Stafford County Considering Changes to Air Gun, Archery Ordinance

The Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star reports that Stafford Board of Supervisors on Tuesday considered amendments to the part of the county code that deals with how pneumatic guns, firearms and arrows can be used, bringing the air gun ordinance in line with state law:

The amendments allow pneumatic guns to be shot outside of the county’s no-shooting zones. Under the changes, pneumatic guns including BB guns, paintball guns and pellet guns would be allowed at facilities approved for shooting ranges, properties where firearms can be shot and on private property with permission of the property owner as long as “reasonable care” is taken to prevent a projectile from crossing the property’s boundaries.

With the proposed changes, those under 16 wouldn’t be able to use pneumatic guns unless they are accompanied by an adult. Punishments for violators were relaxed under the proposed changes from a Class 2 misdemeanor to a Class 3 misdemeanor.

Currently, pneumatic guns can’t be used in no-shooting zones, on public streets and in public places.

One Supervisor questioned why 16 was chosen as the age that requires supervision by an adult.  County staff noted that the Code of Virginia references the restriction and Sheriff Charles Jett said his office doesn’t have any statistical data that indicates that an air gun is more dangerous in the hands of a 14-year-old versus a 16-year-old.

The proposed changes to the archery ordinance was similar to the air gun change.  Currently, the county allows arrows to be shot only by licensed hunters or at archery ranges. In line with state law related to shooting air guns, the proposed changes would allow property owners to have archery target practice on their land as long as the other properties aren’t impacted.  Supervisors voted to place the matter with a county committee.

Sussex Board of Supervisors Likely to Revisit Sunday Shooting Ban at June Meeting

The Sussex Surry Dispatch reported in its latest edition that the Sussex County Board of Supervisors will likely revisit the noise ordinance issue at it's June Meeting. If the Board permanently repeals the section related to target shooting on private property on Sunday, they must hold a public hearing. As of today, no such notice has been posted and the county has not posted the agenda for the June meeting. The Board has until July to act or the temporary repeal will expire and the original noise ordinance will again become effective.

Sussex County Board of Supervisors Effectively Ban Shooting on Private Property on Sundays

On April 17th, the Sussex County Board of Supervisors passed a new noise ordinance aimed at banning shooting on private property on Sundays.  The Sussex-Surry Dispatch has confirmed that Board Chairman Eric Fly will hold a meeting with gun owners on April 30th. 

NOISE ORDINANCE: A meeting between gun owners & Chairman Eric Fly scheduled for tomorrow evening. We will be there and have full coverage.
— Sussex-Surry Dspch. (@SSDispatch) April 29, 2014

The meeting will be held at the Sussex County Court House and will begin at 7 PM.  The part of the new ordinance affecting gun owners is:

New language added to the proposed new ordinance, covering using guns on Sunday, public to have input shortly. pic.twitter.com/V3AFoRxPJo
— Mike Campbell (@itsthesoup) April 17, 2014

This appears to be a direct attack at the new Sunday Hunting law passed this year by the Virginia General Assembly and in doing so stepped over the line by effectively banning all target shooting on private property, and almost assuredly killing any chances for new shooting ranges in the county.  Sussex has been a battleground for noise ordinances since 2009.  We finally put the issue to rest but now it appears opponents of Sunday hunting have reopened the issue.  If you live in Sussex County, please plan on attending the meeting tomorrow night.  If you can't attend, you can email the Chairman of the Board, Eric Fly, at seamcorp@gmail.com or call at 757-647-8190.

The Importance of Range Protection Laws

Bitter writes on the topic at Shall Not Be Questioned.  We've seen similar situations in Virginia and have written about them here, and here .  Virginia continues to see a migration of people from more populated areas into our rural localities.  Many times, these people complain about shooting ranges near the areas they live, or about neighbors shooting on their own property.  in 2004 former Delegate Bill Janis, at VSSA's request, introduced and worked for passage of a bill that prohibits localities from changing noise ordinances after a range has been approved or a prospective range submits an application.  Unfortunately, many localities try to make prospective ranges go through expensive and onerous processes to open their doors.  When people can't force a range to close it's doors through legislative processes, they will try to bankrupt them in court.  VSSA watches this very closely but it's important that our members let us know when they hear of a local governing board considering shooting restrictions.

Loudoun Approves Shooting Ordinance

A couple weeks ago I posted that Loudoun County was scheduled to act on a shooting ordinance related to allowing the shooting of clay targets in the eastern part of Loudoun County.  The Board met this past Wednesday and approved the ordinance.  A VSSA member in the area also reported that the Board also voted to extend managed deer hunts to county residents in county parks.  Please contact the members of the Board and thank them for supporting these measures.

Loudoun May Consider Shooting Restrictions in the Future

It was supposed to be a public hearing on allowing the shooting of clay targets in the eastern part of Loudoun County where hunting is currently banned, but it quickly turned into a gripe session from people residing in the western portion of the county where residents not only can hunt, but can also shoot on their private property if they are not within 100 yards of an occupied building, within 50 yards of a highway and 100 yards of a park or school.  Leesburg Today reports:

“I would like less shooting in Loudoun County not more,” Purcellville area resident Kathleen O’Neill said, adding that she and her neighbors hear shooting seven days a week. “We residents of western Loudoun routinely listen to the discharging of firearms on Sunday. It’s morning, noon and night. It is time we change our laws to limit discharge of firearms in Loudoun.”

Comments like these are what we have been hearing in more rural counties as former urban and surburban residents move to the country to either retire or to get away from the noise and traffic the city.  It's almost as if these people had no idea that people in rural areas like to shoot on their private property.

If you live in western Loudoun you need to let your supervisors know you do not want additional restrictions on your right to target shoot on your private property. You should also contact them and let them know you support allowing clay target shooting in eastern Loudoun.  The Board is scheduled take action on the skeet shooting change for the east March 6.

You can find the contact information for the Board of Supervisors here.

Thanks to VSSA member Dave S. for passing this story along.

Opposition to Orapax Sporting Clays Range Went Well Beyond That Application

On Wednesday, January 2, after a marathon Goochland Board of Supervisors public hearing, the Board approved at around 2:00 AM, a two-year Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for Orapax Hunting Preserve to operate a sporting clays range.  This was a multiple year battle that does not bode well for other areas of Virginia because this was not just opposition to the Orapax application, as evidenced from this web site set up for opponents of the range, it was opposition to any commercial shooting range in Goochland.

Please encourage anyone opposed to commercial gun ranges in Goochland to come. It is important that we expand our campaign by inviting people from other districts. If the Board of Supervisors were to approve a sporting clays range at Orapax, a precedent would be set. The problem could quickly spread to other Goochland neighborhoods.

The group even hired an attorney to represent them before the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors.  A wealthy resident who had long opposed the range made this a well financed effort.  Had they been successful, this model would have spread to other areas, and still may be used to oppose new shooting ranges.

Page County Gun Owners Beware

Last Tuesday, November 20th, the Page County Board of Supervisors held a public hearing to consider a proposed noise ordinance which would repeal and replace current law, "Chapter 81, Noise", in its entirety.

The Board is considering the change in light of a ruling of the Virginia Supreme Court regarding the constitutionality and enforceability of noise ordinances. Included in the proposal are the various types of noise that localities try to regulate and the proposal contains an exemption for "formal or informal sport shooting," but would not allow for the discharge of "automatic weapons," or “other like types of firearms and weaponry.”

(d) The provisions of this chapter shall not apply to formal or informal sport shooting. The operation or use of a sport shooting range by any person shall not be the subject of a violation of this chapter, provided that the sport shooting range is operated pursuant to the provisions of special use or conditional use permit. Formal or informal sport shooting does not include the discharge of automatic weapons, grenades, cannons (whether powder-fired, carbide or compressed gas) or other like types of firearms and weaponry, including weapons requiring registration pursuant to Section 18.2-295, Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, or as defined in 26 U.S.C. 5845(b) or (f).

The Board did not vote on the proposed noise ordinance.  They did however give direction to staff to review the County’s nuisance ordinance and suggested they would be open to amending it to include a noise provision. Page County gun owners should contact their supervisors and inform them that state law governs noise restrictions on shooting ranges and that it expressly forbids localities from changing the noise ordinance after a range has been approved or an application has been filed, regardless of the type of firearms used. 

VSSA will continue to monitor the process and alert members when necessary.

Goochland Planning Commission Defers Decision on Orapax

A crowd of over 100 packed three rooms last night for the public hearing on Orapax Hunting Preserve's application to open a sporting clay range on their nearly 700 acre property.  Proponents and opponents told the commission why Orapax should and should not be allowed to open a sporting clays range on their property with most of the opponents sighting reduced enjoyment of their property due to noise from the range.  One opponent sighted the fact that her husband suffers from severe PTSD and that the increased shooter would negatively affect his condition.  the closest neighbor is a mile from Orapax.

In the end, the planning commission deferred their decision and asked that a noise test be administered on the Orapax property. After receiving the test results, they will make a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors, who will make the final decision.

Continue to contact the planning commission with your support for the Orapax Sporting Clays Range. You can find the contact information by clicking here.

Goochland Planning Commission to Decide Orapax Sporting Clays Range Request

Orapax Hunting Preserve has applied to the Goochland Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to build a sporting clays range on their 700 acre property in the county. A public hearing will be held on Thursday, September 20, at 7:00 PM.  Orapax needs the help of gun owners to get approval.

Some of the owner's neighbors, the closest of which is a mile away from the property, oppose the request.  This isn't the first time that owner Andrew Dykers has dealt with opposition to his running a sporting clays range on his private property.  In 2007, Goochland passed an ordinance requiring a special permit to run a range on private property.

Mr. Dykers ran a shooting range alongside his hunting preserve from 1989 to 1991. When neighbors complained about the noise, county officials informed him that he had to apply for a conditional-use permit for the business. He applied for one and was denied, forcing him to shutter the operation.  Some of Dykers neighbors told WTVR 6 this week that they feel the sporting clays range would "disrupt their comfort and hurt property values."

If you live in Goochland and can't make the meeting, please contact the planning commission members and express your support for the application.

Planning Commission Members

District 1:

James P. Atkinson 5051 Shannon Hill Road Kents Store, VA 23084 atkinson5150@aol.com

Phone: (804) 457-9239 (h)

Term Expires: 3/2013

District 2:

Ty Querry 2904 Stone Creek Drive Sandy Hook, VA 23153 TQuerry@s3integration.com

Phone:  (804) 241-0912

Term Expires: 3/2013

District 3:

Derek Murray1835 Longbranch Drive Maidens, VA 23102 derekmurray1@yahoo.com

Phone:  (804) 556-5537 (h)

Term Expires:  3/2014

District 4:

Joe Andrews534 Broad Street Road Manakin-Sabot, VA 23103 Andrews804@aol.com

Phone:  (804) 784-1937 (h)

Term Expires:  3/2014

District 5:

Courtney Hyers 1263 Flat Rock Crossing Manakin Sabot, VA 23103 cghyers24@comcast.net

Phone: (804) 784-2955 (h)

Term Expires: 3/2013

At Large:

Matt Brewer 4825 Twin Lake Drive Goochland, VA 23063 md.brewery@gmail.com	Phone: (804) 307-2739 (c)	Term Expires: 3/2014
Tom Rockecharlie558 Woodson Court Manakin Sabot, VA 23103 medsab@aol.com	Phone:  (804) 784-3317 (h)	Term Expires:  3/2014

Spotsylvania to Consider Shooting Ordinance Change

From the Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star:

The Board of Supervisors is considering amending the county ordinance to state that discharging guns in subdivisions is illegal only on lots of one acre or less.

Some think the proposed law is too strict, and others believe it may be too lax.

Residents currently face misdemeanor charges if they discharge firearms in any subdivision, regardless of how many acres their lots are.  Additionally, the current ordinance is vague as it does not specifically state what constitutes a subdivision as neighboring Stafford County does.  Stafford's ordinance notes specifically where it is illegal to discharge a firearm in the county.
According to the Free Lance-Star,  Supervisors have been discussing the law privately since March.  The Board plans to hold a public hearing in the near future.  VSSA will notify members when the meeting is public hearing notice and the proposal are published.

James City County Approves Gun Ordinance Changes

The James City County supervisors voted 3-2 to approve changes to the county’s firearm ordinance. According to the Williamsburg Yorktown Daily, the changes clarify the definition of a subdivision.

It specifies property that is divided into two or more lots after August 31, 1964; that has a recorded plat; and that has lots created for residential or commercial purposes. The changes also add an option that make getting an exception from the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries easier than it is currently and update a part of the ordinance on pneumatic guns to bring it into line with state code. The board approved the changes, with supervisors Jim Kennedy and Bruce Goodson dissenting.

Goodson said he believed the proposal was a solution looking for a problem instead of a real problem that needs to be addressed and that was why he could not support it.

County staff explained that residents can currently discharge weapons anywhere in the county to protect property or life, or to shoot dangerous animals such as coyotes.  In addition, the county pointed out that citizens can currently get an exception to hunt from DGIF through a permit.  The hange will allow citizens to apply for a DGIF wildlife management plan, which is a somewhat simpler process.  The DGIF change would allow more people to hunt on their land with smaller acreage, compared to offering a large-acre exception, according to staff.  Additionally, wildlife plans would have to be approved by the Chief of Police, who can control variables such as what types of guns are used to execute the plan, or when the plan can occur. The Chief can also choose to deny a plan, but a police spokesman on hand could not recall a time when a plan had been rejected.

Results of July 11, Sussex County Planning Commission Meeting

Not unexpectedly, the Sussex County Planning Commission approved regulations that would restrict the opening of new shooting ranges in Sussex County.  Existing ranges would be grandfathered but if those ranges decide to make expand or make changes, you can bet the grandfathering goes out the window.  There was no public input on the proposed ordinance because the commission took it up under old business.  The proposal now moves to the Board of Supervisors.  This is been the firewall for gun owners in the past and we need to let board members know that we would like to see this defeated once and for all.  While many of the restrictions that were previously proposed have been removed, here is what remains:

* A CPR specialist must be present when the range is in use.
* An industrial grade first aid kit mustl be maintained on site.
* A minimum liability insurance policy of $100,000 per individual and $500,000 for each occurrence.
* A zoning permit will be required before operating a range and a mountain of bureaucratic red tape to apply.
* A "licensed civil engineer" must design and construct the range in addition to numerous plans and documentation to be filed with the Planning Department.
* Signs must be placed at 100 feet intervals along the range's boundary with the words "Firing Range" and "Do Not Enter" on each sign.
* The range must be at least 500 feet from the highway and any property line.
* Any buildings on the range must be at least 300 feet from any highway right-of-way and any property line.

VSSA will alert gun owners when the proposal makes it to the Board of Supervisors.

City of Salem Postpones Vote to Comply With New Airgun Law

The Salem City Council tabled a vote on bringing the City's airgun ordinance in line with a new state law that became effective July 1st. They opted instead to draft a letter of complaint to the General Assembly. The City of Roanoke chose a similar course last month.

m.roanoke.com-Salem City Council tables revision of air gun code

Seems the council members don't like state legislators treading on territory council members believe they alone should control.

It's bad when a mostly urban Fairfax County can bring their ordinance in line with state law (albeit reluctantly) and a mostly rural city like Salem or Roanoke act like spoiled children and send letters of complaint to state law makers.