Idiots And Cowards Who Complain About Gun Ranges - Granite Grok

Idiots And Cowards Who Complain About Gun Ranges

“Once you’re able to look like an idiot and be OK with it, it opens up your potential.” —Nicole Sullivan

Irascible Cowards are idiots willing to  spew their opinion as if it means something, is always a great source of amusement to me. And sometimes they do so anonymously. Such is the case with this Silly_E-mail I received this morning.

Such e-mails are instructive in helping the reader observe the depths of ignorance to which some have succumbed, in spite of  any tone, word usage or voice which might suggest otherwise.

The e-mail received is errant on two levels: factually and conceptually.  An argument could be made this particular entry is a waste of time…a, “suffering of fools,” if you will. I do think its necessary because tom-foolery like this is reaching epidemic proportions.  And if conversations with idiots are the order, then we need to present at least one intelligent side.

The mystery e-mailer refers to my previous entry, Anatomy Of Gun Range Neighbors, and she states,

“I am sending you this e-mail anonymously because, I do not want to be slandered and spoken ill of in your writings like the way you did to Janet Luongo.”

slan·der/slander/ —Noun: “The action or crime of making a false spoken (my emphasis, here) statement damaging to a person’s reputation.”

The problem is, I did not “speak” about Janet Luongo. I wrote about her. Did he or she mean to infer that I committed libel? 

li·bel/libel/  —Noun:  “A published false statement that is damaging to a person’s reputation; a written defamation.” 

Libel  and Slander are “tortious actions at law.” Publishing Luongo’s publicly available  information….that is, information found in deeds and tax records, could hardly be characterized as positive or negative and is simply factual.

The fact pattern established in the writing was a) Janet Luongo stated she has a problem: The Range;  b) Luongo moved into her home (2009)  long after the range (1947) had originated; c) Her prior state residence would suggest a likely probability of Luongo’s resistance  to shooting ranges and guns, given the adverse cultural, regulatory and legal environment toward guns and ranges, long-existing in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

When people line up to smear and denigrate shooting ranges, they people should have the courage to be accountable and not hide behind some less-obvious or hidden pretext, let alone withholding their names. Its one of the facets of citizenship.

Next, the mystery e-mailer asserts,

“I would first like to say that it makes no difference how long people live at their homes […] It makes no difference that the range was there first. Geography changes and that is what has happened here.”

The fact is, it does make a difference. According to Peterborough Town Zoning maps, MRGC is zoned as Commercial-Industrial. “Public or Private Recreational Facilities,” are a permited use, so the MRGC is a permitted use.

Second, we look within the, “Doctrine of Coming to a Nuisance.” Character of the area predetermined. In In Gau v. Ley, 38 Ohio C.C. 235 (1916) “Even though the residential area was there first, the residents should have foreseen that the location was ideally suited for the nuisance.”

The character of the location was first determined by its’ first use. In Mahlstadt v. City of Indianola, 251 Iowa 222, 100 N.W.2d 189 (1959) In that case, the court ruled, “There was nothing peculiar to the location making it particularly appropriate or inappropriate for housing or for a dump. Therefore the first activity determined the character of the location.”

The court held that the dump’s “prior operation at that place should be given substantial weight in determining the character of the locality and the reasonableness or unreasonableness of operating it there.”

Therefore, It is reasonable to say, “who was there first” does have bearing on the club’s  right to operate, irrespective of who moves in. The Doctrine of “Coming to a Nuisance” is clearly applicable here.

The unnamed e-mail correspondent then opines.

“I am not opposed to guns. I grew up in a family where the men hunted and fished. But I fail to understand why in this day and age people own guns, with all the crime surrounding them. The right to bear arms in not an individual right, after all.”

I always laugh when people assert, “I am not opposed to guns…” Yet, as the discussion drills down even further, that opposition is heard laced throughout the conversation. That is a liberal’s way to remove the helmet before hitting one over the head with the proverbial lead pipe.

“The right to bear arms in not an ‘individual’ right’…” Really?  District of Columbia, et al. v. Dick Anthony Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) says otherwise. SCOTUS stated in that case, “the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual’s (my emphasis) right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes in federal enclaves, such as self-defense within the home. It was decided for the states in,  McDonald, et al. v. City of Chicago, Illinois, et al., 130 S. Ct. 3020 (2010).

But I get it. A prime example is Rowe v. Wade  Liberals defend that case as valid precedent-setting law, yet Heller and McDonald are junk rulings.  That hypocrisy lives daily.

The cowardly, unnamed e-mailer then quips,

“Our right to quiet enjoyment is being infringed by this organization. Quiet enjoyment, quality of life and peace are compelling public interests sought by the majority of people. Shooting guns is not.”

First, a right to quiet enjoyment.  RSA 159-B:1, as discussed in my last article on this very issue, deals with quiet enjoyment regarding shooting ranges . (See also, Coming to a nuisance) While most will agree that, quality of life and peace are compelling public interests, the mystery e-mailer is wrong  because the Legislature has said that providing ranges are a compelling public interest.

When the law was enacted in 2004, The general court identified this general purpose as sufficient reason to enact the statute.

“The General Court recognizes that maintaining safe shooting ranges within the state is essential to provide places for the training of law enforcement, safety programs for youth, competitive shooting, hunter’s safety training, self defense training for private citizens, and safe affordable shooting environments. The general court encourages shooting range owners and operators to exhibit reasonableness in applying the provisions of this exemption.”

as cited in Sara Realty v. Country Pond. 

My friends who operate shooting ranges, please remember these things at town hall when these sycophants  blather on at town Hall before the Select Boards about nuisance noise. Ranges have both the law, facts and precedents on thier side. That does not mean they won’t call out the lawyers. It only means they are beginning from a position of absolute weakness.