Owner should be a good neighbor but he can't control what other people do when his range is closed. Farmer should have researched the area before buying the property.
Article: Feud between gun range, fruit grower resolved — not with a bang, but a restraining order
- Thread starter Button Pusher
- Start date
- Replies 20
- Views 660
alpharius
Well-Known Member
Sounds like a lot of stupidity going on -- making gun owners look bad.
ronn47
Where's the Scotch?
2A Bourbon Hound 2024
2A Bourbon Hound OG
Charter Member
Benefactor
Life Member
Multi-Factor Enabled
To me it sounds like they moved next door to an existing gun range and didn't like the noise.
And then got into a pissing contest which ended up with help from a liberal judge.
I bet this is not the end to this drama.
And then got into a pissing contest which ended up with help from a liberal judge.
I bet this is not the end to this drama.
Likely a liberal judge, but the range owner was caught stealing from them and destroying their property. That the owner will he subjected to mental health and substance abuse evaluations is telling.
Who was there first? Article does not say.
As basic and logical as that is, in general, that doesn’t ever seem to matter in these types of cases. It seems to come down to who is paying more taxes; ex new big business producing tons of sales tax wins over private range owner paying his measly property tax.
Gun owners make themselves look bad.
The article isn’t perfectly clear, but implies that the range was there first.
In cases where the complaint against a gun range is based on noise pollution the question os relevant, but in this case, where there seems to be plenty of evidence of both illegal and unsafe operation of the range, does it matter?
Does it matter? I don't think it does. Does living a while next door to a piece of land you don't own give you any rights to that land?
It matters if the fruit grower moved there knowing the range was next door. Moving into an area also doesn't give you rights to the land next door.
Here is a twist on a similar story.
On one side of a creek, in an area just outside the urban town limit, there's a residential development of six approximately 2.5 acre lots, built on a 1/4 mile long state maintained road with a cul de sac.
The development was approved and started in 1988 and the last home was constructed in 2011.
All are bespoke, stick built, higher-end homes. The county says they are worth $600k - $900k. No HOA.
On the other side of the creek is a gravel pit, started in 1974. It was owned and operated by one guy whose family has been in the area for generations.
Between 1974 and 2012, the pit was almost informal in scale and had only occasional operations, and those were managed by the owner for erosion control and noise.
In 2013, the owner died and his son inheited the property and took over the operation. He quickly turned the facility into a large-scale commercial operation, with lighting for night use. He began taking more fill 'in' than going 'out' and the dump truck tailgates slamming shut make a sound that far exceeds hearing-safe levels at 100 yards.
Even worse, the pit is open on one side; it now has a 75' sheer wall facing the residential area, making an effective amphitheater.
The homes range from 400 feet to 850 feet from the pit operations.
It is basically impossible to have a conversational-voice-level outdoors at most of the homes, during the mine operations. Indoors, the windows rattle, and the constant drone is punctuated by what seems like a 10-gauge blast at 25 paces.
There is a county noise ordinance, but the mine operator is the cousin of the Sheriff, who has flatly stated he will not enforce this regulation.
In your opinion:
Do the homeowners have any recourse versus the mine operator, whose property was there first?
On one side of a creek, in an area just outside the urban town limit, there's a residential development of six approximately 2.5 acre lots, built on a 1/4 mile long state maintained road with a cul de sac.
The development was approved and started in 1988 and the last home was constructed in 2011.
All are bespoke, stick built, higher-end homes. The county says they are worth $600k - $900k. No HOA.
On the other side of the creek is a gravel pit, started in 1974. It was owned and operated by one guy whose family has been in the area for generations.
Between 1974 and 2012, the pit was almost informal in scale and had only occasional operations, and those were managed by the owner for erosion control and noise.
In 2013, the owner died and his son inheited the property and took over the operation. He quickly turned the facility into a large-scale commercial operation, with lighting for night use. He began taking more fill 'in' than going 'out' and the dump truck tailgates slamming shut make a sound that far exceeds hearing-safe levels at 100 yards.
Even worse, the pit is open on one side; it now has a 75' sheer wall facing the residential area, making an effective amphitheater.
The homes range from 400 feet to 850 feet from the pit operations.
It is basically impossible to have a conversational-voice-level outdoors at most of the homes, during the mine operations. Indoors, the windows rattle, and the constant drone is punctuated by what seems like a 10-gauge blast at 25 paces.
There is a county noise ordinance, but the mine operator is the cousin of the Sheriff, who has flatly stated he will not enforce this regulation.
In your opinion:
Do the homeowners have any recourse versus the mine operator, whose property was there first?
"Kevin Barber, 45, and Perla Vargas, 40, live and work on their small fruit farm in an agriculture community way, way west of Homestead. After moving to their current property three years ago, the military veteran and his fiance hoped for a peaceful settlement to grow their fruit and raise their daughter."
Like moving next door to a rendering plant and complaining about the smell after you moved in.
Like moving next door to a rendering plant and complaining about the smell after you moved in.
Tim
Checked Out
Staff member
2A Bourbon Hound 2024
2A Bourbon Hound OG
Charter Life Member
Benefactor
Vendor
Multi-Factor Enabled
mellocollins
Well-Known Member
The range owner was a jerk and evidently the videos presented in court proved it. I shoot on my land all of the time but I go out of my way to respect my neighbors. Right now it is turkey season so I'm a little bit more conscious about when I shoot. If I owned adjacent property and wanted to turkey hunt I would be upset too if there was tannerite going off and idiots with flame throwers next door. But legally probably nothing I could do.
If folks would take a minute and show a little courtesy and try to come to some kind of agreement towards one another a lot of this crap would never happen. But it's just a lot easier being assholes.
If folks would take a minute and show a little courtesy and try to come to some kind of agreement towards one another a lot of this crap would never happen. But it's just a lot easier being assholes.
Last edited:
No but living next to crazy people with access to guns kinda sucks.
My point was only that Senior Rights don't apply here. Both the fruit grower and the gun nut have the same rights to their own separate properties. And those rights aren't a function of how long their neighbors have been there or what they knew about them beforehand.
Chriselalto
Well-Known Member
As the last two posts stated. Every land owner has the same rights to use and safely enjoy their land. Doesn't matter if you've lived there a day or decade.
Also, the range owner is a dick. He should know full well that he is responsible for each and every round fired on the range.
I'm surprised he isn't facing fines for (likely knowingly) allowing people to shoot freely even after its closed. His property, his responsibility.
If he doesn't do anything about the errant rounds being fired, and one hits the neighbors house. They would have a justifiable lawsuit against him and his property.
Also, the range owner is a dick. He should know full well that he is responsible for each and every round fired on the range.
I'm surprised he isn't facing fines for (likely knowingly) allowing people to shoot freely even after its closed. His property, his responsibility.
If he doesn't do anything about the errant rounds being fired, and one hits the neighbors house. They would have a justifiable lawsuit against him and his property.