NIMBYS trying to shut down firing range.

[-..__...]

Doesn't matter that the range was there long before the new residents. :mad:

Some people really do deserve a swift kick to the head.


"Azusa Has Gun Club in Its Sights
City Council is to decide today whether to devote the shooting range land to a use more befitting the town's new image.

By Patricia Ward Biederman, Times Staff Writer

Here, on the edge of the Angeles National Forest, the pop-pop-pop of gunfire punches the air as sounds ricochet from a busy shooting range a mile away. Noise tends to resonate through quiet canyons. Azusa's Mountain Cove, a gated community of upscale homes, is no exception.

Within sight and earshot is the San Gabriel Valley Gun Club. The largest shooting range in Southern California, it has been around since 1946. Olympic gold medalist Kim Rhode of the U.S. shooting team practices there. It is the preferred training range for more than 50 law enforcement agencies and military units, the site of high-powered-rifle tournaments and pistol matches.

Today, the City Council will decide whether the shooting range still belongs in Azusa.

If the council votes to rezone the land the club leases to preserve it as open space, the organization will have 18 months to find a new home, city officials said.

But the club vows to stay and fight.

"Club officials will do whatever they have to do to remain open as a resource," said spokesman Xavier Hermosillo, "even if it means going to the Supreme Court."

The issue is rooted in the foothill city's recent campaign to improve its image. Politicians and residents are increasingly discontented with the city's association with quarries, industrial tracts and the shooting range. The $750,000 homes of Mountain Cove, built two years ago, are part of the new face of Azusa".


More... (Requires subscription), or you can still get the story through Google

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

1. Well this is California...life is more important than weapons of murder

The Red states are so undeveloped the whole fucking place can be used as a shooting range...move it there.

[tx_dem41]

3. Yes....I've heard people get murdered at the gun range, at a rate..

of about one to two a day. :eyes:

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

7. Naaah...not my point...my point is people need to live somewhere

and shooting ranges are not safe where people live...if it were putting an animal out of a habitat...I'd err on the side of the animal having a habitat..but it's not...it's a place to shoot guns and that is hazardous in populous community...I think it's entirely feasible for the shooting range to move elsewhere...there's still places in So Cal where it could relocate to

[tx_dem41]

12. Have you ever been to a shooting range?

Granted, I doubt either of us has been to THIS one, but generally they take a great deal of precautions. Plus, the article doesn't mention any safety issues (save for a "fire" issue that seems a stretch). In fact, it is mentioned that the gun club has instituted extra measures to be a "good neighbor" including closing at 4:45. As for moving the gun range out further, the owner had a good point about the range being used to train urban police forces. How far out will they have to go, before they don't go, and thus, lack in training.

Sorry, for missing your point and going for the snarky response.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

15. No worries on the snarky response...my post was smartassish

Actually I have been to THAT shooting range...for the record...I have no issue with any gun that isn't pointed at me so I am not anti-gun although in my youth I was a "victim" of gun violence when my BF was murdered in the grocery store near my home right in front of me (he was working, the place was robbed)..anyway..as part of my therapy to desensitize myself to the event, I went to this shooting range (the closest one to my home)

At any rate...I know they do take precautions..but as that area gets more populous out of sheer need...it's probably better to stick it a bit further out...that's all..but I will say this....the range was there first..and if the community wants it to move, they should certainly pay fair market value plus expenses, rather than force it out unreasonably or via regulation.

[tx_dem41]

16. Thanks for your thoughts....

I agree that the community should be obligated to pay at the VERY least fair market value plus expenses.

I guess I am also looking at this as a suburban sprawl issue. As someone who lives in the "inner city" of Dallas, I like to see things stay in a community and be part of it, instead of being pushed further and further out. I will admit though that a gun club is somewhat a unique issue.

[slackmaster]

18. Your comments about population growth and needs make sense

Eventually either the people need to be located somewhere else, or the range needs to be relocated. Because of the amount of money and political clout in housing, the range will lose any pissing match.

If the range has to move I hope they are fully compensated for their trouble. Being there first IMO entitles them to an equitable land swap deal plus all moving expenses and loss of income during the move covered.

The situation isn't much different from farms being forced out of business as suburban sprawl encroaches on them. I don't mind driving an hour or so to get to a really good shooting range or BLM land where you are responsible for your own safety. I like going out to open places with small groups of friends (on edit insert following two words) with whom to shoot. :dunce:

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

20. Yeah..and I DO agree that you have a right to have somewhere to

practice...

[iverglas]

26. agreeing with you mostly (edited)

I would just point out two things.

First, the land is leased by the range, not owned. I was all ready to say something about fair market value myself when I read the initial report, but a lease is a lease, and the lessor can generally decline to renew it (in the case of a non-residential lease, that is) for whatever reason it might have, or for no reason at all, and the lessee will not be entitled to any compensation. Nothing is being taken away: the lessee has paid for the use of the land, that's all, and has had exactly what it paid for: the use of the land for the period for which rent was paid. Lessees take the chance, when they establish businesses and make improvements to property, that the lease will not be renewed. When they decide what rent to pay, they consider that risk along with all the other factors involved.

On edit: http://www.allsafedefense.com/Legislation/SGCGunClub.htm

Part of the property that the Club uses is leased from Vulcan Materials - a mining operation. Vulcan sent Steve Cortner to speak on behalf of Vulcan. Judging from his estimate that Vulcan owns about 50% of the land in question (they own about 30%), I did not get the impression he was overly knowledgeable about the matter. He stated that Vulcan merely wants to assist in helping the two sides reach a reasonable solution. He offered no specific proposal.

The owner might have some claim against the City if the rezoning affected the value of its property.

I would also note, given how the discussion here has strayed, that the issues appear to be noise and negative environmental impact, not safety.

Second, nobody has a "right" to a place to do anything, generally. People may have a right to shoot, but they cannot require that anyone else provide them with a place to do it -- just as I have a right to ride a bicycle, but I cannot require that my municipality provide me with bike paths.


My learnèd friend slackmaster says that housing will beat out shooting ranges because of the "amount of money and political clout in housing". I might suggest that the NEED for housing is a rather important factor in deciding whether housing will prevail over shooting ranges in determining appropriate land use. That need is the actual reason why there is money and political clout involved. Any argument that there is a "need" for a shooting range (police training, whatever) will be rather more tenuous.

[Jack_DeLeon]

21. Shooting ranges and homes dont mix?

Then dont you think it would have been more proper to not build homes next to a shooting range? Rather than to build homes and close the range down?

[Billy Ruffian]

23. The range was there first.

the development came later, with full knowledge of the existance of the range.

Is there evidence of incidents with negligent discharges falling outside the range?

[Buster43]

31. Read post #30 n

n/t

[tx_dem41]

2. I'm not a "gun person", but I am a big anti-NIMBY person....

Hope the gun club wins out.

[RC]

4. What is/are NIMBYS?

[HawkerHurricane]

5. N.I.M.B.Y.

Not
In
My
Back
Yard

Usually used to deride people who are 'not against that sort of thing, but not in MY neighborhood'.
Lots of them here in San Diego, where they are trying to build a new airport 'someplace else, preferably over there'.

[slackmaster]

8. OT - At least the port gave up on putting an airport at Corte Madeira

How they ever got the idea of putting it up in the mountains in the middle of a national forst seems unfathomable to me.

[HawkerHurricane]

10. Perfect logic...

since no one wanted it within 20 miles of them, they picked a spot where no one lived, in the middle of a mountain range in the middle of a national forest... no people, no NIMBY's.

Other ideas have included
Naval Air Station North Island
(um, the Navy's using it...)

Marine Corps Air Station Miramar
(Every try to force Marines to move? For reference, see 'Wake Island')

Brown Field
(it's on the border, we could save on Border Patrol by having planes run over immigrants)

and on the Indian Reservations
(you won't let the tribes build casinos, and you expect them to let you build a airport?).

[Maria Celeste]

13. Miramar might be available

Its on the BRAC list I saw. However, the locals whine incessantly about the Marines, so there is no way they would let commercial traffic set up there.

North Island is going to stay Navy.

[HawkerHurricane]

14. Marines just moved in. And as for the whine...

90%+ of the whine is developers who want the Marines out and a civilian airport in. Pure astroturf.

[iverglas]

27. oh ... never mind ;)

"Miramar might be available"

I was going to agree ... and then I realized that you'd said Miramar, not Mirabel -- the white elephant "international" airport in Montreal that is finally being mothballed. Now some people think that would make an excellent shooting range ... with a few politicians as targets.

;)

[slackmaster]

17. I've always though a bi-national airport at Brown would be the best

But it will never, ever happen.

[MrSandman]

19. "Send More Japs"...

Alleged final transmission from Marine garrison on Wake Island.

For reference, see 'Wake Island'





:toast:

[HawkerHurricane]

22. Actually...

the historian in me must correct you...

After driving off the first Japanese attack, the defenders of Wake Island sent a list of supplies needed. It went something like...
"we need more guns, ammunition, food, barbed wire, men, water, medical supplies, aircraft, artillery, etc. etc."
In response, someone asked "is there anything else" and some smartarse sent "yea, send us more Japs!"

The actuall last transmission, sent after the Japanese launched airstrikes from two carriers, bombed the island using land based air, and launched a second invasion was...
"Enemy on island, issue in doubt"

Hearing this, the relief force turned back. They were 2 days away.

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USMC/USMC-M-Wake.html

[MrSandman]

25. Thanks for the reminder...

I have used the issue in doubt quote also.

My favored has to be "the world wonders" during Leyte Gulf. (Encryption padding in message requesting TF 34 location.)

[tx_dem41]

6. NIMBY = "Not In My Backyard". n/t

[Maria Celeste]

11. NIMBY means Not In My Back Yard.

The range will most likely lose, even though it was there first and is providing a convient and safe palce to practice.

Its really a shame that even here the anti gun bigots often fail to see the racial aspects of their hatred.

[Lefty48197]

9. Just because you built a subdivision on my old hunting grounds

doesn't mean I have to stop shooting does it? What about MY rights?
:mad:

[Billy Ruffian]

24. You're being a bit disingenous

If I have permission to hunt on property 'A', and the owners later decide to develop that property, and rescind my permission to hunt, I have not lost any rights.

If I own property B, and local regulations allow me to hunt on property B, but owner of property C develops his land and the new occupants somehow force me to stop partaking in a legal activity on MY property, then my rights have been taken away.

[Buster43]

30. This has sort of happened to me.

I have a house and several acres of property in a rural area. To the east is a mountain range and no houses, to west, one house maybe 3/4 of a mile away. I shoot on my property very regularly, full auto guns, .50BMG, rifles, handguns, etc.

Some snowbirds from Canada rented the house to the west of me for the winter. One day, while I was ripping out some full auto bursts from my Thompson, they called the Sherrif's department saying someone was shooting at them. So the Deputy showed up, a friend of mine, and he joined me for some shooting fun. Now the snowbirds had seen the cruiser go down my driveway, yet the shooting didn't stop. So they came down crying the blues how unsafe it was to shoot on MY property and how patently illegal it was, (They are from Canada, yet they pretend to know the laws of the area I live in????) The Deputy informed them that it was perfectly legal for me to engage in that activity and that he had some questions for them about a false police report they had called in. They looked stunned. On or about that time, a Border Patrol unit showed up, another friend of mine. He was on his way south when he stopped by to pick up some ammo I reloaded for him. So now, I have a local officer, and a Federal officer standing there. The snowbirds were besides themselves. They really went into hysterics when I informed them I, too, am a Federal Officer. Specifically, an Immigration Officer. They moved out the next day.

[iverglas]

32. now let me tell you the one ...

http://www.bookcase.com/library/humor/stereotypes/culture/us_ca_au.html

An American, a Canadian, and an Australian were sitting in a seedy bar enjoying a few beers. The American grabbed his beer, knocked it back in one gulp, then he threw the glass into the air and shot it with his handgun. As he set the handgun on the bar, he told the Canadian and the Australian that in the great U.S. of A they had so much money they never drank out of the same glass twice.

Next the Australian drank his beer, threw the glass into the air and shot the glass with the American's gun. As he was setting the gun back on the bar he proclaimed that in Australia they had so much sand that glass was cheap and he too never drank out of the same glass twice.

Next the Canadian drank his beer, grabbed the gun off the bar, and shot the American. As he was setting the gun back on the bar, he told the Australian that in Canada we have so many Americans you never have to drink with the same one twice.

[Buster43]

33. Joke all you want,

what I related in my post really happened.

Oh, when I was stationed up on the north border during a TDY, the majority of the Canadians that were crossing utterly detested the waste, fraud and abuse the government was involved in with that firearms registration program. Your pols promised it wouldn't cost that much yet went way over budget by, what one of your countrymen related to me, a 100%. And several provinces such as Alberta, Saskatchewan and BC and one or two on the east coast were not going to enforce the registration law. That I read in several newspapers from Canada. Those statements sent your politicians into arm waving hysteria.

[NorthernSpy]

34. yup

That (horribly expensive) Canadian Federal firearms registry isn't quite as popular in the Maritimes as it is some other places. I suspect that this is because people in NB, for instance, can't help but notice that Maine is no more violent than their province, though Maine's firearms laws are very, very different. The question of just what all that tax money has bought them is unavoidable.

[iverglas]

36. well, you too, I guess

If you seriously imagine that many people in Canada give any kind of a shit about the Firearms Registry, or spend a lot of time peering wistfully across the border, you just aren't keeping very current.

There was a federal election in the summer of 2004. There were several televised debates among the leaders of the three major parties. There was not one mention of the Firearms Registry, not even by the leader of the whacko right-wing West-based party.

Lots of talk about health care funding, same-sex marriage, the other usual stuff. Opposition to the Firearms Registry was very obviously a losing issue for Mr. Harper, and he knew it.

Some links in my other post. And these:

http://www.cfc-ccaf.gc.ca/media/reports/Commissioner-Report/HTML_files/toc_e.html

http://www.cfc-ccaf.gc.ca/media/reports/Commissioner-Report/HTML_files/sec04_e.html
Interestingly, the obstreperous BC accessed registry data on line about half as many times again as did the more populous Ontario. Guess they don't mind using it, just don't want to pay for it?

http://www.psepc-sppcc.gc.ca/publications/news/20040520_e.asp

EDMONTON, May 20, 2004 - The Government of Canada today announced a comprehensive package of improvements aimed at controlling Canadian Firearms Program costs and enhancing the capacity of law enforcement agencies to combat gun crime.

Funding for the Firearms Registry component of the Program will be capped at $25 million per year, starting next fiscal year. The Government of Canada proposes to establish a separate appropriation in law for the Registry starting fiscal year 2005/06 to allow Parliament to monitor and enforce this cap. The annual cost of the Firearms Registry itself is already down to $33 million from a high of $48 million in 2001/02.

Time marches on, and old news just gets older. The start-up costs -- which are now well in the past -- were a boondoggle. Canadians seem to have been sufficiently endowed with common sense not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

http://www.psepc-sppcc.gc.ca/publications/news/20040520_e.asp#backgrounder

More than 90 per cent of firearms owners in Canada have complied with licensing requirements. There are an estimated 7.9 million firearms in Canada, 7 million of which are registered with the Canada Firearms Centre. There are almost 2 million licensed owners to date. More than 12,000 licences have been revoked or refused because of public safety concerns.

The "Firearms Registry" is that part of the Canadian Firearms Program responsible for the registration of firearms, including registration when a firearm is transferred to a new owner and registration upon import or manufacture. Police make more than 13,000 queries to the Firearms Information System each week -- over 3 million queries have been made in total since the Program was first implemented in December 1998. About 6,000 firearms have been traced in gun-crime and firearm-trafficking cases within Canada and internationally. More than 900 affidavits are produced each year by the Canada Firearms Centre to support prosecutions of gun-related crimes across the country.

[iverglas]

35. read much?

Or do you limit yourself to the several-years-old news you seem to be getting on those rkba-head sites?

Laughable, my dear. Laughable. I laugh.

Here; educate yourself:
http://www.cfc-ccaf.gc.ca/default_e.asp
http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/domino/reports.nsf/html/20021210ce.html

hahahahaha.

But hell, I'm sure the Canadians you claimed, in the previous post, to have met were mighty impressed with the USofA as a result of their encounter with the representative of the INS that you seem to be claiming to be. And gosh, I guess there must be some Canadians who don't share all that right-wing angst (there's a lot of it in Alberta, pardner) about the firearms registry, given as how the ones you claim to have got (entirely improperly) threatened with criminal prosecution don't seem to have been big fans of your guns.

I've known, and been friends with, a lot of immigration officers up here in my time, and I can tell you that behaviour such as you claim that you and your little buddies in uniform engaged in would not really have been regarded as "becoming". Threatening tourists; charming. Of course, the USAmerican variety being a dime a dozen up here, nobody'd much care if we lost a few of them, I suppose. Except for the entertainment value of keeping them around, eh?

Texan with skis on roof to border officer of my acquaintance: So where's the snow?
Border officer bored with the ignorance: Well, this being August, about 3,000 miles that-a-away.

Of course, more to the point, and considerably less entertaining:

http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article.php/20030710135950219

WINDSOR, Ont. -- The Canadian government was urged yesterday to file a formal protest with the U.S. after Michigan police officers stormed through customs and conducted a gunpoint arrest at a tunnel linking Windsor with Detroit.

Mr. Masse and Mr. Comartin said an incident Monday at the Ambassador Bridge in which a 22-year-old Detroit police officer accidentally shot himself in the leg while attempting to hide his gun from Canada Customs is another sign of the dangers at the border and disrespect for Canadian laws.

Fine fellows in uniform, them. At least those alleged Canadians of yours didn't actually break the law, eh?

And, of course, I'm sure you let your neighbour know what the reason his/her paying tenants left in such a hurry (and undoubtedly related their experience to any potential customers of your neighbours they encountered) was. I mean, given how proud you seem of it, and all.

Excuse me as I go back to laughing while I work.

[Cicero]

37. About crossing the border into Canada

I was travelling with a friend a few years ago, going up to Montreal from Charlotte, NC. I forget where exactly we crossed over, somewhere in NY. The agents on the US side were real surly and cross. Over on the Canadian side, however, they were nice and friendly.

Just my personal experience. YMMV.

Later,

[Buster43]

39. When people come up to me and try to tell me

what I can or can't do on MY property, makes my blood boil. Especially when those people are not even legal permanent residents.

I was not in uniform.

I was engaging in a legal practice.

To those who don't like it, you are free to move.

I stick up for myself and I don't kowtow to anyone.

And I didn't threaten anybody while I was on my own time. The local Sherriffs Dept did that.

I never mentioned how they threw noisy parties, went drag racing up and down the road raising huge clouds of dust. I never complained. Aided and abbetted illegal immigrants. That in itself is a deportable offense. I never did anything, but mess with me on my property, that person will have a huge problem.

Oh, and by the way, INS doesn't exist anymore. I work for CBP now.

[cms]

41. Hey, you can take...

them. Most of them are the ones not worthy of this country anyhow. I love my country. I fight for it and if necessary, I would die for it. I doubt you would do the same for yours.

[iverglas]

42. wow

Most of them are the ones not worthy of this country anyhow.

Most of the USAmericans in Canada are tourists, actually.

http://www.google.ca/search?q=cache:TP7-Aeqbso0J:www.ppforum.ca/gs/Prof_Earl_Fry_pres.pdf+american+tourists+%22per+year%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Canada #1 source of foreign tourists for U.S.,
and U.S. #1 source of foreign tourists for Canada

Of 47.1 million foreign visits to Canada in 2001,
42.9 million by Americans (91%)

What an unworthy lot they are for sure.

Heck, one of the ones my mother and brother chatted with on a cruise around Montreal Island last summer was wearing an NRA ballcap, and they had to bite their tongues when my brother said nice things about Bill Clinton. Points to them for politeness, eh?

Of course, there are some who are here because they came, long ago, to avoid participating in a murderous imperialist war of aggression ... and there is the odd one who has come here very recently for the same reason, I'm sure. Bastards. I'll just bet they're all Republicans.

I love my country. I fight for it ...

By posting on the internet, I gather?

... and if necessary, I would die for it. I doubt you would do the same for yours.

And your statements of theories about me, which are so far from truth that I can only consider them to be less than rational and/or less than candid, would be of interest or concern to me ... why's that now?

[iverglas]

43. deleted ... damned lying bug reports ...

I guess it's pretty busy around DU today, and I won't complain.

[Hoka Ke]

38. Absolutely

Classic.

Good on ya'.

Hoka"oneforthegoodguys"Ke

[Torque67]

28. I really hate to see anything taken away from law abiding folks.

But, it is a lease. Leases have to be renewed. And if the lessor of the land can do better by selling the land to build houses on, then it's really up to them to determine the future use. Hopefully there will be a new range opened in a not too terribly inconvenient location. And hopefully, the new range will be owned by the shooting club, and the club will take efforts to purchase adjoining parcels as neccessary.

Folks who buy houses by shooting ranges, drag strips, and airports and then complain about the noise are just plain stupid. We have to agree on that. Unless the source of their annoyance has really stepped up their noise making activities, it's just part of the deal. I work with a guy that bought a huge, gorgeous house in a golf community, but he had to sign a paper stating that he had been infomed there was a rendering plant a few miles away, and that during some times of the year, there would be foul odors in the area. Or fowl odors, as it turned out. :)

[goju]

29. Questions questions questions

It appears they own part of the land, and lease the other. Could the city council NOT rezone entire city to a NO shooting zone, effectively shutting them down? Im not tryin to give any ideas here but isnt zoning up to the city council, regardless of landowners wishes? I realize there would be a vote by the owners, but it sounds like the NIMBYS would have the majority in the council.

[BraSize45]

40. As someone who lives near Azusa...

I can say that if Azusa wants to spruce up its image by shutting down the firing range (which is about a 15-20 minute drive up a windy mountain road, followed by another 15 minute drive up a VERY windy mountain road from Azusa proper), they really should concentrate on the low-rent housing, seedy motels, liquor stores, etc. that are visible for the first couple of miles when you get off the freeway onto Azsua Blvd. The new homes are on the edge of town, they are the last development on the north side of Azusa. I never thought of them as particularly nice. Horrible location, no view to speak of. Sounds to me like Azusa is trying to remake itself into a Glendora (city to the east) which DOES have nice homes, great views, etc.

Near the firing range is a small community of mountain dwellers who would do more to harm Azusas pretensions of exclusivity than any firing range (which is not open at night).

Did I mention that the first thing you see when you get off the freeway into Azusa is cheap housing and a motel?