Jump to content


Photo

Something Interesting In Kendall County...


  • Please log in to reply
24 replies to this topic

#1 Chef Jeff

    Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 85 posts
  • Joined: 27-January 13

Posted 13 August 2018 - 08:12 PM

Saw a sign on the side of 126 on my way to work. Checked out the web site, and the FB link in the website. Lots of misinformation, and apparently the NRA is behind the Sanctuary County movement. Make sure you check out the FB page.

https://makekendallgunrangessafe.com

https://m.facebook.c...07950074/about/

Edited by Chef Jeff, 13 August 2018 - 08:12 PM.


#2 mic6010

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,668 posts
  • Joined: 04-January 14

Posted 13 August 2018 - 08:34 PM

Care to give us a summery for people that don't use human tracking software ?

 

 

Edit:  Sounds like a bunch of anti gun range idiots that are afraid of guns. Never mind.


Edited by mic6010, 13 August 2018 - 08:36 PM.

"Living in Chicago, it used to be, 'don't go out at night,' or 'be more careful at night'. Now it's turned into a place where it doesn't matter if it's day or night."  - John Hendricks.


#3 Jeffrey

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,014 posts
  • Joined: 10-January 08

Posted 14 August 2018 - 06:57 AM

I haven't driven down 126 for a while but if this is anywhere near White Tail, my guess is this anti-group consists of maybe one or two people.  I am only a couple miles from there and can listen to a neighbor shoot on any given day.  It has been this way for years.  Likely it is someone new to the area.  


...and justice for all

YOUR WALLET, the only place Democrats care to drill

#4 lee n. field

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,952 posts
  • Joined: 14-April 04

Posted 14 August 2018 - 07:00 AM

the Book of Faces group has a whopping 6 members.  (But was created 10 days ago.)


"Woe to you who desire the day of the LORD!
Why would you have the day of the LORD?
It is darkness, and not light,"

#5 2smartby1/2

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 404 posts
  • Joined: 30-April 18

Posted 14 August 2018 - 08:37 AM

I can see both sides of the specific issue in the video.  A "range free" county is a different story and basically a non-starter. 

 

Oddly enough, the video makes a good argument FOR cans (assuming subs are being fired). Greatly diminished range and noise level...



#6 kevinmcc

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,395 posts
  • Joined: 16-December 12

Posted 14 August 2018 - 07:53 PM

Just looking at the website, they don't seem too bright.


Life Member, Gun Owners of America
Life Member, NRA
Life Member, Oath Keepers
Life Member, Second Amendment Foundation

#7 biggun 1

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 465 posts
  • Joined: 03-January 17

Posted 14 August 2018 - 08:55 PM

i did see the sign,s today.the small group of anti gun folks should realize that they will get no where with the right wing farmers and the rest of us pro gun folks in kendall county.



#8 2smartby1/2

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 404 posts
  • Joined: 30-April 18

Posted 15 August 2018 - 01:03 PM

I took a closer look at the website and what  the group is proposing, and it makes perfect sense to me.   For those that are opposed, what exactly are you opposed to in terms of the items presented?  It seems like many are blowing this off as an anti-gun group...but upon closer inspection it does not appear to be an "anti-gun" group.   It seems to be more of a "don't change the current rules so that an outdoor commercial gun range can now be placed next to my house/school/church" group. 

 

I live right where Kendall, Kane, Dupage and Will meet and would walk into Kendall everyday to walk my dog at my old house since the border was about 200 yards away.  Now the border  (at my new house) is probably 1100 yards away. 

 

 

 

This may or may not be true, but they specifically state the following:

 

Many people in our group are members of the NRA. Some of us have concealed carry training and carry permits. As a whole, we enjoy and seek RESPONSIBLE laws governing where and under what conditions shooting is permitted.

We respect and support the right to keep and bear arms. We appreciate that our forefathers were wise enough to grant us this right in perpetuity. As a  non-partisan group, we welcome anyone who believes in responsible laws governing this activity.

We’re NOT

responsible-shooting-300x169.jpg

 

We are NOT an anti-gun, anti-gun range group.  In fact, many of us enjoy the sport and challenge of shooting responsibly.



#9 kevinmcc

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,395 posts
  • Joined: 16-December 12

Posted 15 August 2018 - 06:14 PM

Careful, read a bit closer.

The website looks to be written by backwards thinking leftists.


Life Member, Gun Owners of America
Life Member, NRA
Life Member, Oath Keepers
Life Member, Second Amendment Foundation

#10 biggun 1

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 465 posts
  • Joined: 03-January 17

Posted 15 August 2018 - 06:36 PM

kind of reminds me of anti gun people who say,WE DON,T WANT TO TAKE YOUR GUNS AWAY,when we clearly know they would like nothing more than to do just that.



#11 BigJim

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,432 posts
  • Joined: 30-June 08

Posted 16 August 2018 - 08:49 AM

As a whole, we enjoy and seek RESPONSIBLE laws governing where and under what conditions shooting is permitted Sounds like what every other gun control group says. Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
Big Jim
-----------------------------------------
I will not be commanded,
I will not be controlled
And I will not let my future go on,
without the help of my soul

The Lost Boy - Greg Holden

#12 2smartby1/2

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 404 posts
  • Joined: 30-April 18

Posted 16 August 2018 - 09:36 AM

But what is the exact issue with the objections listed?  It has to be more the website looks/sounds like "backwards thinking leftists" and "anti gun people" and "gun control group".   I'll admit, the website does look like an "anti-gun range" site at first glance. But once I read through it, I'd say it is poorly designed, but not anti-gun.  My biggest question would be the wording at the end of the website, but it will now make me look a bit closer at something I had basically blown off. 

 

 

Again, I've lived on the border of Kendall county since 2004....the county line runs right through our neighborhood...houses within the same sub-division are in different counties.  When we moved a few years ago, we stayed in the same neighborhood, and about half of our top 10 houses were in Kendall (the other half in Will, mostly along the border.  My #1 house was in Kendall, but we could not agree on a price).   So maybe I'm looking at this from the far northeast corner of Kendall county POV.  (On a second look, my patio door on my current home is probably closer to 900 yards away from the county line).

 

When I cut and pasted the info from the website, I didn't add the objections because I didn't want provide the complaints myself.  I'm assuming everyone will read through the web page, read through the links, and make a decision based on all available information. 

 

Within the website are the minutes and complaints laid out again. 

https://www.co.kenda...ition_17-28.pdf

 

 

Basically, are people "for" or "against" the specific objections laid out? 



#13 drumgod

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 536 posts
  • Joined: 26-January 13

Posted 16 August 2018 - 11:38 AM

I have read their specific objections which include that all private shooting should be regulated like a commercial range including commercial level insurance.  I firmly believe they are FUDs looking to curb private ranges they consider a nuisance and to stop new ranges from possibly being added where they were restricted before.

 

In my opinion:

 

1. The acreage of land has less to do with the safety of the range than property shape and range design.  I have taken "formal" training classes held on outdoor "ranges" smaller than one acre.

 

2. I see no reason for a "State Recognized or NRA Certified Range Supervisor" to be present. Especially at a private range.

 

3. "How does sighting a gun range next to any of these properties improve public safety and general welfare?"  How does it harm it? This is a "for feelz" argument.

 

4. is a political issue.

 

5. I just plain disagree.

 

Just my opinion.  I have no horse in this race.



#14 Euler

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 920 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 18

Posted 16 August 2018 - 11:55 AM

... I firmly believe they are FUDs Fudds ...


FIFY. Fudd as in Elmer, not FUD as in "fear, uncertainty, and doubt." Just a nit.
The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience.
- Albert Camus, Resistance, Rebellion, and Death, 1960.

#15 Tango7

    Member

  • Members
  • 4,828 posts
  • Joined: 06-November 08

Posted 16 August 2018 - 12:26 PM

... I firmly believe they are FUDs Fudds ...


FIFY. Fudd as in Elmer, not FUD as in "fear, uncertainty, and doubt." Just a nit.


feature-2.jpg
You will not 'rise to the occasion', you will default to your level of training - plan accordingly.

Despite their rallying around us at election time, honoring only 8 hours of Illinois' 40+ hour law enforcement class towards a 16 hour requirement shows the contempt that our elected officials hold us in.

#16 drumgod

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 536 posts
  • Joined: 26-January 13

Posted 16 August 2018 - 12:58 PM

 

... I firmly believe they are FUDs Fudds ...


FIFY. Fudd as in Elmer, not FUD as in "fear, uncertainty, and doubt." Just a nit.

 

 

You are correct sir!  So used to using it the other way it just "popped out".



#17 fxdpntc

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 332 posts
  • Joined: 24-September 13

Posted 16 August 2018 - 02:58 PM

Sure they're anti-range. But so much more.

Even though you don’t have a home in Kendall County, you need to watch your county! Check our Google search on “Illinois Gun Sanctuary Counties”. It may surprise you to see a list of approximately 26 of 103 Illinois counties that have already approved similar petitions at the behest of the NRA. This serves as a push-back on perceived over-reach by the State in Gun Law PROPOSALS. These are proposals, not LAWS at this time.

Instead of challenging the State, the NRA is using this county by county tactic as a back-door to relax the rules to their benefit. Our position is ANY proposal that serves to undermine the law, whether Federal, State, County, or local that serves to the benefit of a select group, only weakens the community’s belief in the rule of law and leads to more special interest issues.

NRA Life Member

ISRA Life Member

USPSA Life Member

USMC 68-69


#18 2smartby1/2

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 404 posts
  • Joined: 30-April 18

Posted 16 August 2018 - 04:22 PM

I have read their specific objections which include that all private shooting should be regulated like a commercial range including commercial level insurance.  I firmly believe they are FUDs looking to curb private ranges they consider a nuisance and to stop new ranges from possibly being added where they were restricted before.

 

In my opinion:

 

1. The acreage of land has less to do with the safety of the range than property shape and range design.  I have taken "formal" training classes held on outdoor "ranges" smaller than one acre.

 

2. I see no reason for a "State Recognized or NRA Certified Range Supervisor" to be present. Especially at a private range.

 

3. "How does sighting a gun range next to any of these properties improve public safety and general welfare?"  How does it harm it? This is a "for feelz" argument.

 

4. is a political issue.

 

5. I just plain disagree.

 

Just my opinion.  I have no horse in this race.

1. I've been on outdoor range much smaller than 5 acres as well, but it wasn't a commercial range (it was a state park), and there were no houses, schools, churches, buildings, ect within miles of it. 

 

2. What about a "for profit" range?   I don't care about an NRA approved Range master on someone's private land.  But on a commercial/for profit property?  

 

3. Remove a lot of the distance restrictions and a small outdoor range with some joe blow as range master 500 feet from a someone's house or school IS a problem.  I'm lucky to have a couple of gun ranges near me (JR's and Shoot Point Blank), but I would not want an outdoor range next door to me.  I would not want to sit on my patio watching my kids play hear gun fire.   (This really impacts #1)

 

4. Not sure how this is a political problem.  Counties zone all types of stuff, why would this be any different?  This is straight from the NRA's website.  Page 31, #3.  What is being requested is an "end-around". 

 

5. Seems like an interesting discussion to me.  



#19 drumgod

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 536 posts
  • Joined: 26-January 13

Posted 17 August 2018 - 08:26 AM

I think their desired commingling of private/commercial rules causes some disconnects in discussing their objections to the proposed changes.

 

1. I've been on outdoor range much smaller than 5 acres as well, but it wasn't a commercial range (it was a state park), and there were no houses, schools, churches, buildings, ect within miles of it. 

 

Distance isn't the only thing that can make a range safe.

 

Private: If you are on a <5 acre "farmette" situated similarly you would not be able to shoot with the current rules. (the ones they want to keep) I know of a couple people in Kane county who shoot in those three sided berms they use to load trucks.

 

Commercial: I've been to several small ranges located in close proximity to "other stuff".  They have tall backstops, concrete walls and "blinds" over the shooting lines that do not allow you to shoot over the backstop.  A proposed commercial range in a "close" area has options.

2. What about a "for profit" range?   I don't care about an NRA approved Range master on someone's private land.  But on a commercial/for profit property?  

Shrug.  My only objection is that the NRA (or the state) should not be the end-all be-all of saying who is qualified.  Certainly, I think that a commercial range should have a safety officer though I've been to many that don't.

 

3. Remove a lot of the distance restrictions and a small outdoor range with some joe blow as range master 500 feet from a someone's house or school IS a problem.  I'm lucky to have a couple of gun ranges near me (JR's and Shoot Point Blank), but I would not want an outdoor range next door to me.  I would not want to sit on my patio watching my kids play hear gun fire.   (This really impacts #1)

A safe range is a safe range no matter where it's located.  (See comments to #1)  Your desire to not hear gunfire while your kids play has nothing to do with actual safety. This plus the desire to apply the same rules to commercial and private ranges is why I think their real goal is to restrict ranges, not make them safer.

4. Not sure how this is a political problem.  Counties zone all types of stuff, why would this be any different?  This is straight from the NRA's website.  Page 31, #3.  What is being requested is an "end-around". 

This also has nothing to do with range safety. It has to do with who gets to make the rules... In my book, that's politics.

5. Seems like an interesting discussion to me.

 

Perhaps. It would certainly complicate things for private range owners... Again, I think this is their ultimate goal.  It seems to me that their objections have less to do with making ranges safe (their proposed goal) and more to do with restricting the places ranges are actually allowed to exist and who gets to make the rules.

 

Edited to fix formatting...


Edited by drumgod, 17 August 2018 - 08:28 AM.


#20 2smartby1/2

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 404 posts
  • Joined: 30-April 18

Posted 17 August 2018 - 11:06 AM

^I do agree that this is some confusion between private and commercial ranges.  My understanding is that the objection is on a commercial range, although the video they showed involved a private range, which adds to the confusion.

 

I meant to add this link from yesterday.

This is from the NRA.  Page 31 is Illinois

https://rangeservice...on-statutes.pdf

(3) If the firearm range is situated on land otherwise subject to land use zoning, the firearm range is in compliance with the requirements of the zoning authority.

 

Page 5 of this PDF shows all the proposed changes. 

https://www.co.kenda...ition_17-28.pdf

 

 The first objection to changed text (in red) was: 

Outdoor target practice or shooting (not including private shooting in your own yard on your own property or shooting ranges owned by the Kendall County Forrest or the State of Illinois used for State Parks)

 

So it seems like there is a quest to have the current rules already in place no longer apply to outdoor ranges in State Parks and Kendall County Forrest preserves. But it gets much worse. 

 

b. Requires minimum parcel size of 5 acres, depending on the venue.  Must meet setbacks of the zoning district. (see requirement K of the proposal)

 

This one is key as it eliminates the 5 acre rules and now says to follow the zoning district rules (it also says see K, but that must be a typo as it comes up again, but K is an unchanged rule about alcohol.)  What are zoning district rules? 

 

j. Must be at least 1000 feet from existing dwelling and property lines. of schools, daycares, places of worships, and airstrips. Must meet setbacks of the zoning district. (see requirement K of the proposal)

 

That is a safety issue.  Also, J&B have removed all stated distance requirements (including state and county parks), and will now depend on the setbacks of the unknown zoning district rules...BUT..

 

m. All applicable Federal, State, and County local rules shall be adhered to. (see requirement o of the proposal).

 

 

The opening statement +B+J+M = an end-around  

 

The request is basically to ignore STATE LAW (55 ILCS 5/5-12001) (from Ch. 34, par. 5-12001) which gives counties zoning rights, AND to be exempt from county zoning regulations.  That isn't "political", that is just a near circular argument in order to get around all current and county rules.  It alludes to the NRA guidelines

 

It seems to me that this particular website/group isn't trying to restrict anything currently done.  It is trying to stop the stripping of basically all current county zoning laws regarding outdoor ranges.   

 

Requirement "a" talk about the NRA Source Book, but it also says to see requirements b, c, d of the proposal.  But we know the b starts stripping the distance rules.  As far as I can tell, he NRA Source Book has no stated distance requirements in terms of land use. 

https://www.airrifle...e_Book_2004.pdf



#21 2smartby1/2

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 404 posts
  • Joined: 30-April 18

Posted 17 August 2018 - 11:29 AM

^Sorry, didn't mean to include State Parks and Kendall County parks.  Those are NOT included in the proposal.   

What does worry me is the change from yard to property.  Does that mean that I could buy a commercial lot on Route 34 in Oswego and put an outdoor shooting range there without having to worry about county zoning laws or current distance requirements?


Edited by 2smartby1/2, 17 August 2018 - 11:36 AM.


#22 soylentgreen

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,302 posts
  • Joined: 27-July 15

Posted 17 August 2018 - 02:21 PM

I think range safety is a concern for everyone. However, when "safety" requirements are aimed at making the ownership or operation of a range impossible, the real agenda is exposed.



#23 speedbump

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 878 posts
  • Joined: 20-August 13

Posted 17 August 2018 - 02:27 PM

I think range safety is a concern for everyone. However, when "safety" requirements are aimed at making the ownership or operation of a range impossible, the real agenda is exposed.


Exactly.
"J.J., you are an anomaly !" ~Mike Rowe~ aka: Mr. Molly

#24 2smartby1/2

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 404 posts
  • Joined: 30-April 18

Posted 17 August 2018 - 04:02 PM

I think range safety is a concern for everyone. However, when "safety" requirements are aimed at making the ownership or operation of a range impossible, the real agenda is exposed.

 I would agree if this particular group was the one proposing new changes to makes requirements more stringent.  But that is not the case. 

It seems as if someone (or some group) has decided that Kendall counties current outdoor range rules are too stringent, and wants them stripped to nearly nothing.  No acreage requirement, no minimum distance from schools, churches, daycares, or airport requirement, no State or NRA certified range master (just a nebulous "qualified"), and no county based zoning requirements.  

 

I'll add that a lot of this is NIMBY to me.  When we moved a few years ago, we only moved about 2/3rds of a mile, but for a few months when were between closing, we have to travel down Ridge road to 80 to get to Morris every day (a 2nd house we owned and were selling).   The OP said he saw the sign on 126 (I'm not sure where).  Maybe further south and west in Kendall county, a rule change may not be as big a deal.  But for the NE corner, the proposed changes make little sense, and would probably do more harm than good in terms of gun rights.  I would not want to see a lightly regulated, outdoor gun range on Wolf road (between rt 34 and rt 30) across from Plank Jr high, or Churchill subdivision, or Fox Bend golf course or Oswego East HS (where my children will attend).  This is not just form a safety standpoint, but from a property value standpoint as well.   

 

Push it out to Caton Farm and 47?  I'm all in...(assuming those that live there don't mind). 



#25 Smoke33

  • Members
  • 43 posts
  • Joined: 01-August 16

Posted 18 August 2018 - 05:24 AM

Not sure about this groups stance or their true intentions. I love to shoot and am all for outdoor as well as indoor ranges. However, I would not want to live next door to an outdoor range listening to the constant noise. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users