janet Luongo. I wrote about her. Did he or she mean to infer that I committed libel? 

li·bel/libel/  —Noun:  "A published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation; a written defamation." 

Libel  and Slander are "tortious actions at law." Publishing Luongo's publicly available  information....that is, information found in deeds and tax records, could hardly be characterized as positive or negative and is simply factual.

The fact pattern established in the writing was a) Janet Luongo stated she has a problem: The Range;  b) Luongo moved into her home (2009)  long after the range (1947) had originated; c) Her prior state residence would suggest a likely probability of Luongo's resistance  to shooting ranges and guns, given the adverse cultural, regulatory and legal environment toward guns and ranges, long-existing in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. When people line up to smear and denigrate shooting ranges, they people should have the courage to be accountable and not hide behind some less-obvious or hidden pretext, let alone withholding their names. Its one of the facets of citizenship. Next, the mystery e-mailer asserts,

"I would first like to say that it makes no difference how long people live at their homes [...] It makes no difference that the range was there first. Geography changes and that is what has happened here."

The fact is, it does make a difference. According to Peterborough Town Zoning maps, MRGC is zoned as Commercial-Industrial. "Public or Private Recreational Facilities," are a permited use, so the MRGC is a permitted use.

Second, we look within the, "Doctrine of Coming to a Nuisance." Character of the area predetermined. In In Gau v. Ley, 38 Ohio C.C. 235 (1916) "Even though the residential area was there first, the residents should have foreseen that the location was ideally suited for the nuisance." The character of the location was first determined by its' first use. In Mahlstadt v. City of Indianola, 251 Iowa 222, 100 N.W.2d 189 (1959) In that case, the court ruled, "There was nothing peculiar to the location making it particularly appropriate or inappropriate for housing or for a dump. Therefore the first activity determined the character of the location." The court held that the dump's "prior operation at that place should be given substantial weight in determining the character of the locality and the reasonableness or unreasonableness of operating it there." Therefore, It is reasonable to say, "who was there first" does have bearing on the club's  right to operate, irrespective of who moves in. The Doctrine of "Coming to a Nuisance" is clearly applicable here. The unnamed e-mail correspondent then opines.

"I am not opposed to guns. I grew up in a family where the men hunted and fished. But I fail to understand why in this day and age people own guns, with all the crime surrounding them. The right to bear arms in not an individual right, after all."

I always laugh when people assert, "I am not opposed to guns..." Yet, as the discussion drills down even further, that opposition is heard laced throughout the conversation. That is a liberal's way to remove the helmet before hitting one over the head with the proverbial lead pipe.

"The right to bear arms in not an 'individual' right'..." Really?  District of Columbia, et al. v. Dick Anthony Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) says otherwise. SCOTUS stated in that case, "the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's (my emphasis) right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes in federal enclaves, such as self-defense within the home. It was decided for the states in,  McDonald, et al. v. City of Chicago, Illinois, et al., 130 S. Ct. 3020 (2010).

But I get it. A prime example is Rowe v. Wade.  Liberals defend that case as valid precedent-setting law, yet Heller and McDonald are, invalid junk rulings, so they all say.  That hypocrisy lives on daily. The cowardly, unnamed e-mailer then quips,

"Our right to quiet enjoyment is being infringed by this organization. Quiet enjoyment, quality of life and peace are compelling public interests sought by the majority of people. Shooting guns is not."

First, a right to quiet enjoyment.  RSA 159-B:1, as discussed in my last article on this very issue, deals with quiet enjoyment regarding shooting ranges . (See also, Coming to a nuisance) While most will agree that, quality of life and peace are compelling public interests, the mystery e-mailer is wrong  because the Legislature has said that providing ranges are a compelling public interest. When the law was enacted in 2004, The general court identified this general purpose as sufficient reason to enact the statute.

"The General Court recognizes that maintaining safe shooting ranges within the state is essential to provide places for the training of law enforcement, safety programs for youth, competitive shooting, hunter's safety training, self defense training for private citizens, and safe affordable shooting environments. The general court encourages shooting range owners and operators to exhibit reasonableness in applying the provisions of this exemption."

—as cited in Sara Realty v. Country Pond. 

My friends who operate shooting ranges, please remember these things at town hall when these sycophants  blather on before the Select Boards about nuisance noise. Ranges have both the law, facts and precedents on thier side. That does not mean they won't call out the lawyers. It only means they are beginning from a position of absolute weakness.

CROSS-POSTED AT GRANITEGROK