Opinions please

[parsons_12b]

http://blog.oregonlive.com/hillsboroargus/2010/06/they_can_shoot_over_my_head_an.html

I saw this while checking the news this morning and was wondering what you guys thought about this. Without getting into whether or not she should of signed the settlement and took the money. I want to know if you had a range on your property and someone complain would you have gone thios route or simply moved the range to end the conflict.

Read More

 

[Tactical SS]

That backstop doesn't look very... sufficient. If that is truly the only backstop they have it seems pretty irresponsible.

 

[C&H]

I guess it depends on the parties involved, and their willingness to find a workable solution.
If it's feasible to move the range and the neighbor wants to help (working or bringing pizza to a work party), that's probably the best bet.

If the range couldn't be moved, maybe a compromise could have been reached by removing the furthest (300 yard) section and putting a second backstop in place behind the 200 yard segment, at double the height of the previous backstop.

Zero willingness to compromise makes for bad neighbors, regardless of the issue and on which side you stand.

Of course, there's a distinct possibility that the neighbor living in fear of stray bullets is overreacting and more than adequate precautions are in place, or maybe the neighbor with the range lets a bunch of drunk buddies shoot at all hours and stray bullets land around her and her home - but there's no way to know all of the important details without being one of those parties.

 

[parsons_12b]

C&H I agree with you I would like to find the whole story.

 

[Trlsmn]

I think their 30 yard back stop is ridiculous but she settled so it's a done deal. I would encourage her to spend the money on a proper back stop.

 

[Cougfan2]

"Truly, my only option is to shoot back."

She'd better hope that statement doesn't come back to bite her in the rump in the future. I can understand her frustration, but that was just a stupid thing to say.

 

[sprice37]

As a responsible shooteri see that backstop as weak. I would want to create a large dirt burm to protect my neighbors bodies and property and my interests. I could not se using that range in good conscience.

 

[Gunner3456]

I'm confused. That picture was taken very close to the woman with a wide angle lens. It would make the backstop look much smaller than it is, and I can't tell. Frankly, it looks adequate to me considering the backstops and ranges here.

Look at the pics below, all taken from the same position. In the center two pics, the "backstop" (hill) looks plenty adequate. In the bottom pics with a wide angle lens it looks almost non-existent. In the top two pics with telephoto lenses, it looks so big you can't even see much of it. All due to choice of camera lens.

I have no idea how big that backstop really is, except that the lens is making it look smaller than it is.

 

[Trlsmn]

"Truly, my only option is to shoot back."

I LOL'd when I read that!

 

[C&H]

Hot damn!
Check out this earlier story.

This doesn't have all the details, but enough for me, with the aerial images of the range.
Sure, there was an offer to turn the range around if charges were dropped, and that's how things should have gone - but it sounds like both sides fell down when it came to negotiating that solution.

In my opinion, the owners of the range are going well beyond tweaking their neighbors nose and jeopardizing not only the safety of people and animals (and her property value) but also my (and probably your) favorite pastime. Stories like this help get goofy laws and bans passed.

I hope nobody is hurt by this display of idiocy.
Boo!

 

[nwoutlaw]

i would have moved it, seems like the neighbor has a legitimate concern. not to hijack a thread, but what would you guys consider to be a proper backstop/berm for a shooting range on your property? one that you would have no doubt that it would stop most any high power bullet. (except maybe 50 cal)

 

[Gunner3456]

I can't tell what or where that backstop is from the aerial shot due to the direct overhead pic and lack of long shadows. I just don't know.

My backstop is about ten feet tall, but then beyond that there is unoccupied land which also climbs quite steeply (a hill.) I've never worried anyone but believe me if I did, we'd work it out. I'd make some adjustments to be a good neighbor.

I just can't tell what's there.

 

[C&H]

Gunner, the fence on the property line and the backstop for the 300 yard target is visible (or laughable) in this photo

I think I was thrown for a loop by the picture in the first article linked in this thread. I simply assumed that the dirt berm in the photo was the backstop in question.

NWOutlaw, if I had a piece of land that was flat and didn't have a natural hill to shoot against, I would probably build a dirt and gravel berm around 15-20 feet tall and as wide as I could afford, since I'd be building that for more than one shooter at a time. Dirt is cheap, especially if you have a good chunk of land and a family friend with a backhoe

 

[Gunner3456]

Gunner, the fence on the property line and the backstop for the 300 yard target is visible (or laughable) in this photo

I see it now. If that's all there is, it's a joke and a disaster waiting to happen imho.

It would indeed make me want to shoot back although wanting and doing are two different things, lol.

I'd like to know what her legal options would be if a bullet hit her house. Is her life or serious bodily injury in enough danger that she can defend herself? Remember, it is her "residence." Most of us are pretty danged good at just 300 yards.

 

[ZachS]

I'd like to know what her legal options would be if a bullet hit her house. Is her life or serious bodily injury in enough danger that she can defend herself? Remember, it is her "residence." Most of us are pretty danged good at just 300 yards.

She wouldn't have any success with a self-defense claim unless she knew for a fact (and could prove) they were aiming at her and trying to injure or kill her.

 

[Gunner3456]

She wouldn't have any success with a self-defense claim unless she knew for a fact (and could prove) they were aiming at her and trying to injure or kill her.

Then it was an accident. She was just target practicing as they were.

 

[ZachS]

Then it was an accident. She was just target practicing as they were.

She was just shooting wherever she wanted to, and they walked into her bullets! With their heads!

 

[U201491]

http://blog.oregonlive.com/hillsboroargus/2010/06/they_can_shoot_over_my_head_an.html

I saw this while checking the news this morning and was wondering what you guys thought about this. Without getting into whether or not she should of signed the settlement and took the money. I want to know if you had a range on your property and someone complain would you have gone thios route or simply moved the range to end the conflict.

Here is the Location
Lat = 45°26'2.44"N
Long = 123° 6'55.36"W

Bring it up in a satellite program and take an elevation shot.
It is escentially flat ground with no more than a 13 to 18 ft rise directly in line with her home, barns and property. I don't see how anyone would find this acceptable. Is the owner related to the judges there ?
Not one ounce of logic exists in this scenario. If I were her, I would call in the OSP and try to bypass the locals.
Or build a 20' 2 ft thick concrete wall the length of her property line with them. There has to be something seriously wrong with the people that built that so called range. If she had not done that deal or accepted anything from them there is no way they could prevail in a real court. In fact with what I viewed and measured, I would say the least charge that should be levied should be reckless endangerment.

 

[ZachS]

Here is the Location
Lat = 45°26'2.44"N
Long = 123° 6'55.36"W

Bring it up in a satellite program and take an elevation shot.
It is escentially flat ground with no more than a 13 to 18 ft rise directly in line with her home, barns and property. I don't see how anyone would find this acceptable. Is the owner related to the judges there ?
Not one ounce of logic exists in this scenario. If I were her, I would call in the OSP and try to bypass the locals.
Or build a 20' 2 ft thick concrete wall the length of her property line with them. There has to be something seriously wrong with the people that built that so called range. If she had not done that deal or accepted anything from them there is no way they could prevail in a real court. In fact with what I viewed and measured, I would say the least charge that should be levied should be reckless endangerment.

If you read the articles, the homeowner never asserts that any bullets ever made it onto her land. The shooters are most likely "being careful." The justice system already looked into their activities in detail and determined they were breaking no criminal laws. The homeowner agreed to a small settlement in exchange for giving away a lot of flexibility in the future. These guys are obviously idiots, but whatever they're doing probably isn't as bad as the Oregonian makes it sound. The presumption is that they have the right to participate in a legal activity on their own property. If they ever hurt her or break or kill anything she owns, they'll face a world of hurt.

 

[CEF1959]

The justice system already looked into their activities in detail and determined they were breaking no criminal laws.

No. The decision of a DA not to prosecute does not mean the "justice system already looked into their activities in detail and determined they were breaking no laws." Sometimes it means that, but more often it's a reflection of the DA's priorities in dealing with limited prosecutorial resources.

But legality aside, what ever happened to neighborliness?