-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
LaPorte County Proposed ordinance
- Thread starter Gabriel
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
1 acre square is roughly 208.7 by 208.7 feet.
Assume a property is 9 acres square (625' by 625' square), assume a house sits anywhere on that property. There is no single spot on that 9 acres where you could fire a gun.
Assume the property is an 10 acre rectangle; 2 acres wide by 5 acres deep. If the house sits in the front corner of the property close to the road, you could shoot a gun in the opposing back corner of the property ... assuming that no neighbor has a home within 1000' feet of that spot.
Assume a property is 9 acres square (625' by 625' square), assume a house sits anywhere on that property. There is no single spot on that 9 acres where you could fire a gun.
Assume the property is an 10 acre rectangle; 2 acres wide by 5 acres deep. If the house sits in the front corner of the property close to the road, you could shoot a gun in the opposing back corner of the property ... assuming that no neighbor has a home within 1000' feet of that spot.
There is actually a chapter in Title 14 of the Indiana Code regulating "shooting ranges," which are also defined. Link is here. This section appears to be on point (bearing in mind that I, too, am not an expert in either DNR or municipal law):
IC 14-22-31.5-5 Local government regulation
Sec. 5. Except as specifically prohibited by this chapter and subject to IC 35-47-11.1, a local unit of government may regulate the location, use, operation, safety, and construction of a shooting range.
IC 14-22-31.5-7 grandfathers, for the most part, ranges in existence prior to July 1, 1996.
IC 14-22-31.5-5 Local government regulation
Sec. 5. Except as specifically prohibited by this chapter and subject to IC 35-47-11.1, a local unit of government may regulate the location, use, operation, safety, and construction of a shooting range.
IC 14-22-31.5-7 grandfathers, for the most part, ranges in existence prior to July 1, 1996.
Sorry I missed this until now. This is not legal advice, but observations based on some familiarity with local governments and firearms laws.
1) The pre-emption law still allows localities (political subdivisions) to regulate zoning. So, they can decide where ranges can go. Other caselaw suggests that they can't "allow" ranges as a use, but then not have anywhere zoned to actually allow them.
2) A "private" range probably isn't a thing, unless there's a VERY pro-2A zoning ordinance involved. There may be an argument that a range on one's own property was a prior non-conforming use, and get grandfathered that way, but given the public safety aspects, that seems unlikely.
3) This is the tricky part. The pre-emption statute deals in clear absolutes. One thing it omits is whether political subdivisions can regulate the "firing" of weapons. Now, at a common sense level, it is REALLY difficult to fire a firearm without possessing it. (Lookin' at you, Kirk.) So, we all think that they can't regulate it. But, I know there are many (maybe even most) cities in Indiana that have ordinances seeking to prevent people from shooting their guns within the boundaries of the political subdivision. I don't know that its been tested in court, but my gut tells me that kind of regulation will be upheld on public safety grounds.
To the OP - if you can get an organization together, it will help. A hundred individuals might feel nice, but put those individuals under an organization and you've got something. Also, seek out a 2A friendly attorney familiar with the local politics. They can help you navigate the procedural issues.
1) The pre-emption law still allows localities (political subdivisions) to regulate zoning. So, they can decide where ranges can go. Other caselaw suggests that they can't "allow" ranges as a use, but then not have anywhere zoned to actually allow them.
2) A "private" range probably isn't a thing, unless there's a VERY pro-2A zoning ordinance involved. There may be an argument that a range on one's own property was a prior non-conforming use, and get grandfathered that way, but given the public safety aspects, that seems unlikely.
3) This is the tricky part. The pre-emption statute deals in clear absolutes. One thing it omits is whether political subdivisions can regulate the "firing" of weapons. Now, at a common sense level, it is REALLY difficult to fire a firearm without possessing it. (Lookin' at you, Kirk.) So, we all think that they can't regulate it. But, I know there are many (maybe even most) cities in Indiana that have ordinances seeking to prevent people from shooting their guns within the boundaries of the political subdivision. I don't know that its been tested in court, but my gut tells me that kind of regulation will be upheld on public safety grounds.
To the OP - if you can get an organization together, it will help. A hundred individuals might feel nice, but put those individuals under an organization and you've got something. Also, seek out a 2A friendly attorney familiar with the local politics. They can help you navigate the procedural issues.
But is recreational shooting in your back yard protected. I suggest not. That clause with the date will eliminate most ranges on residential property. Especially the continuation clause. So inherit grandpas property with an unused range and it that unused range is no longer a range.
I don't know that it would be quite that regulated, but I sense informal shooting at your own home would not be considered a "shooting range" under the statute.
[edit]
Well, I could always make an argument. Maybe, just maybe...
Yeah, but look at -5. Specifically says local government can regulate ranges under zoning laws. Usually, a "range" is a permitted use under certain zoning classifications, most often commercial. Some older ordinances include them with penny arcades. And pool halls.
Again, not my area, but it seems to me that unless you had an "area designed and operated" as a range AND the range was in operation prior to July 1, 1996 then it could be regulated. I suspect that some level of improvement, such as a dedicated backstop, would have to have been created. I'm not sure that merely designating your back 40 and shooting there would, by itself, get it.
It really appears that they will have to fight this through the political process, and I have no sense of the political climate there.
I think this is definitely the best advice:
Gun owners here made their voice heard early. I just got this sent to me by numerous people as it was posted on the Laporte County Republicans Facebook page...
County Commissioners Mike Gonder & Rich Mrozinski support the rights of gun owners, hunters and farmers in La Porte County. “As a gun owner myself I wanted to speak for the Republican Commissioners to say that we will not advance additional local restrictions on the gun rights enshrined in the second amendment of our constitution. The ordinance concerning guns previously listed on our agenda will not be considered."
- Commission Vice President Mike Gonder
County Commissioners Mike Gonder & Rich Mrozinski support the rights of gun owners, hunters and farmers in La Porte County. “As a gun owner myself I wanted to speak for the Republican Commissioners to say that we will not advance additional local restrictions on the gun rights enshrined in the second amendment of our constitution. The ordinance concerning guns previously listed on our agenda will not be considered."
- Commission Vice President Mike Gonder
Well that is good news Gabriel!
having had some involvement in the past with "shooting ranges" and zoning I can share that muddy water is the best description. At the local level it really just depends on who the neighbors are and who knows who. The attorneys down here basically distinguished between property open to the public vs private use. Trying to control private use of property was not someplace anyone wanted to go. But zoning most certainly affects property available for public use.
having had some involvement in the past with "shooting ranges" and zoning I can share that muddy water is the best description. At the local level it really just depends on who the neighbors are and who knows who. The attorneys down here basically distinguished between property open to the public vs private use. Trying to control private use of property was not someplace anyone wanted to go. But zoning most certainly affects property available for public use.
Wife and I wont be able to make it so we emailed all 3 and told them we are against it. I heard from one of the Laporte city council folk that 2 of them are against it, and that it was a subdivision near me. I think the people got sacred of the noises from those of us within a mile who own land and shoot on our property within reason and take into effect noise pollution.
Yeah, Kora was for it. From what I heard (I still haven't seen the proposed ordinance), the affected people would have been anyone with their property zoned as R2. If you read what R2 is, though, is very vague. It could lead to rezoning at some point to weed out any shooting in the county.
"Noise Pollution" is vague at best. I think the trains are noisy so they should stop. Jake brakes disturb me. No mowing before 8am. Wait I work thirds. Noise, Noise, Noise. I shouldn't be inconvienced or disturbed.
Personally I feel private property is just just what it says. That does not mean I am against zoning or ordinances. Planning and Zoning are not necessarily bad and can or should serve a public good. But on private, non commercial, non public property a person should be allowed to do what they want so long as it isn't illegal or hurting other people. Pollution hurts other people but if Noise/sound is below a certain level it is not hurting anyone. Now if the aurguement is that bullets are leaving the range or noise is excessive and potentially harmful then by all means shut it down. But you don't need 1000 feet separation to achieve those goals.
Jake brakes are also on the agenda.
I saw that. I'm not a truck driver so can't comment on Jake Brakes. But I have to assume that just because they are loud and annoying doesn't mean they are damaging my hearing. I will leave it up to those driving the trucks to decide if they need to flip that switch.
Prometheus
Master
"Overwhelming opposition" would be an understatement.
That said, people should still show up tomorrow night in solidarity for this being removed from the agenda.
Site Supporter
Members online
- Gaffer
- Colt556
- cbhausen
- Ingomike
- sapthol
- Squid556
- SnoopLoggyDog
- steveIU
- Bigdog357
- thunderchicken
- Creedmoor
- Glock Fan
- ar15junkie
- ditcherman
- BR8818
- shadow64
- indyblue
- Vanguard.45
- EMS99
- Jowl1
- torque_and_recoil
- Lumpy76
- Merk
- CornKing50
- BehindBlueI's
- Goodcat
- Kaden1
- Bosshoss
- Emerson Dambiggins
- Wanderer
- Charlie3p0
- redryder
- jocro
- HoosierHunter07
- crookcountygo
- pokersamurai
- cakndsn
- Popeye Thee Sailor
- Twade94
- mcoppers
- peterock
- Bluehazemay
- TriggerOutdoor
- 700 LTR 223
- Twinsen
