Bedford shooting range gets final app...

Bedford shooting range gets final approval

There are 5 comments on the WSLS-TV Roanoke story from Dec 13, 2011, titled Bedford shooting range gets final approval. In it, WSLS-TV Roanoke reports that:

After more than a year of regulatory scrutiny, a Forest man now has the go ahead from Bedford County to fire away once again on his shooting range.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at WSLS-TV Roanoke.

The Gun Guy

Red Lion, PA

#1 Dec 13, 2011
Sadly, the Bedford County Board of Supervisors added some restrictions to the range use. Only certain caliber firearms may be used. A "flag" must be flown while the range is in use. The range is not open to the public; it is a private training facility. The facility is mainly for tactical training of law enforcement and not as a commercial range. Despite the fact the range had been in operation for 40 years, the Bedford County PLANNING Commission remains steadfast that the facility remain closed despite the go-ahead from the County Board of Supervisors. The range had operated since the early 1980s but use was halted last year when the county informed Hooper (the owner) it violated the zoning ordinance after receiving an anonymous complaint. This illustrates one of the problems of our "politically correct" society: although guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution to confront one's accuser, an unknown party makes a complaint (of dubious validity) and the rights of shooters are trampled. Yes, I'm aware the U.S. Constitution relates to a criminal charge, but, I believe the concept is the same. This "anonymous" complainant was not required to demonstrate the validity of their claims concerning the safety and noise hazards from use of the facility. Rather, it became the burden of the owner to convince the now-aroused "boards" of the falseness of the claim. We are truly permitting our freedoms to be eroded by an army of "do-gooders" who claim the power to "know what is best for us" as we fools are assumed to be unable to make such decisions for ourselves.

“Tu ne cede malis”

Since: Dec 06

Lots of different places

#2 Dec 13, 2011
The Gun Guy wrote:
Sadly, the Bedford County Board of Supervisors added some restrictions to the range use. Only certain caliber firearms may be used. A "flag" must be flown while the range is in use. The range is not open to the public; it is a private training facility. The facility is mainly for tactical training of law enforcement and not as a commercial range. Despite the fact the range had been in operation for 40 years, the Bedford County PLANNING Commission remains steadfast that the facility remain closed despite the go-ahead from the County Board of Supervisors. The range had operated since the early 1980s but use was halted last year when the county informed Hooper (the owner) it violated the zoning ordinance after receiving an anonymous complaint. This illustrates one of the problems of our "politically correct" society: although guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution to confront one's accuser, an unknown party makes a complaint (of dubious validity) and the rights of shooters are trampled. Yes, I'm aware the U.S. Constitution relates to a criminal charge, but, I believe the concept is the same. This "anonymous" complainant was not required to demonstrate the validity of their claims concerning the safety and noise hazards from use of the facility. Rather, it became the burden of the owner to convince the now-aroused "boards" of the falseness of the claim. We are truly permitting our freedoms to be eroded by an army of "do-gooders" who claim the power to "know what is best for us" as we fools are assumed to be unable to make such decisions for ourselves.
A good lawyer would rake that coterie of fools over the coals.
.
Tell you what: WHY NOT use the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and demand a copy of ALL communications pertinent to the matter?
.
Such communications would HAVE TO include the 'complainant's' name as well as all of those whom received that complaint.
.
Additionally, the objections would easily be overturned in court in light of the fact of the range's prior existence for such an extended period of time. WHERE were the prior complaints? Were ~any~ ever lodged priorly?
.
Don't take this as a 'defeat.' Rather, take it us as a CHALLENGE to be mounted, AND surmounted!
.
The Gun Guy

Red Lion, PA

#3 Dec 16, 2011
Highlander wrote:
"Additionally, the objections would easily be overturned in court in light of the fact of the range's prior existence for such an extended period of time."

Sadly, you're incorrect on this point. I have seen several "shooting ranges" in many states eradicated after a builder comes in and creates a nearby subdivision. All it takes, then, is a complaint about "noise," or (especially) "safety" and the range which has existed in some rural area for generations is forced to close. I know of a range in Maryland (Stoney Creek Fishing & Hunting Club, one of the highest-dues ranges in the state) that was forced to spend HUGE sums to "improve safety" after a farmer sold nearby land to a developer for home construction. Bulldozers were brought in to enhance berms, firing positions were covered to prevent stray bullets from exiting the area. Thousands of dollars were spent. For the moment, they are surviving, but, one of the largest clubs in the state came very close to being shut down after being in existence for almost a century. My question is why there is no requirement for a wannabe developer to restrict his building efforts to an area where an existing club is not threatened. Of course, the answer is obvious; money. The local government sees the dollar signs from all the tax revenue collected from the "new" homeowners compared to the paltry fees collected from the gun club. Guess who wins? This situation is not confined to localities, but to states and the feds as well. The EPA is now attempting to regulate DUST! The DNR will financially ruin a family where a part-time puddle is construed as a "wetland." While the holding of "property" is truly evidence of freedom, was it Connecticut where, recently, the US Supreme Court said a locality did not violate the Constitution by seizing homes and permitting the building of a SHOPPING CENTER on the site which would, of course, generate higher tax revenue? Ahh, Hell! Don't get me started.

“Tu ne cede malis”

Since: Dec 06

Lots of different places

#4 Dec 16, 2011
The Gun Guy wrote:
Highlander wrote:
"Additionally, the objections would easily be overturned in court in light of the fact of the range's prior existence for such an extended period of time."
Sadly, you're incorrect on this point. I have seen several "shooting ranges" in many states eradicated after a builder comes in and creates a nearby subdivision. All it takes, then, is a complaint about "noise," or (especially) "safety" and the range which has existed in some rural area for generations is forced to close. I know of a range in Maryland (Stoney Creek Fishing & Hunting Club, one of the highest-dues ranges in the state) that was forced to spend HUGE sums to "improve safety" after a farmer sold nearby land to a developer for home construction. Bulldozers were brought in to enhance berms, firing positions were covered to prevent stray bullets from exiting the area. Thousands of dollars were spent. For the moment, they are surviving, but, one of the largest clubs in the state came very close to being shut down after being in existence for almost a century. My question is why there is no requirement for a wannabe developer to restrict his building efforts to an area where an existing club is not threatened. Of course, the answer is obvious; money. The local government sees the dollar signs from all the tax revenue collected from the "new" homeowners compared to the paltry fees collected from the gun club. Guess who wins? This situation is not confined to localities, but to states and the feds as well. The EPA is now attempting to regulate DUST! The DNR will financially ruin a family where a part-time puddle is construed as a "wetland." While the holding of "property" is truly evidence of freedom, was it Connecticut where, recently, the US Supreme Court said a locality did not violate the Constitution by seizing homes and permitting the building of a SHOPPING CENTER on the site which would, of course, generate higher tax revenue? Ahh, Hell! Don't get me started.
You're not addressing the range under discussion.
.
Trying concentrating on THAT range and not some other.

“The opposite of Progress ”

Since: Nov 08

is Congress

#5 Dec 23, 2011
The only reason I can see for caliber restriction is the quality of the backstop.

A flag? It's a firing range, why would you not think people could be firing a gun there? Assume there is unless you personally look and see nobody is.

I have no pity for people who buy property near a firing range and complain about the noise. No different than buying near an airfield and complaining about jet noise (like we get over here).

Innocent until proven guilty should be the norm, not the exception.

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.

Forest Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
christians helped elect the ANTICHRIST (Jun '17) May 8 KeepyoureyesonJesus 8
Lazy white people (Aug '13) May 3 bulk 42
Hello. (Sep '14) Apr '18 Curious 5
For profit universities target the creative men... Mar '18 Zombie Hunterz 1
History of Coleman Falls (Dec '08) Mar '18 g smith 5
White woman lookin for black man (Apr '13) Feb '18 Dougs75 45
What happened to the Blair Products Company Fro... (May '07) Jan '18 Janice52 262

Forest Jobs

Personal Finance

Forest Mortgages