Trial in Blount County for someone being sued for shooting on their own property

[Ruination Fan]

This is a little short notice, but tomorrow and Thursday (10/23 and 10/24) at the Blount county Justice center, Black Diamond guns and gear will be going on trial for shooting on his own private property. He is inviting gun owners and gun rights advocates to attend and make a presence be seen at the court. I don't know much about it myself , and was made aware of this issue today. I figured I would help spread the word. I hope people with the ability to attend will be able to do so. Here is more info from the man himself:

 

 

[Garufa]

Be nice to know what the circumstances and grounds of the lawsuit are. 

[A.J. Holst]

9 hours ago, Garufa said:

Be nice to know what the circumstances and grounds of the lawsuit are. 

I think the neighbors didn't like the noise and didn't feel safe.

[peejman]

Potentially a very ugly precedent, I hope he's got a good lawyer. 

[DraxTheDad]

This is where they should be members of the FPC and GOA and get them involved as their lawyers are excellent.   As someone said above, it really does depend on the circumstances.  For example, what if he lives in a tight community on ¼ acre lots; then the neighbors have a legitimate concern.   If he has 100 acres, and was shooting toward their houses, still a problem.   Otherwise, if he was doing nothing illegal, the judge should tell them to f-off.

[Grayfox54]

I found another video with more info. IDK, could go either way. 

 

[22lr]

The accusation is that he is running a commercial range which seems like a tough case to make in my opinion 

[BC in TN]

Details matter…

 

[Grayfox54]

The guys says he owns ONE acre. Doesn't sound like near enough space to me. Plus there are local noise ordinances. 

On the plus side, he did built pretty good backstops. Just not sure if they're high enough. 

While I fully support shooting on private property, I'm not sure if this guy has a valid case. I hope he wins, but its not a sure thing. 

[Pain103]

The neighbors are suing for a zoning issue they believe has been violated. I bet they complained to the county for a code's violation, and they told them to pound sand.

[10-Ring]

1 hour ago, Grayfox54 said:

The guys says he owns ONE acre. Doesn't sound like near enough space to me. Plus there are local noise ordinances. 

On the plus side, he did built pretty good backstops. Just not sure if they're high enough. 

While I fully support shooting on private property, I'm not sure if this guy has a valid case. I hope he wins, but its not a sure thing. 

Do you really want to go down the slippery slope of how much acreage is required to be able to shoot on it? I have a range on 1.5 acres with a solid backstop that is totally safe. I had a friend that had 20 acres that was completely flat and not safe to shoot on. In my opinion the acerage involved is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether or not bullets are leaving the property. It seems that isn't the case here, but we are only hearing one side of the story. Also, my interpretation of what he said was that he was in the county and there were no nose ordinances. 

Edited October 23 by 10-Ring

[peejman]

55 minutes ago, Pain103 said:

The neighbors are suing for a zoning issue they believe has been violated. I bet they complained to the county for a code's violation, and they told them to pound sand.

Complained about a code violation in the county, and it didn't come to anything??!?!   

Clearly they aren't from around here. 

[steveo50]

Slightly off topic, but why is every gun YouTuber so cringe? 

Edited October 23 by steveo50

[Garufa]

10 minutes ago, steveo50 said:

Slightly off topic, but why is every gun YouTuber so cringe? 

It’s not all of them and quit saying cringe, lol.

[Chucktshoes]

3 hours ago, steveo50 said:

Slightly off topic, but why is every gun YouTuber so cringe? 

The last one who really wasn’t sadly left us recently. Even the ones I like are a little bit. 

[NoeLuckatall]

On 10/22/2024 at 8:26 PM, Garufa said:

Be nice to know what the circumstances and grounds of the lawsuit are. 

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.

[NoeLuckatall]

On 10/23/2024 at 6:44 PM, 10-Ring said:

Do you really want to go down the slippery slope of how much acreage is required to be able to shoot on it? I have a range on 1.5 acres with a solid backstop that is totally safe. I had a friend that had 20 acres that was completely flat and not safe to shoot on. In my opinion the acerage involved is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether or not bullets are leaving the property. It seems that isn't the case here, but we are only hearing one side of the story. Also, my interpretation of what he said was that he was in the county and there were no nose ordinances. 

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.

[NoeLuckatall]

On 10/23/2024 at 3:55 PM, 22lr said:

The accusation is that he is running a commercial range which seems like a tough case to make in my opinion 

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.  

[NoeLuckatall]

On 10/23/2024 at 7:31 AM, peejman said:

Potentially a very ugly precedent, I hope he's got a good lawyer. 

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?

Edited December 10 by NoeLuckatall

[Darrell]

6 hours ago, NoeLuckatall said:

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?

Maybe it would make more sense to just make a calm explanation of the situation. I think that most of us here are very interested in SAFE firearms use.  I shoot on my own property, and so do some of my neighbors. But I definitely expect that my neighbors will be sure of where their rounds are falling, just as I am. 

It sounds like you have a legitimate concern, but stating that we should "fire on your neighbor" is gross hyperbole.

[gregintenn]

You aren’t from here, are you?

[peejman]

10 hours ago, NoeLuckatall said:

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.

I had the same problem about 15 years ago. Someone down the road was shooting and bullets occasionally bounced off my neighbor's house and mine. He found a .40 S&W bullet in his driveway. 

We called BCSO and an officer stopped by to talk to us. He told us to call anytime we heard gun fire. If they had someone available, they'd come investigate and let us know the results.

Maybe a month or so later, the deputy stopped back by and told us he'd found the source and they were using an unacceptable backstop.  They were required to correct the backstop.  They did and it hasn't happened since. We still hear gun fire occasionally, so the shooting hasn't stopped. 

Every time I've been shooting on private property where houses are within earshot, a sheriff's deputy has come by to make sure we're being safe.  Our interactions have always been pleasant. 

[10-Ring]

27 minutes ago, peejman said:

I had the same problem about 15 years ago. Someone down the road was shooting and bullets occasionally bounced off my neighbor's house and mine. He found a .40 S&W bullet in his driveway. 

We called BCSO and an officer stopped by to talk to us. He told us to call anytime we heard gun fire. If they had someone available, they'd come investigate and let us know the results.

Maybe a month or so later, the deputy stopped back by and told us he'd found the source and they were using an unacceptable backstop.  They were required to correct the backstop.  They did and it hasn't happened since. We still hear gun fire occasionally, so the shooting hasn't stopped. 

Every time I've been shooting on private property where houses are within earshot, a sheriff's deputy has come by to make sure we're being safe.  Our interactions have always been pleasant. 

12-14 years ago I had a place in Blount County (Happy Valley) (which is WAY out in the middle of nowhere) and had a range in the back yard which was totally safe. I was shooting one day and a deputy pulled up. He was friendly and explained that someone had called in that someone (me) was target shooting and he just needed to make sure I was being safe. He looked at my setup and approved. We then talked guns for a little while and he departed. Later found out from another neighbor that there was a guy down the road that made a practice of calling the law anytime he heard a gun shot.  They showed up a couple of other times as well and I got the feeling that they were a bit annoyed about the call, but never gave me any issues. 

[NoeLuckatall]

1 hour ago, peejman said:

I had the same problem about 15 years ago. Someone down the road was shooting and bullets occasionally bounced off my neighbor's house and mine. He found a .40 S&W bullet in his driveway. 

We called BCSO and an officer stopped by to talk to us. He told us to call anytime we heard gun fire. If they had someone available, they'd come investigate and let us know the results.

Maybe a month or so later, the deputy stopped back by and told us he'd found the source and they were using an unacceptable backstop.  They were required to correct the backstop.  They did and it hasn't happened since. We still hear gun fire occasionally, so the shooting hasn't stopped. 

Every time I've been shooting on private property where houses are within earshot, a sheriff's deputy has come by to make sure we're being safe.  Our interactions have always been pleasant. 

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.

[NoeLuckatall]

4 hours ago, Darrell said:

Maybe it would make more sense to just make a calm explanation of the situation. I think that most of us here are very interested in SAFE firearms use.  I shoot on my own property, and so do some of my neighbors. But I definitely expect that my neighbors will be sure of where their rounds are falling, just as I am. 

It sounds like you have a legitimate concern, but stating that we should "fire on your neighbor" is gross hyperbole.

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.