Florida Law Allows Backyard Shooting Ranges

[PixiStix]

Ah yes, the HT stirring the pot From reading these posts, I see they are getting their intended reaction.... Adding to the anti gun movement. Down with guns & gun owners, right?!

Signed: one of the majority of gun owners who will not be shooting rounds in the backyard (even though the HT tells me I can)

[LIFL]

Originally Posted by PixiStix

Ah yes, the HT stirring the pot From reading these posts, I see they are getting their intended reaction.... Adding to the anti gun movement. Down with guns & gun owners, right?!

Signed: one of the majority of gun owners who will not be shooting rounds in the backyard (even though the HT tells me I can)

We get it, you're anti gun laws, yet states with stricter gun laws have lower violent crime rates.

[macrodome2]

Pixi- I'm not anti gun. Lock em up when not in use, go out and hunt, or go to the target range. What does bother me is now the gun lobby has made it so the gun owners have more rights than the homeowners. Would I want someone shooting off firecrackers from 3-4pm every Wed (as the guy in the article does with his gun)- NO.

Why in the article did he need another person to "check the canal" to make sure no boats were coming? Maybe he shouldn't be doing that in his backyard- only a common sense suggestion regardless of the law.

I grew up with hunting rifles in the bedroom closet. They weren't loaded and the ammo wasn't readily accessible. (Would not happen now, this was the 1960's) But you never heard about a 4 year old shooting his 6 year old neighbor at a party either. That happened in NJ last year. He found daddy's loaded unlocked gun.

It's unfortunate that some people just can't be responsible, but from a common sense point of view, I don't see how you can have a state law allowing a shooting range in your backyard without any requirements for the size of the yard and specifications for the range.

That's why I asked the HOA question earlier. It seemed a little bizarre that an HOA can restrict the color I paint my house, but can't restrict my neighbor from setting up a shooting range in his backyard when the lot sizes are only .2 acres.

[LIFL]

Originally Posted by macrodome2

Pixi- I'm not anti gun. Lock em up when not in use, go out and hunt, or go to the target range. What does bother me is now the gun lobby has made it so the gun owners have more rights than the homeowners. Would I want someone shooting off firecrackers from 3-4pm every Wed (as the guy in the article does with his gun)- NO.

Why in the article did he need another person to "check the canal" to make sure no boats were coming? Maybe he shouldn't be doing that in his backyard- only a common sense suggestion regardless of the law.

I grew up with hunting rifles in the bedroom closet. They weren't loaded and the ammo wasn't readily accessible. (Would not happen now, this was the 1960's) But you never heard about a 4 year old shooting his 6 year old neighbor at a party either. That happened in NJ last year. He found daddy's loaded unlocked gun.

It's unfortunate that some people just can't be responsible, but from a common sense point of view, I don't see how you can have a state law allowing a shooting range in your backyard without any requirements for the size of the yard and specifications for the range.

That's why I asked the HOA question earlier. It seemed a little bizarre that an HOA can restrict the color I paint my house, but can't restrict my neighbor from setting up a shooting range in his backyard when the lot sizes are only .2 acres.

Spot on!

[PixiStix]

You both are REALLY missing my point here. My beef is not with gun laws- my beef is the media finding ways to sensationalize everything for a reaction (or overreaction in this case) No one really knew about this "law" until the paper dug it up & splashed it across the front page. And even though the intent was to make everyone afraid that their horrible gun owning neighbors will be running around their yard shooting now, it just won't happen.

[Cardiff by the Sea]

Originally Posted by PixiStix

You both are REALLY missing my point here. My beef is not with gun laws- my beef is the media finding ways to sensationalize everything for a reaction (or overreaction in this case) No one really knew about this "law" until the paper dug it up & splashed it across the front page. And even though the intent was to make everyone afraid that their horrible gun owning neighbors will be running around their yard shooting now, it just won't happen.

I get ya

If I had a gazillion dollars and could do one thing to improve the trajectory of the country for the next century, I would create schools of journalism. The news media has gone to hell in a hand basket. And I mean "both sides". Both suck.

[wondermint2]

Originally Posted by PixiStix

You both are REALLY missing my point here. My beef is not with gun laws- my beef is the media finding ways to sensationalize everything for a reaction (or overreaction in this case) No one really knew about this "law" until the paper dug it up & splashed it across the front page. And even though the intent was to make everyone afraid that their horrible gun owning neighbors will be running around their yard shooting now, it just won't happen.

IMO the newspaper article won't have that effect. In fact I tend to believe that 'publicizing' foolish government policies, laws, dishonesty, etc will eventually help to usher in change and make things better. Once the word gets out about how ridiculous something is - whether in private business or government - the seeds of change have been planted. We see such things in the consumer news stories when consumers have been ripped off by businesses. After the story is exposed publicly - most often the business gives the consumer involved in the dispute a full refund so as to look good 'in the public eye'.

Trying to brush bad government polices 'under-the-carpet' won't bring about change. If enough people are now aware of the nonsense gun law they can 1) contact Florida representatives and voice displeasure 2) Vote these politicians out of office 3) if people from out-of-state are thinking of moving to Florida some might read this and decide Florida isn't for them. If this foolish law ends up hurting the Florida economy (less real estate purchases) then that will ultimately usher in change. People can vote with their pocketbook - and money talks. You better believe it does...

There are probably some on this forum that wished I hadn't started this thread here? Probably real estate agents would be my guess. I say get the word out -let it hurt the Florida economy and then you better believe changes will be forthcoming. Sweep it under the rug as hush-hush!? Nah I don't play the game that way....

[gettinoutofjersey]

gun control and other gun issues will only be taken on by liberal democrats. with all the issues they have to hide from ie: obama care, irs scandal, fast and furious, nsa, benghazi, to name a few, the last thing they will do is attack law abiding legal owners of guns. and while some of you may hate guns and cringe at the thought of me and others in public with a concealed weapon, it keeps you safe with the bad guys not knowing who is armed. i would say if you dont like the way it is here, move on, say to................nj.

[bbronston]

I don't know this to be a fact but I'd be willing to bet that it is all about the hierarchy of law. In other words, federal law trumps state law, state law trumps local law, and local law trumps people feeling that they can do whatever they like. In this case, since there is not a state law (yet) regarding the sale of synthetics, local government is free (for the moment) to create local law. With the gun laws, there already was a state law in place but local governments improperly wrote their own different laws. The state cracked down, not by changing the state law, but by making provision for localities to suffer a consequence for ignoring the hierarchy. I don't think everyone, everywhere in the state, should be allowed to shoot in their yards but I agree with what the state did. Now, it remains for the legislature to rework the law so it makes more sense.

[photoman_6]

Originally Posted by bbronston

I don't know this to be a fact but I'd be willing to bet that it is all about the hierarchy of law. In other words, federal law trumps state law, state law trumps local law, and local law trumps people feeling that they can do whatever they like. In this case, since there is not a state law (yet) regarding the sale of synthetics, local government is free (for the moment) to create local law. With the gun laws, there already was a state law in place but local governments improperly wrote their own different laws. The state cracked down, not by changing the state law, but by making provision for localities to suffer a consequence for ignoring the hierarchy. I don't think everyone, everywhere in the state, should be allowed to shoot in their yards but I agree with what the state did. Now, it remains for the legislature to rework the law so it makes more sense.

Whether the subject made sense or not (protecting state gun laws), I applaud the state in the fact that they maintain that state laws cannot be superseded by any laws or administrative edicts imposed by municipalities.

Just yesterday I saw a news story where the county of Sarasota enacted some laws regulating something or other(oh yeah, sales of bath salts). It must be so confusing to comply with state, county, city laws while at the same time trying to keep up with administrative districts, etc. It's hell trying to create or run a business when there are so many laws, rules and regulations you have to comply with.
I strongly believe that there should be only federal and state laws governing our conduct, unless the federal govt or state expressly allows lower level entities to intervene.