Preserve owner, gun group take aim at...

Preserve owner, gun group take aim at Goochland proposal -- dai...

There are 16 comments on the Hampton Roads Daily Press story from Aug 11, 2007, titled Preserve owner, gun group take aim at Goochland proposal -- dai.... In it, Hampton Roads Daily Press reports that:

A proposal requiring Goochland County landowners to get a special permit for sport shooting faces opposition from a gun rights group.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Hampton Roads Daily Press.

Margaret in Maine

Grantham, NH

#1 Aug 12, 2007
The way we handle things like this in Maine is not to deny the use--just put in a strong noise ordinance and enforoce it. If the use is in conflict with the ordinance, it cannot occur. If the applicant can come up with a way to quiet the guns (silencers?), the use can occur.

“The past defines the future”

Since: Jul 07

Beijing, China

#2 Aug 12, 2007
Margaret in Maine wrote:
The way we handle things like this in Maine is not to deny the use--just put in a strong noise ordinance and enforoce it. If the use is in conflict with the ordinance, it cannot occur. If the applicant can come up with a way to quiet the guns (silencers?), the use can occur.
Legislate against freedom?

You know, I could understand if someone wanted to put an outdoor range in a thickly settled area, where the noise would have a definite impact.

But, rurally, or semi-rurally?
That's just out and out attempting to interfere in the lives of other people.

I've lived near an outdoor skeet range, and the only times the noise ever bothered me was when I happened to be outside and reading a book, but even then it was only background noise, and once I acclamated to it? You just tune it out.

But then? Some people complain about anything. Let them make noise, and it's just fine. But if you make a noise? Watch out!!

Since: Jun 07

Indiana

#3 Aug 12, 2007
Margaret in Maine wrote:
The way we handle things like this in Maine is not to deny the use--just put in a strong noise ordinance and enforoce it. If the use is in conflict with the ordinance, it cannot occur. If the applicant can come up with a way to quiet the guns (silencers?), the use can occur.
Suppressors (silencers), of course, are illegal. In fact, it is against federal law to attempt to silence a firearm in any way. So by banning "noise" you are underhandedly banning firearm use. What if a group of people decided to ban anything that emits noxious fumes? Then you wouldn't be able to drive. Would that be ok with you since they didn't ban driving directly?
Of course, using your method, people would not be able to practice with firearms because it is noisy. They would not be able to properly teach their children firearm safety, because it would be noisy. Firearm related accidents would rise as a result of this. I supposed then you'd be screaming to ban guns to fix the problem you created, right?
Notyouraveragere ader

United States

#4 Dec 18, 2007
How do you acclamate to the sound of 17,000 to 20,000 shots?

You lose part of your hearing?
getoverit

Virginia Beach, VA

#5 Dec 18, 2007
Notyouraveragereader wrote:
How do you acclamate to the sound of 17,000 to 20,000 shots?
You lose part of your hearing?
huh?...could you repeat that?...Didn't hear you!
Dave

United States

#6 Dec 18, 2007
The Bald Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
Suppressors (silencers), of course, are illegal. In fact, it is against federal law to attempt to silence a firearm in any way. So by banning "noise" you are underhandedly banning firearm use. What if a group of people decided to ban anything that emits noxious fumes? Then you wouldn't be able to drive. Would that be ok with you since they didn't ban driving directly?
Of course, using your method, people would not be able to practice with firearms because it is noisy. They would not be able to properly teach their children firearm safety, because it would be noisy. Firearm related accidents would rise as a result of this. I supposed then you'd be screaming to ban guns to fix the problem you created, right?
I beg to differ.

Silencers are legal for private ownership in the following states: AL, AR, AK, AZ, CO, CT, FL, GA, ID, IN, KY, LA, ME, MD, MS, MT, NE, NV, NH, NM, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, WA, WV, WI, and WY. Additionally, they may be owned by Class 3 dealers and Class 2 manufacturers (but not individuals) in: CA, IA, KS, MA, MO, and MI.

They are Class 2 weapons and require a $200 transfer fee, and the transfer must be approved prior to the sale.

Since: Jun 07

Indiana

#7 Dec 18, 2007
Dave wrote:
<quoted text>
I beg to differ.
Silencers are legal for private ownership in the following states: AL, AR, AK, AZ, CO, CT, FL, GA, ID, IN, KY, LA, ME, MD, MS, MT, NE, NV, NH, NM, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, WA, WV, WI, and WY. Additionally, they may be owned by Class 3 dealers and Class 2 manufacturers (but not individuals) in: CA, IA, KS, MA, MO, and MI.
They are Class 2 weapons and require a $200 transfer fee, and the transfer must be approved prior to the sale.
And how many people do YOU know of that go through all of the trouble of excessive background checks/obtaining tax stamps, etc just to own a supressor?
Fact is they ARE illegal unless one jumps through all the hoops (and there are several) which the government has put into place.
Dave

United States

#8 Dec 19, 2007
The Bald Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
And how many people do YOU know of that go through all of the trouble of excessive background checks/obtaining tax stamps, etc just to own a supressor?
Fact is they ARE illegal unless one jumps through all the hoops (and there are several) which the government has put into place.
"Illegal" and "illegal unless" are two entirely differant things. For a suppressor it is really just a $200 transfer fee and standard NCIS check.

Similar hoops exist for machine guns, but they are not illegal to own. Machine guns also have to be reported to the state police within 24 hrs. of acquistion.

They are, I grant you, quite expensive to own and operate. I know about a half dozen people who own sub guns and/or suppressors. They are a lot of fun to shoot but can eat up some ammo!

I just don't like things being called illegal regarding firearms when they aren't. Our rights need to be maintained and one way to do that is to know the rules and strive through legislation to simplify and standardize said rules to elimate confusion.

“American Sheepdog”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#9 Dec 19, 2007
Margaret in Maine wrote:
The way we handle things like this in Maine is not to deny the use--just put in a strong noise ordinance and enforoce it. If the use is in conflict with the ordinance, it cannot occur. If the applicant can come up with a way to quiet the guns (silencers?), the use can occur.
And that sounds exactly how the anti-gun people sneak anti-gun laws into our society. Call it a "noise ordinance" or a "no fumes" ordinance, or a "no projectile" ordinance. Anything to make it sound like gun ownership isn't targeted - just the other attributes of the gun, thus making the gun unusable.

“American Sheepdog”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#10 Dec 19, 2007
The Bald Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
Suppressors (silencers), of course, are illegal. In fact, it is against federal law to attempt to silence a firearm in any way. So by banning "noise" you are underhandedly banning firearm use. What if a group of people decided to ban anything that emits noxious fumes? Then you wouldn't be able to drive. Would that be ok with you since they didn't ban driving directly?
Of course, using your method, people would not be able to practice with firearms because it is noisy. They would not be able to properly teach their children firearm safety, because it would be noisy. Firearm related accidents would rise as a result of this. I supposed then you'd be screaming to ban guns to fix the problem you created, right?
Dang! You and I were thinking the exact same thing. I didn't see yours until after I posted mine (see above). All that good typing of mine - shot to hell! LOL!!

Since: Jun 07

Indiana

#11 Dec 20, 2007
Dave wrote:
<quoted text>
"Illegal" and "illegal unless" are two entirely differant things. For a suppressor it is really just a $200 transfer fee and standard NCIS check.
Similar hoops exist for machine guns, but they are not illegal to own. Machine guns also have to be reported to the state police within 24 hrs. of acquistion.
They are, I grant you, quite expensive to own and operate. I know about a half dozen people who own sub guns and/or suppressors. They are a lot of fun to shoot but can eat up some ammo!
I just don't like things being called illegal regarding firearms when they aren't. Our rights need to be maintained and one way to do that is to know the rules and strive through legislation to simplify and standardize said rules to elimate confusion.
If you feel rights should be maintained, then perhaps you should devote more energy towards that and less towards nitpicking those who also wish rights to be maintained. Further, the rules and regulations are unconstitutional and should not exist in the first place. So I'd have to disagree on the idea of making them standardized. They need to be done away with entirely.

Since: Jun 07

Indiana

#12 Dec 20, 2007
Trin Tragula wrote:
<quoted text>
Dang! You and I were thinking the exact same thing. I didn't see yours until after I posted mine (see above). All that good typing of mine - shot to hell! LOL!!
I do that all the time, so don't feel bad. It wasn't wasted, though. You just showed that I'm not the only one who thinks this way...
Dave

United States

#13 Dec 20, 2007
The Bald Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
If you feel rights should be maintained, then perhaps you should devote more energy towards that and less towards nitpicking those who also wish rights to be maintained. Further, the rules and regulations are unconstitutional and should not exist in the first place. So I'd have to disagree on the idea of making them standardized. They need to be done away with entirely.
I will be in Richmond this year, meeting with elected officials and lobbying, I hope you will be, too.

I did not intend to pik your nits.

I would love nothing more than for the Supreme Court to find for the 2nd Amendment this spring and rule all gun laws unconstitutional, but chances of that are pretty slim. You and I can
complain all day about the rules and regs, they are still the law until we get them changed.

Given that, having a standard, such as when Virginia passed pre-emption law, seems to be the next best path. It keeps every little podunk town from setting their own rules and I see that as good. Doing away with the restaurant concealed carry ban is better fought at the statehouse than a thousand little scrimmages around the state.

The 2nd Amendment is all the federal law we need, and may end up more than we want this spring.

matt

Portage, IN

#14 Jan 30, 2008
If someone could direct me to where you apply for the "tax stamp", I would appreciate it. I live in Indiana. I would like to read about it, even if I dont end up doing it. Which I am thinking about. email me at [email protected]

“American Sheepdog”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#15 Jan 30, 2008
matt wrote:
If someone could direct me to where you apply for the "tax stamp", I would appreciate it. I live in Indiana. I would like to read about it, even if I dont end up doing it. Which I am thinking about. email me at [email protected]
See a gun dealer
DOG

Lawrenceville, GA

#16 Mar 30, 2010
As far as the noise ordinance that is a great idea, but first you have to establish a suitable DB level!

So what DB level do you chose?

Should it be checked from a public street nearest to the range or from your property line?

Once regulated to an ordinance it will regulate all noise not just guns! Keep that in mind when you wish for something!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Dyke Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Does anyone in the Ruckersville area know of Bo... (Feb '10) Aug '16 Joe biden 5
Los mariachis in barbiursville (Jan '16) Aug '16 Concerned 6
Stanardsville Music Thread May '16 Musikologist 1
Drugs in barboursville topix (Jan '16) May '16 Grosse 3
Fire wood (Jan '16) Jan '16 joey 1
Who do you support for U.S. House in Virginia (... (Oct '10) May '12 blah 136
News Tichner to Serve Two Years for Earlysville Fata... (Sep '11) Sep '11 GREENE COUNTY 21

Dyke Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Dyke Mortgages