How to deal with neighbor who believes trees are adequate backstop

[mom45]

Okay...so the top of the photo is our woods...house not in the picture as I couldn't figure out how to delete the address from the screen shot and had to crop that out.

Left to right at the bottom along the north side of the road are two houses to the west of the guy doing the shooting. The farthest to the west is a house with 60 acres of woods around it. The second one has the pond and the house is to the left of the pond. The third one is the guy doing the shooting and the wooded area in between is part of our 90 acres. We extend from one county road to another with a half mile in between. I don't think his bullets are going to hit our house, though it is possible. I am more concerned about the possibility of being shot when in my woods or a neighbor being shot.

Here are a few pictures...one of the targets, one of the targets in relation to the fence and one of ONE of my trees that has been shot. I have trees several hundred yards in that have slugs in them. I'm thinking I need to take some spray paint out and mark each damaged tree and then take an overall shot to give the attorney an idea of just how many are there.

 

[DragonGunner]

I had a neighbor like this, beer drinking idiot that had his little kids set beer cans 1' away from the road and shoot at them...directly at the road. Contacted DNR and told him I was worried they would requchey off the ground an hit house across the road or even hit a car someday across the field. He said no law on backstops also, but he would be liable for any damage his bullets did. He talked with the idiot and no more gun fire, plus the beer cans he wouldn't pick up don't blow over to my yard anymore. I would see a lawyer in your case....money away from beer might make the idiot think.

I would think damage and reckless disregard for your property and LIFE.

 

[hornadylnl]

I agree. An ordinance shouldn't be necessary to avoid your neighbors bullets flying on your own property. I think if you're flinging yer **** on my property, yer trespassing.

If an ordinance protecting you from your neighbors bullets leaving his property and entering your property isn't necessary, what could possibly necessitate an ordinance?

 

[giovani]

If an ordinance protecting you from your neighbors bullets leaving his property and entering your property isn't necessary, what could possibly necessitate an ordinance?

I can hear their brains overheating hornady, baby steps man baby steps.

 

[hornadylnl]

I can hear their brains overheating hornady, baby steps man baby steps.

I'm not convinced that the op is a troll but I think its a possibility. This thread is making the case for the pro ordinance crowd in Zionsville. I'm just getting a kick out of all the tap dancing going on.

 

[IndyGunworks]

no ordinance should be needed. One should not have someone elses bullets landing on their property period. this reminds me of the squirrel hunting thread where some guys tried to make it sound OK that they were hunting smaller land as long as they were firing their guns UP.

 

[churchmouse]

no ordinance should be needed. One should not have someone elses bullets landing on their property period. this reminds me of the squirrel hunting thread where some guys tried to make it sound OK that they were hunting smaller land as long as they were firing their guns UP.

Anything to justify an activity........Anything.

 

[CathyInBlue]

A simple trespassing tort is all this situation needs. Local codes and ordinances are surplus to requirements.

 

[jamil]

If an ordinance protecting you from your neighbors bullets leaving his property and entering your property isn't necessary, what could possibly necessitate an ordinance?

Maybe it's my dyslexia, or maybe my poor brain is overheated, what with all the readin' to do in this here thread, but I don't get this bothsidesagainstthemiddle cynical doublespeak. Can you explain, hopefully without too much thread-jacking?

 

[mom45]

I am not a fan of ordinances and am not in favor of even suggesting regulating guns, but when the police tell you they cannot help deal with a situation as unsafe as this because they have no grounds to do anything...no law against what is being done even though lives are clearly being endangered, it is something worth looking into. I do not think an ordinance that regulates the safety of those around you is a bad thing. If requiring a backstop is a bad thing, please tell me why? They tell me that the shooter is responsible for where his bullet lands, but they have been shown slugs that have clearly left the shooters property...some a good distance from the line (100 yards or more) and tell me that it is just a tree. I said, what if that tree had been my head??? Or my husband being shot while sitting in his tree stand. Or the neighbors child or show horse? Or the other neighbors' grandchildren? I had no idea that there wasn't already some sort of law about backstops being required. Every responsible gun owner I have ever met has made sure there was an appropriate backstop when target shooting. This is a first for me...someone who thinks that their bullets that go through or miss their targets are 100% sure to hit a tree when it leaves their property because "there's a lot of them over there".

Again...appreciate the input and will contact the lawyer as soon as I am able to at least make contact with the dnr and sheriff to request the reports on file. I do feel she is going to want that documentation. I also will contact some local attorneys for their take on this situation as well.

 

[jamil]

no ordinance should be needed. One should not have someone elses bullets landing on their property period. this reminds me of the squirrel hunting thread where some guys tried to make it sound OK that they were hunting smaller land as long as they were firing their guns UP.

I thought this was essentially what I said. Apparently, given horn's post, I said something else.

 

[buford t justice]

This thread reminds me of a situation we had just outside of Colorado Springs a few years back where a land owner was caught shooting up his own trees to try and get a public shooting range shut down.

Not saying that is the situation here but.......

 

[jamil]

I am not a fan of ordinances and am not in favor of even suggesting regulating guns, but when the police tell you they cannot help deal with a situation as unsafe as this because they have no grounds to do anything...no law against what is being done even though lives are clearly being endangered, it is something worth looking into. I do not think an ordinance that regulates the safety of those around you is a bad thing. If requiring a backstop is a bad thing, please tell me why? They tell me that the shooter is responsible for where his bullet lands, but they have been shown slugs that have clearly left the shooters property...some a good distance from the line (100 yards or more) and tell me that it is just a tree. I said, what if that tree had been my head??? Or my husband being shot while sitting in his tree stand. Or the neighbors child or show horse? Or the other neighbors' grandchildren? I had no idea that there wasn't already some sort of law about backstops being required. Every responsible gun owner I have ever met has made sure there was an appropriate backstop when target shooting. This is a first for me...someone who thinks that their bullets that go through or miss their targets are 100% sure to hit a tree when it leaves their property because "there's a lot of them over there".

Again...appreciate the input and will contact the lawyer as soon as I am able to at least make contact with the dnr and sheriff to request the reports on file. I do feel she is going to want that documentation. I also will contact some local attorneys for their take on this situation as well.

Surely this could be resolved without an ordinance. Bullets are hitting and damaging your trees. The beer dude is liable for that. I dunno, maybe you can make him pay for your attorney fees as well. Maybe his mom-in-law will kick him out.

 

[hornadylnl]

Maybe it's my dyslexia, or maybe my poor brain is overheated, what with all the readin' to do in this here thread, but I don't get this bothsidesagainstthemiddle cynical doublespeak. Can you explain, hopefully without too much thread-jacking?

I thought this was essentially what I said. Apparently, given horn's post, I said something else.

I don't recall ever seeing the (in)ability to shoot on one's property being argued as a trespass issue. It's always been an issue of what the ordinances are for your area. Sounds like a property damage issue to me. Many localities have ordinances regarding the discharge of a firearm. Without an ordinance in your area, what is there to enforce? Sounds like the local leo's are telling her there is nothing they can do about it.

As to all the rules regarding backstops for the new proposed ranges in Westfield and Carmel. Do those rules fall under trespass laws or ordinance/code enforcement?

 

[Dead Duck]

try consulting with a lawyer. See what a lawyer says.

I would agree w/ filing a lawsuit. Just the initial letter from the lawyer along may be enough.

I would contact a lawyer and the prosecutor.

It is within your best interest to consult an attorney.

I'd listen to Kirk...

And yes. Listen to Kirk.

^^^^^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^^^^
listen to the lawyer, it's the best free advice you will get.

I'd go with this Kirk guy!

call an attorney.

Talk to an attorney about the way to stop this behavior.

go with this Kirk guy

Listen to Kirk. (That's my prescription)

Consult with an attorney...

I would be sure I had a well documented journal reviewed and approved by a lawyer.

Listen to Kirk, contact an attorney and let him/her handle this for you.
.

Get an attorney and let them do all the contacting.

get a lawyer

I agree get a local attorney

Wish I had some good advice, but other than what others have mentioned about following the proper legal channels, I've got nothing.

I see her only real option as forking over the cash to a lawyer

A simple trespassing tort is all this situation needs.

make him pay for your attorney fees as well.

I have nothing more to add.

 

[mom45]

This thread reminds me of a situation we had just outside of Colorado Springs a few years back where a land owner was caught shooting up his own trees to try and get a public shooting range shut down.

Not saying that is the situation here but.......

Obviously not the situation here since my husband was one with bullets whizzing past his head yesterday at the same time the other neighbor was hiding behind the tree waiting for them to stop whizzing past him so he could make a run for his house and I was driving down the highway fielding their calls. The shooting was still going on when the DNR arrived.

 

[mom45]

I don't recall ever seeing the (in)ability to shoot on one's property being argued as a trespass issue. It's always been an issue of what the ordinances are for your area. Sounds like a property damage issue to me. Many localities have ordinances regarding the discharge of a firearm. Without an ordinance in your area, what is there to enforce? Sounds like the local leo's are telling her there is nothing they can do about it.

As to all the rules regarding backstops for the new proposed ranges in Westfield and Carmel. Do those rules fall under trespass laws or ordinance/code enforcement?

There are rules in place with the state for ranges used by the public, but not for private ranges on the owner's land.

 

[hornadylnl]

I am not a fan of ordinances and am not in favor of even suggesting regulating guns, but when the police tell you they cannot help deal with a situation as unsafe as this because they have no grounds to do anything...no law against what is being done even though lives are clearly being endangered, it is something worth looking into. I do not think an ordinance that regulates the safety of those around you is a bad thing. If requiring a backstop is a bad thing, please tell me why? They tell me that the shooter is responsible for where his bullet lands, but they have been shown slugs that have clearly left the shooters property...some a good distance from the line (100 yards or more) and tell me that it is just a tree. I said, what if that tree had been my head??? Or my husband being shot while sitting in his tree stand. Or the neighbors child or show horse? Or the other neighbors' grandchildren? I had no idea that there wasn't already some sort of law about backstops being required. Every responsible gun owner I have ever met has made sure there was an appropriate backstop when target shooting. This is a first for me...someone who thinks that their bullets that go through or miss their targets are 100% sure to hit a tree when it leaves their property because "there's a lot of them over there".

Again...appreciate the input and will contact the lawyer as soon as I am able to at least make contact with the dnr and sheriff to request the reports on file. I do feel she is going to want that documentation. I also will contact some local attorneys for their take on this situation as well.

You're not going to find any support for ordinances here regarding the use of firearms because it's an activity that many here enjoy or participate in.

 

[Hop]

I'm thinking an INGO Tannerite storage shed building party is still in order. Right up behind his targets. Maybe H1 exploding targets... they make a bigger boom.

 

[mom45]

Dead Duck - Agree...lawyer time.