Alphecca: Noise on the Range

February 22, 2005

Noise on the Range

A bill introduced in Virginia would set statewide standards for the noise level of rifle ranges. It was introduced at the behest of the Virginia Shooting Sports Association. From the Washington Post:

House Bill 2282, sponsored by Del. William R. Janis (R-Goochland), would establish a statewide noise standard for outdoor shooting ranges. The measure would prevent local governments from setting their own noise standards.

Instead, the state would set an average of 64 decibels as the maximum allowable sound a gun range could register at the border of its property. The noise level generally equates to a television at medium volume or an animated conversation, researchers say. It would be one of the tightest levels in the nation, supporters say.

The legislation also would prevent nuisance lawsuits related to gun-range noise if the proposed state standard is passed.

The bill will be reviewed today by the Senate Committee on Local Government. It pits sportsmen's clubs, which called for the legislation, against representatives of local governments who say it would infringe on their ability to set noise regulations based on community standards. The measure passed the House of Delegates 85-13 this month.

Read the whole thing for background. For my own part, I feel that if a range was already there, it should be protected from any regulations regardless of what someone who moves to a home nearby might think. That is what part of this legislation is for and I'm behind it 100%.

But the bill would also protect future-planned ranges or expansions. At first glance, I would still support the measure but then my logical side takes over and objects to it as an intrusion into local zoning regulations. A town does or should have the right to set their own standards as to what sort of development they want to see within their borders. Think of this as a local version of what Congress could (and unfortunately often does) impose on the states in the way of rules and regulations.

If state government can control local range developement then the federal government can control gun regulations at the state level. I'm against both but I'm willing to listen to your arguments...

Posted by Jeff Soyer at February 22, 2005 07:21 AM

Comments

Jeff,

This bill came up because of the continued refusal of a town/county to comply with the Right To Hunt provision in the Virginia Constitution.

There is a rural, central virginia town, that has been fighting the construction of a major shooting sports center (field birds, skeet, trap, etc), claiming noise problems and that their local zoning rights trump the right to hunt provisions in the constitution (they are being heavily supported by gun banning groups). Because of the time and costs involved in litigation (and that route is being followed too), the state is looking to this legislation to drive home a point and make clear what is acceptable.

Free Hunters had an excellent article on this a couple of months ago.

Posted by: countertop at February 22, 2005 07:34 AM

So is this bill limited to firing ranges or does it address the individual or group of hunters in the woods? Now I'm confused.

Posted by: Jeff Soyer at February 22, 2005 07:55 AM

Pardon my ignorance - I'm strictly a revolver shooter - but maybe they should let us buy silencers?

Posted by: Persnickety at February 22, 2005 08:47 AM

Jeff, It doesn't apply to individual hunters in the woods. They are clearly covered by the right to hunt provisions in the constitution. Whats not so clearly covered though is the opening of private property, for a profit, for hunters to use. At the range in question, they provide hunting opportuinities in the field. In addition, they are also opening up a shooting sports center for training purposes that is intended to provide a steady stream of income out of hunting season.

The argument that is being made in court is that the right to hunt also protects the right to practice to hunt, which is what shooting ranges provide. The town has tried to keep the opening of this facility from occuring because of changes to the zoning laws and complaints that the shotgun range is too loud.

This legislation addresses the problem and prevents the courts from screwing the situation up.

As to your question - It addresses firing range.

Incidently, most states (I have a chart I compiled somewhere, its well over 60%) have provisions against moving to the nuisance that apply to two distinct areas - farming and shooting ranges - ie: you can't move next to an existing gun range or agricultural operation and then claim that its operation is a nuisance.

Posted by: countertop at February 22, 2005 09:54 AM

Note: Comments close down on posts after seven days and then
the comment input form disappears.

Your comments are welcome. You don't need to enter a URL and you don't need a "valid" email address, either. Note though that MT Blacklist is installed to flag suspiciously spam-like strings. Unfortunately, because of the bastard spammers, the strings "google.com" and "yahoo.com" (even in your email address) are currently banned as well. So are strings such as "cialis" (a common spam) which rules out words such as "socialism". Try putting a hyphan in a word like that.

By Golly, you're reading an archived post. Click Here to head to the main page and read current stuff...

Into science fiction? Check out my group blog novel, Colony: Alchibah.
See the reader's guide there for first-timer tips.

Alphecca

Check it out: My group sci-fi blog novel: Colony: Alchibah

February 22, 2005

Noise on the Range

By Golly, you're reading an archived post. Click Here to head to the main page and read current stuff...

Check it out:

My group sci-fi blog novel:

Colony: Alchibah