Lawsuit could affect ranges state wide!

[IV_Warrior]

As some of you know, I'm a member of Lewistown Pistol Club. Some of you may remember we had to cancel our sanctioned IDPA Patriot match last year due to an issue with a neighbor. He is now suing the club and if successful, would end shooting at the club, and could affect other ranges around the state. Below is a copy of the letter written by our club Vice President, with more details.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

New Homeowner Brings Lawsuit Against Lewistown Pistol Club

If claims are successful, could affect many clubs across the State!

The Lewistown Pistol Club had been making preparations to celebrate its proud history and 50th anniversary of serving law enforcement, competitive pistol shooters, and the training of local men and women in the safe handling of various firearms. The club has been a loyal supporter of the second amendment rights and an NRA member club that was originally founded by employees of the Avisco Corporation, a company which is a historic cornerstone employer here in Mifflin County.

Since it’s inception as a not for profit organization, the Lewistown Pistol Club has had hundreds of members who have served our local communities by supporting our civilian and law enforcement communities as a training source, as well as producing a proud history of shooters who have consistently excelled at the Camp Perry National Competitions. In 2009, members of the club were part of the National Champion Service Pistol Team from Pennsylvania. The club is a current member and supports most of the major competitive pistol discipline organizations.

Now, as the result of a neighboring property being sold, the efforts of the new homeowner could close the club down. To date, the actions of our new neighbor have caused a short notice cancellation of a scheduled and prepaid match for over 100 shooters from 6 states and having PA DCNR to cease training at the club facilities- producing a significant loss of ongoing revenue.

Now, the neighbor has filed a lawsuit seeking an injunction barring the clubs use of their constructed shooting ranges using the argument that such use violates the safety zone laws of PA. The case references Pacurariu vs. Com, 744 A.2d 389- claiming that the 34 P.S. 2505 grants protection to ANY HOMEOWNER WITH A DWELLING WITHIN 150 YARDS and makes it ILLEGAL to discharge ANY FIREARM within that safety zone for ANY REASON.

If successful, this case and the “Safety Zone” issue would not only end the use of firearms at the Lewistown Pistol Club, but could set a dangerous legal precedent that would have far reaching implications for many of our sister clubs throughout the commonwealth.

The Lewistown Pistol Club will continue to support a full schedule of events for the 2011 season. Please visit our website and watch for our upcoming NRA, Bullseye, IDPA, and USPSA events. The club has secured legal counsel, and anticipates significant legal expenses to prevail in this case. We have established and would welcome any and all help for our legal defense fund! Contributions can be made via PayPal on the Lewistown Pistol Club website, or sent to Bruce Smith, club Vice-President and PRPA Director at 11898 Arrowhead Way, Mount Union PA 17066. Feel free to contact me directly with any questions you may have at bruce@wealthkare.com or 814-599-3700 (Cell).

[bigandy1966]

I am pretty sure that safety zone referrs to HUNTING within or shooting into a safety zone. Target shooting may ONLY occur WITHIN 200 yards of a shooting cabin or headquarters on a specifically constructed shooting backstop that should prevent the projectile from traveling past the targets by no more than 15 yards.
I am positive this has been tried in courts previously to this, and every time the people lodging complaints have lost. The lawyers for the shooting club should seek punitive damages and recoup their legal costs. Delaware County Field and stream has been around a suburban urban area for over seventy years and their lawyers have certainly seen this type of litigation before

[originalsocko]

I'm not a lawyer but who was there first? the club or him? There is the term "GRANDFATHER CLAUSE" that gets thrown around alot. If the rage has been there for 50 years there should be nothing he can do about anything. And if you have "HIGH EARTH BURMS" around all the firing lines what could be the saftey issue. Just my 2 cents

[Retired One]

This sounds like one of those asshats that buys a house near an airport and then complains about the noise. Whatever happen to doing your homework and finding out what is going on in the area before you buy. WHAT AN IDIOT.

[customloaded]

And folks wonder why I hate City Slickers or urbanites. If ya ain't got a horse, goat, couple chickens, a mule, and a couple barn cats, I ain't feelin no love for ya. All the city/urbanite crap ya bring along with ya when ya come to the rural areas to recreate, throwing trash all over, shootin up the place, leaving lures and miles of line along stream banks, and then end up ruining the good stuff by buying your whole worldly 2 acre "FARMETTE!"

First advice-Don't eat yellow snow. Don't milk cows unless you are sure its a female. That SMELL is the sweetest smell on earth to me and your yuppie Cologn that gags maggets ain't all that. And the thing that really gets me, the 1 ton dually truck pulling 20K lbs of beef to market don't stop on dime when you stop for a roadside flea market and tailgating is a sure fine way to get "CHIT" on your precious Rain-X windshield!

CL

[MrBi11]

We had a 'Citidiot' move to my town and demand the DPW move the deer crossing sign down the road because the deer were eating out of his garden.

[P7hk9]

I hope the judge tells the homeowner to go fuck himself. You bought a house next to a gun club, asshole!

[granuale]

And folks wonder why I hate City Slickers or urbanites. If ya ain't got a horse, goat, couple chickens, a mule, and a couple barn cats, I ain't feelin no love for ya.

Lets make a deal - I won't come to the country, but when you need an airport or nuclear medicine for yourself or your family, you just stay in the sticks.

[GunLawyer001]

I hope the judge tells the homeowner to go fuck himself. You bought a house next to a gun club, asshole!

The more polite legal term is "coming to the nuisance", which expresses the idea that you can't buy land next to a dairy farm and then complain that there's a dairy farm.

Ranges are grandfathered against noise complaints, but maybe not so much against safety complaints. But the Game Code doesn't apply to everyone at all times, and the "safety zone" issue wasn't intended to apply to people on fixed ranges with good backstops. You can't hunt in a safety zone. But I don't have to wear blaze orange if I'm walking my dog, and I can go target shooting with my rifle even in "shotgun-only" counties. The rules binding on hunters are not the same as the rules of general applicability, even though there's an overlap (for example, to prevent poaching, the UFA bans all transport of loaded rifles in any vehicle. But that's in the UFA, part of the Crimes Code. Not the Game Code.)

[GunLawyer001]

Just did a little more research. The "safety zones" don't apply unless you're hunting or pursuing privileges granted under the Game Code:

§ 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.

I also took a look at the 2000 case, Pacurariu vs. Com, 744 A.2d 389, cited as authority by the current twitigants. It was about a range THAT HADN'T BEEN BUILT YET, it wasn't about shutting down an existing, grandfathered range.
It was being constructed by the Game Commission, with private assistance. Use of a State Game range is arguably "a privilege granted by the Game Code", or at least arguably enough that the court denied the demurrer (a demurrer asks the court to strike the complaint because it fails to state any possible claim, so rejecting a demurrer is hardly the same as the court affirmatively ruling for the other side.)