NoeLuckatall

Yes I called them. The defendant had bulldozed the property markers installing the first rendition of his range. I couldn't prove I owned the property so they did nothing at that time. In hind sight as bullet evidence accumulated and we had paid to survey and replace the marker, we should have simply pursued criminal charges. But... the burden of proof in a criminal case is "clear and evident proof" whereas in civil cases it is "preponderance of the evidence." I didn't want to wait for clear and evident proof which would likely mean someone had gotten shot. Probably me. Its kinda hard to take action when you are dead.

His "range" is 2 feet off of the plaintiffs property line in one direction and 150 feet in another. He is routinely sending bullets into the plaintiff's property and simply saying "No I'm not, prove it, I guarantee this is safe." The "giant" hill he is shooting into has an 8 degree rise over 150 feet. The plaintiffs own and frequently use the top of the hill. Their house is on top of the hill. His berm is grossly inadequate to contain rounds on his 1 acre piece of property. And he frequently shoots into the hill and not even at his berm. He seems convinced that his bullets just go into the dirt and denies the risk of skips off this low rise hill. He gave the plaintiffs no option but to pursue civil or criminal charges. He is lucky it was civil.

The defendant's range is on the plaintiffs property line. He has not made any improvements since evidence was collected. He denies that he is sending bullets off range despite the evidence. He is lucky only civil action was pursued rather than criminal.

Plaintiff here. Your rights are still so intact that we (the plaintiffs) can legally put a berm 10 ft away from the defendant's MIL's house and absolutely no one will stop us. The burden would be on them to spend $100,000 to prove it is unsafe. So relax. You are still free the abuse the hell out of your neighbor. If they don't have $100,000, they are defenseless. So go for it. Fire on your neighbor because you have a God Given right to discharge firearms regardless of the risk to your neighbor right?

In 2018 the Blount co planning commission expanded the definition of a commercial range to include any range intended to generate a profit by any means. I suspect they anticipated this influx of gun tubers that will shove a gun up your derriere for even a single solitary like. Your neighbor has property rights and is most definitely also pro 2 A.

This is the sole basis of the lawsuit. Rounds leaving the property.The defendant is routinely sending rounds into the plaintiff's property. He is being sued for legal leval nuisance which is far more than a little gun noise down the road. He has adversely possessed parts of the plaintiff's property by making it unsafe for them to be physically on their property.

The defendant is routinely sending rounds into the plaintiff's property. He is being sued for legal leval nuisance which is far more than a little gun noise down the road. He has adversely possessed parts of the plaintiff's property by making it unsafe for them to be physically on their property.