Gun Club Safety Liability

[claire1224]

What is the name of your state? WI
Does anyone know whether or not a local government such as a county zoning board would be liable for injury to a person who has been hit by falling shot from a trap shooting gun range that shoots over a public road?

When we travel on the road nearby our home during hours of operation we notice that it seems like they're shooting right at us. We looked at GPS satellite images and have determined that the road is within range of the shooting. After we did some addiitonal research we discovered that there are industry standards for gun ranges that the US Army and other gun club advocates put out that say that the "shot fall danger zone" for a gun used in trap shooting fans out 300 yards from where they're shooting. The road indeed runs through that "shot fall danger zone". We're concerned that our kids or family could be injured when using the road during shooting operation.

Our county government says that they have no jurisdiction over this since they issued a conditional use permit 30 years ago and it has no safety standards written into it. Can it be that a county government has no responsibility to see that these folks run a range that doesn't endanger public safety? They told us to call the sherrif if we feel that we're being endangered. My husband is a police officer in a city nearby and he says that the sherrif wouldn't do anything except write a report. We both feel that the county would have some liability if someone were hit by falling shot on that road now that they know of the danger. Therefore, it seems, that it's the county's responsibility as the issuers of the conditional use permit which allows the gun club to operate on land zoned for agricultural use to see that they change their shooting practices so that the public road isn't in danger.

Can anyone give interpretation as to why the county has shifted responsiblity to the sherrif stating that they "have no juristiction over this matter"?

 

[CdwJava]

If this is a private club on private land, then it's not likely you could hold the government liable for actions there. However, it might be something to bring up to your county's governing body or planning commission. It seems to me an inherent safety problem if the range is configured so that people fire OVER a local road!

Of course the sheriff can do little, the range is in lawful operation so how can they be unlawfully firing over the road? Until the law changes, or the county can find a way to change the situation, the liability generally remains with the club.

Maybe get some video of the activity and share it with the media. Maybe some bad press can get someone moving.

- Carl

 

[claire1224]

Intuitively it seems like the only ones who can do something about it would be the county zoning board by revoking the gun club’s conditional use permit until they can show that their shooting activities aren‘t endangering the public. Isn’t it the local government’s responsibility to issue and revoke zoning permits based on public safety issues? According to this local government’s county zoning board, “no”. But then we also know that there are local politicians who are members of the gun club so it‘s possible that there is a conflict of interest in this situation.

Am I naive on juristiction? I see how a privately owned operation on privately owned land would have liability were injuries to occur in connection with the activities taking place on the property. But whose juristiction is it to stop them from endangering the public when, as has been pointed out, they're shooting lawfully? If a lawfully operating factory dumps toxins into a river that happens to run through their land and poisons the river and endangers those who are down-river from it, there would be laws to protect the public and the factory would be ordered to stop. Isn't that a fair comparison?

 

[Ozark_Sophist]

Isn't it unlawful to shoot over a public road?

 

[CdwJava]

Isn't it unlawful to shoot over a public road?

One would think so ... but, if they were granted some sort of waiver umpteen years ago when it was a cow trail, that waiver may still be in place.

- Carl

 

[CdwJava]

Intuitively it seems like the only ones who can do something about it would be the county zoning board by revoking the gun club’s conditional use permit until they can show that their shooting activities aren‘t endangering the public.

It can be hard to revoke a CUP without cause, except, maybe, when it expires and is up for renewal.

Isn’t it the local government’s responsibility to issue and revoke zoning permits based on public safety issues?

It sounds as if they were grandfathered in, and this may grant them the right to use it in perpetuity or until it changes ownership.

According to this local government’s county zoning board, “no”. But then we also know that there are local politicians who are members of the gun club so it‘s possible that there is a conflict of interest in this situation.

Maybe. But you still have to raise a stink or take action through the proper channels.

But whose juristiction is it to stop them from endangering the public when, as has been pointed out, they're shooting lawfully?

There is rarely any 'duty to protect' forced onto government. Unless they KNEW they could take action and refused to do so knowing full well that they had the right and the responsibility to do so, I can't see that the government will have any liability.

If a lawfully operating factory dumps toxins into a river that happens to run through their land and poisons the river and endangers those who are down-river from it, there would be laws to protect the public and the factory would be ordered to stop. Isn't that a fair comparison?

Not really. And you can point to active violations by pollutants, so far there appears to be no one damaged by the firing range.

- Carl

 

[Ozark_Sophist]

I don't believe a CUP would permit violation of state law (shooting over a public road). I'll have to look it up.

 

[CdwJava]

I don't believe a CUP would permit violation of state law (shooting over a public road). I'll have to look it up.

I suspect they aren't literally shooting OVER the road ... more like, they are shooting TOWARD the road. The likely justification is that the range of the shotguns is not theoretically sufficient to hit the road.

Of course, if this is a PRIVATE road, there might be another wrinkle here.

- Carl

 

[Ozark_Sophist]

Still thinking there is a specific statute, but my five minute search turns up an A Misdemeanor

941.20(1)(a) Endangers another's safety by the negligent operation or handling of a dangerous weapon

or an F felony

2. The person discharges the firearm at or toward any building or other vehicle.

OP - is the road paved? Then there is a fifty foot zone extending from the centerline where it is unlawful to shoot from or through. I couldn't find the specific statute but this provision appears in the hunting safety handout.

Hope this helps.

 

[Ozark_Sophist]

I suspect they aren't literally shooting OVER the road ... more like, they are shooting TOWARD the road. The likely justification is that the range of the shotguns is not theoretically sufficient to hit the road.

Of course, if this is a PRIVATE road, there might be another wrinkle here.

- Carl

I think the point is the range is too close to the road. The clay pigeons would fall well short but OP believes (as a result of research) that the shot potentially could fall on or over the road.

 

[CdwJava]

But, there has been no apparent damage or injury as a result of this proximity. It may well be that the sheriff is reluctant to charge anyone with a crime since this business is lawfully operating and has been for many years. Since they would have to arrest John Q. Public who believed it was a safe place to shoot skeet, I can understand that they are reluctant. And the business has a good defense that they were operating within the law, and that the CUP would seem to confirm that their location was not a high danger to anyone.

Having the business permit/CUP is what makes even the discharge of a firearm lawful. Without it, it is possible that the discharge of a firearm where they are would be unlawful. If the business is adhering to all the local laws to make their otherwise unlawful and dangerous activity lawful, you cannot then hold them legally accountable for a criminal act resulting from their good faith activity within the scope of that permit.

I still say that going to the county board or the media are the best angles. Also, it may well be that the OP is the ONLY person concerned about this. And if the business has operated for 30 years without a problem along the road, it would seem safe to say that the distance is a safe one ... at least, it would be hard to argue that either the county OR the business were somehow operating in a negligent manner.

- Carl

 

[Ozark_Sophist]

Just trying to help the OP by providing a different perspective. Odds are various LE personnel are members of the gun club. And of course, the jury pool probably includes plenty of gun enthusiasts.

Would the CUP have stipulated the layout of the shooting courses? Or did it simply granted the gun club the right to exist on that property?

The example I have in my head is a golf driving range. Driving ranges are liable if balls regularly leave property boundaries due to negligence from improper layout or maintenance of stray ball fences. -- I once hit a driver on a driving range into the winds of an oncoming summer squal. The ball flew way up, up, and up before landing behind me about thirty yards.

 

[claire1224]

Thanks for all of your help. It is a paved, public road. There are other concerned residents in the area. When the gun club opened 30 years ago it was out in the middle of nowhere. Now there are houses being built and the road is being used more. Thus, if an accident were to occur it is more likely than in the past. The gun club has also recently increased it's shooting activities to so that there is more than double the amount of shooting within a year's time. We've tried with the zoning board to be heard on this and were told that they only conduct closed meetings and when we attended one of them we weren't allowed to speak. Then we contacted the head of the zoning dept. who seemed concerned initially, but then backed off citing what I said about it not being within the county's juristiction, but to contact the sheriff.

We don't want to give up yet. If any other angles occur to anyone, please post!

 

[CdwJava]

If they have expanded their operations, it is quite possible that they might have had to go before the planning commission (or whatever body handles CUPs where you live). From the sound of things, the business was there before the residences ... this SHOULD have been addressed as part of the county plan, but apparently no one bothered to re-evaluate and address the information. It may sort of be like the case of people who move in next to an airport then complain about the noise when the airport was there first!

This is a political issue and one that will have to be dealt with on the local level. If enough people are angry, then something can probably be done.

- Carl