• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Indiana shooting range needs your support

DeSchaine

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2013
Messages
537
Location
Kalamazoo, MI
After reading some more on the case from articles in the Madison Courier (they even have links to all the past related articles at the bottom, very cool) and then reading Fallschirmjager's great post I think Big Shot might be in for a bigger fight than they think, NRA not withstanding.

I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me that it all will come down to what the courts will consider as "commerce" under 35-47-11.1-2(3): "commerce in and taxation of firearms, firearm ammunition, and firearm accessories." I think it highly likely that the county will argue that they satisfied state law by issuing the permit for the people to have sales and smithing, but there is nothing requiring them to approve a special use permit for the use of firearms.

That said, there is nothing to stop the Chapos from having family and an extended group of friends come by every day for a fun time of plinking, and nothing to stop those friends from gifting money to the owners, but without the permit, they can't charge a fee. By doing that, and that alone, they do appear to be in violation of the law.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
4,846
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Jefferson county government is trying to shut down my good friends shooting range because of noise. However, state law says you can't do that. The county government is corrupt. We are on the third judge. This case is so important the NRA is now helping fund the case. All we need is if you guys and gals would go to their Facebook page and give a thumbs up. They and I would appreciate it. Look for the justice bus.

https://www.facebook.com/deputybigshot/photos/a.363442220508323.1073741828.361195770732968/686150831570792/?type=3
Wow, Jefferson County has made the big time! We are so grateful to have our playing field leveled, just a little bit. With the NRA Civil Rights Fund generously contributing funds for the defense of Joseph Chapo and Sherry Chapo, and the Deputy Big Shot LLC shooting range, we finally feel the wheels of justice turning in our favor.

The Jefferson County Board of Commissioners and all agencies in the county can exercise ONLY those powers which are permitted by the State Constitution, the United States Constitution, or by federal or state law. This is why the NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund has taken such an interest in the Chapos and Deputy Big Shot's shooting range case.

The Chapos and Deputy Big Shot LLC thank the NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund for their support and understanding this issue is not about zoning, but the defense of the Indiana Range Protection Act and the Second Amendment which includes the right to train at a shooting range.

We appreciate everyone in the community that has offered their support and encouragement, thank you all!
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
4,846
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
After reading some more on the case from articles in the Madison Courier (they even have links to all the past related articles at the bottom, very cool) and then reading Fallschirmjager's great post I think Big Shot might be in for a bigger fight than they think, NRA not withstanding.

I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me that it all will come down to what the courts will consider as "commerce" under 35-47-11.1-2(3): "commerce in and taxation of firearms, firearm ammunition, and firearm accessories." I think it highly likely that the county will argue that they satisfied state law by issuing the permit for the people to have sales and smithing, but there is nothing requiring them to approve a special use permit for the use of firearms.

That said, there is nothing to stop the Chapos from having family and an extended group of friends come by every day for a fun time of plinking, and nothing to stop those friends from gifting money to the owners, but without the permit, they can't charge a fee. By doing that, and that alone, they do appear to be in violation of the law.
First off, in that I am the original poster I find it impossible for you to respond to my original post before I even posted.

Second, All I asked was to give a thumbs-up in support of a shooting range, not a critique, especially when relying on newspaper articles.
It just so happens that I'm the paralegal on this case and your attempt to analyze the case from those newspaper articles is non sequitur.

This case is simple, the zoning ordinance must state what specific section of the zoning ordinance that was violated. The plaintiff has failed to do that. There is a Rule 12(B)(6) motion before the court to dismiss and the court refuses to rule on it. And this is one of the reasons this case is under interlocutory appeal.

With that said, all I asked for is us second amendment rights guys and gals to just give a thumbs-up in support of a shooting range. If you wish not do do that, fine.
 

DeSchaine

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2013
Messages
537
Location
Kalamazoo, MI
First off, due to some sort of duplication of threads and removal of something, my reply (the one above) to your ORIGINAL original post was moved somewhere where it didn't need to be, and then it was moved here. Chill out.

Second, it doesn't really matter what you want or intended to happen. I would hope that you, as a paralegal, are familiar with a little something called the First Amendment. If you post something here, people are free to discuss it as they see fit, within the rules of the forum. This includes pointing out possible issues and offering opinions. Now, not having immediate access to the reams of official papers loaded down with legalese, a person must make use of the next best available source: a local news outlet. If these articles are wrong in their factual content, by all means, refute them and provide correct information.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
4,846
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
First off, due to some sort of duplication of threads and removal of something, my reply (the one above) to your ORIGINAL original post was moved somewhere where it didn't need to be, and then it was moved here. Chill out.
This was not directed at you. Why, because you are not a moderator or in a position to manipulate postings. Of course unless you are a closet hacker. As to my statement: “First off, in that I am the original poster I find it impossible for you to respond to my original post before I even posted.” I do find it impossible for you to respond to my original post before I even posted as it relates to this thread. My statement was intended to spur an explanation by the moderator. Yes, I agree with you that the original post was moved somewhere where it didn't need to be, and then it was moved here. So, maybe you too need to chill out.


Second, it doesn't really matter what you want or intended to happen. I would hope that you, as a paralegal, are familiar with a little something called the First Amendment. If you post something here, people are free to discuss it as they see fit, within the rules of the forum. This includes pointing out possible issues and offering opinions. Now, not having immediate access to the reams of official papers loaded down with legalese, a person must make use of the next best available source: a local news outlet. If these articles are wrong in their factual content, by all means, refute them and provide correct information.
So, as to your first sentence: if it doesn't really matter what I want or intended to happen, then it doesn't really matter what you want or intended to happen.

Now, as you say, yes you may rely on anything you wish, but, as you admit, you have no idea what this case is about other than what is in local news articles. Why would you rely on fake news? And then challenge me to refute fake news is quite progressive. If you actually read my response to your post, you would have seen that I told you what the case is about. Apparently, from your perspective, the news media knows more about the case than I do.

By the way, have you stopped beating your wife?
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,104
Location
White Oak Plantation
Property owners do not have a license to operate a shooting range business? Is this the issue?

Or, is this a noise ordinance issue.

Either way, the property owners need to comply with the court's order and resolve this issue via the courts. Then work to oust current planning board members and any county commissioners who agree with the planning board.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
4,846
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Property owners do not have a license to operate a shooting range business? Is this the issue?

Or, is this a noise ordinance issue.

Either way, the property owners need to comply with the court's order and resolve this issue via the courts. Then work to oust current planning board members and any county commissioners who agree with the planning board.
In Sauer v. Board of Zoning Appeals, 629 N.E.2d 893, 897-898 (Ind.App. 1994), the court found that it is a derogation of the common law to restrict the free use of property. Such an ordinance must be strictly construed. The court also stated that it would “construe the ordinance to favor the free use of land and will not extend restrictions by implications.” The Sauer court also stated, “A Zoning Board may not on an ad hoc basis impose a condition or requirement not contained in the zoning ordinance.”

In other words, when certain items or words are specified or enumerated in a law then, by implication, other items or words not so specified or enumerated are excluded. See Common Council v. Peru Daily Tribune, Inc., (1982) Ind. App., 440 N.E.2d 726 and Wardship of Turrin, (1982) Ind. App., 436 N.E.2d 130.

The Jefferson County Zoning Ordinance does not address shooting ranges. And the shooting range was established in 1991. The Plan Commission ONLY has authority to bring suit for a violation of the Zoning Ordinance and to this date the Plan Commission has not and cannot point to what section of the zoning ordinance was violated. Hence, this is why a 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim was filed. And the court has, to date, refused to rule on it.

The Plan Commission claims the range denial was because of noise. But, the Indiana Range Protection Act denies local government from shutting down shooting ranges because of noise.

In 2011 the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals (Ezell v. City of Chicago, 651 F.2d 684, 694) made it clear that the Second Amendment protects the right to maintain proficiency in firearm use, including the right to train at a shooting range, and a City's ban on shooting range training violates the Second Amendment. This ruling even effects counties.

The court agrees that the preliminary injunction they authored is unenforceable. Because the preliminary injunction is under appeal the lower court can't fix its ambiguity, in other words, it's void for vagueness.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,104
Location
White Oak Plantation
Indiana Range Protection Act: IC 14-22-31.5 Chapter 31.5. Shooting Ranges
14-22-31.5-1"Local unit of government" defined
14-22-31.5-2"Person" defined
14-22-31.5-3"Shooting range" defined
14-22-31.5-4Repealed
14-22-31.5-5Local government regulation
14-22-31.5-6Liability relating to noise
14-22-31.5-7Powers of ranges in existence before July 1, 1996

http://iga.in.gov/legislative/laws/2017/ic/titles/014#14-22-31.5

http://jeffersoncounty.in.gov/ordinances.php


http://jeffersoncounty.in.gov/ordinances/JeffersonCo28.pdf
Thanks, learned something new.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
4,846
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Thanks, learned something new.
You supplied a link to the Jefferson county zoning ordinance. No mention of shooting range. Now, here is a link to the neighboring county. http://www.ripleycounty.com/areaplanning/chapter80.pdf
Ripley county directly addresses shooting ranges. And the visiting judge is from Ripley county. When the judge was informed of this his eyes got real big. The judge is on the spot. However, we will have to wait for the appeals court to rule in regards to the preliminary injunction.
 
Top