case law supporting game law does not apply to target shooting

[PA-Joe]

The 150 yd safety zone only applies to hunting. The Digest use to have something in there about shooting ranges at camps and the only requirement was for a good backstop. I couldn't find that write up in the current Digest.

[Bang]

If I recall correctly, there was something about no camp target practice during deer season.

[Steve in PA]

If I recall correctly, there was something about no camp target practice during deer season.

Not quite;

§ 2507. Restrictions on shooting.
(a) General rule.--It is unlawful for any person during the open season for the taking of any big game other than turkey to:
(1) Shoot at any mark or target other than legal game or wildlife with a firearm of any kind or a bow and arrow.
(2) Discharge at any time any firearm or release an arrow at random in the general direction of any game or wildlife not plainly visible for the purpose of routing or frightening them.
(3) Discharge at any time any firearm or release an arrow at random or in any other manner contrary to this section.
(b) Exceptions.--This section shall not be construed to apply in any manner to:
(4) Shooting at a properly constructed target or mark or a dead tree protected by a natural or artificial barrier so that the ball, bullet or arrow cannot travel more than 15 yards beyond the target
aimed at, after making due allowance for deflection in any direction not to exceed an angle of 45 degrees. Target shooting shall only be lawful when it is done:
(i) Upon property owned by the shooter or by a guest of the property owner.
(ii) Within 200 yards of the camp or other headquarters where the person shooting is quartered or is an invited guest or visitor.

[chrisjp]

ok.. my first link is a reference to vs new britian.. we all have discussed in many threads that game law does not apply to target shooting.. i want case law verifying game law does not apply to target shooting and what links you have to blogs or actual court cases that state (i know they exist) as such with good reference material. so all can have this in had when accosted by OEO (opinion enforcement officer)

[PA-Joe]

In some cases you may want to refer to the game codes since municipalities cannot write laws that contradict the game code.

[jim-analog]

Greetings,

Chris, I've looked into this some years ago and had not found anything further than already noted in the thread. I suspect that is due to the fact that laws state things that as not allowed as opposed to stating what is allowed. So, chances are there is no section that says; " this action is ok"; only "this action is NOT ok". The only criteria I'd ever found mentions, but did not (as far as I recall) specify in any detail a "back stop". Good luck with your situation; if I can find anything of use, I'll post it.

Regards, Jim

[chriss044]

I am past President and currently Chief Safety Officer of the Lewistown Pistol Club in central Pa. We are currently in litigation with our neighbor. This litigation is result of our lane to the club encroaching over the property line. We have adversely possessed this lane for over 60 years and have had to defend that since 2010.

This brings me to the matter at hand, when this litigation started, we were being sued not just for the property line dispute but also for discharging firearms within the 150 yard safety zone. The Plaintiff (the neighbor) cited the opinion of the Superior Court in the matter of Pacurariu v. Commonwealth, Penna. Game Comm’n, 744 A.2d 389 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999). In the opinion of the court one of the judges opined that they would have liked to hear this argument concerning safety zone (they didn't because they overturned the lower court ruling on other issues raised prior to hearing argument on the safety zone issue). This is what the neighbor hung their hat on when they sued us.

Our case was dismissed in it entirety at the lower court level. The neighbor appealed to the Superior Court. The Superior Court remanded the case back to the lower court for various reasons, however it did comment on the safety zone issue. Specifically they said, "Here, Appellants have a somewhat stronger case that the trial court erred in dismissing the cause of action to the extent that the dismissal hinged upon the trial court’s assertion that the Code provision in question does not restrict the activities of shooting ranges with no connection to hunting. Brief for Appellant at 18 (citing Pacurariu v. Commonwealth, Penna. Game Comm’n, 744 A.2d 389 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999) (denying Pennsylvania Game Commission’s preliminary objections and appearing to endorse the view that the Code’s safety zone provision applies to shooting ranges))". Our case is at Superior Court No. 197 MDA 2012.

Neither I or our attorney is aware of any precedent regarding safety zone. If we were we would be all over it. Luckily, we are not currently litigating the safety zone issue with the neighbor. Although we are still fighting the property line issue, they have not brought up the safety zone again. Take note of the language used by the Superior Court in our case "appearing to endorse the view". This means that we could be one case away from having safety zone apply by precedent.

The only law that we are aware of that offers any type of protection to shooting ranges in PA is concerning noise, PERIOD. PA Title 34 2505 (a) does not differentiate between firing a gun for hunting versus firing for recreation. We can argue that it does not apply, but the courts have shown they are leaning the other way.

I believe we must beat the courts to the punch and enact true range protection laws. I spoke with my state Senator and Representative (Corman and Harris respectively) about introducing range protection legislation. Sen. Corman said that all pro gun laws are sponsored by Sen. so-and-so (can't recall his name at this moment) from south east PA and that all the legislation he introduces is at the behest of the NRA. I plan on speaking with our NRA field rep. Kory Enck at the next Friends of NRA committee meeting of ours that he attends.

If we don't do something soon, I can see this safety zone issue ending shooting as we know it in PA. This would not only apply to established shooting ranges, but also private property (i.e. your back yard or back forty).

[ImminentDanger]

This brings me to the matter at hand, when this litigation started, we were being sued not just for the property line dispute but also for discharging firearms within the 150 yard safety zone. The Plaintiff (the neighbor) cited the opinion of the Superior Court in the matter of Pacurariu v. Commonwealth, Penna. Game Comm’n, 744 A.2d 389 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999). In the opinion of the court one of the judges opined that they would have liked to hear this argument concerning safety zone (they didn't because they overturned the lower court ruling on other issues raised prior to hearing argument on the safety zone issue). This is what the neighbor hung their hat on when they sued us.

Our case was dismissed in it entirety at the lower court level. The neighbor appealed to the Superior Court. The Superior Court remanded the case back to the lower court for various reasons, however it did comment on the safety zone issue. Specifically they said, "Here, Appellants have a somewhat stronger case that the trial court erred in dismissing the cause of action to the extent that the dismissal hinged upon the trial court’s assertion that the Code provision in question does not restrict the activities of shooting ranges with no connection to hunting. Brief for Appellant at 18 (citing Pacurariu v. Commonwealth, Penna. Game Comm’n, 744 A.2d 389 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999) (denying Pennsylvania Game Commission’s preliminary objections and appearing to endorse the view that the Code’s safety zone provision applies to shooting ranges))". Our case is at Superior Court No. 197 MDA 2012.

Here's an excerpt from the Commonwealth Court case referenced above:
================================================== ========
Excerpted from https://casetext.com/case/pacurariu-v-com
which offers the case of PACURARIU v. COM, 744 A.2d 389 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 2000)
================================================== ========
II. "Safety Zone"

The Commission next argues that the shooting range does not violate the "safety zone" provisions of section 2505 of the Game and Wildlife Code, 34 Pa.C.S.A. § 2505.

Section 2505(a) of the Game and Wildlife Code, 34 Pa.C.S.A. § 2505(a), states, in pertinent part, as follows:

[I]t is unlawful for any person, other than the lawful occupant, while pursuing any privilege granted by this title to discharge, for any reason, any firearm, arrow or other deadly weapon within or through a safety zone without the specific advance permission of the lawful occupant thereof.

Section 2505(c)(1) of the Game and Wildlife Code, 34 Pa.C.S.A. § 2505 (c)(1) (emphasis added), defines the term "safety zone" as:

[T]he area within 150 yards around and that area which is below the highest point of any occupied dwelling house, residence, or other building or camp occupied by human beings, or any barn, stable, or other building used in connection therewith or any attached or detached playground of any school, nursery school or day-care center.

The Petition in this case avers that Dr. Pacurariu's "home is within 150 yards of where the Game Commission's survey crews have staked out the shooting range." (Petition, para. 44.) As stated, we must accept as true all well-pleaded facts in the Petition. Thus, the Petition states a cause of action based on the provisions of section 2505 of the Game and Wildlife Code.(4)

Footnote(4): The Commission asserts in its brief that, during the preliminary injunction hearing, Petitioners stipulated that, although Dr. Pacurariu's property is within 150 yards of the proposed shooting range, his residence is 500 yards away. However, the record before this court does not contain a transcript of the preliminary injunction hearing.

Moreover, assuming that the Commission is correct, Dr. Pacurariu could easily create a "safety zone" by building a shed on his property that is within 150 yards of the shooting range. If the doctor does so, then the shooting range would be within 150 yards of an "other building used in connection" with a residence, and the shooting range could not be used without violating section 2505.
================================================== ========

... Also...

================================================== ========
The Game and Wildlife Code, 34 Pa.C.S.A. § 2505

Section 1. Section 2505 of Title 34 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes
is amended to read:

§ 2505. Safety zones.

.. (a) General rule.--Except as otherwise provided in this title or to any political
subdivision, its employees or agents, which has a valid deer control permit issued
under section 2902(c) (relating to general categories of permits), it is unlawful for
any person, other than the lawful occupant, while hunting game or wildlife, taking
furbearers of any kind, or pursuing any other privilege granted by this title, to hunt for,
take, trap, pursue, disturb or otherwise chase any game or wildlife or to discharge, for
any reason, any firearm, arrow or other deadly weapon within or through a safety zone,
or to shoot at any game or wildlife while it is within the safety zone without the specific
advance permission of the lawful occupant thereof.

.. (b) Penalty.--A violation of this section is a summary offense punishable by a fine of
not less than $200 nor more than $500. A second or subsequent offense within two
calendar years is a summary offense punishable by a fine of not less than $500
nor more than $1,000.

.. (c) Definition.--As used in this section, the term "safety zone" means:
.. .. (1) Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (2), the area within 150 yards around
and that area which is below the highest point of any occupied dwelling house, residence,
or other building or camp occupied by human beings, or any barn, stable, or other building
used in connection therewith or any attached or detached playground of any school,
nursery school or day-care center.
.. .. (2) When applied to properly licensed [archery deer hunters within any special area
designated by commission regulations or any area making use of any special permit
issued in accordance with this title or commission regulations] persons hunting with bow
and arrow or crossbow, the area within 50 yards around and that area which is below the
highest point of any occupied dwelling house, residence or other building or camp
occupied by human beings or any barn, stable or other building used in connection
therewith and the area within 150 yards around and that area which is below the highest
point of any attached or detached playground of any school, nursery school or
day-care center.

Section 2. This act shall apply to the hunting license year commencing July 1, 2004,
and each hunting license year thereafter.

Section 3. This act shall take effect July 1, 2004.

================================================== ========


...

[jim-analog]

Greetings,

Chris, could you try to locate the name of the Senator referred to? I'm either on good speaking terms or at least in some polite contact with most all of the PA Senators in the S/E and would be happy to discuss this issue with them.

There are a few minefields that could be laid by opening up this box; it would have to be very carefully done to not end up with more potential restrictions. Thanks for all the info and any more you can provide.

Regards, Jim

I believe we must beat the courts to the punch and enact true range protection laws. I spoke with my state Senator and Representative (Corman and Harris respectively) about introducing range protection legislation. Sen. Corman said that all pro gun laws are sponsored by Sen. so-and-so (can't recall his name at this moment) from south east PA and that all the legislation he introduces is at the behest of the NRA. I plan on speaking with our NRA field rep. Kory Enck at the next Friends of NRA committee meeting of ours that he attends.

If we don't do something soon, I can see this safety zone issue ending shooting as we know it in PA. This would not only apply to established shooting ranges, but also private property (i.e. your back yard or back forty).