Jump to content

Call to Action - Kane County Range Ban


mauserme
 Share

Recommended Posts

 

Private Range Ban Alert!

 

 

On the morning of November 10, the Kane County Judicial and Public Safety Committee may consider a new ordinance making private ranges illegal in many areas of the county.

 

The proposal raises many questions, first and foremost, Why?

 

What problem exists in Kane County that they hope to remedy by banning private ranges? Does a problem actually exist on the ground, or is this more of the “what if's” we've come to expect from the anti-gun crowd in Illinois?

 

Beyond defining the problem, whether actual or perceived, is there existing law that already addresses it? Illinois has a multitude of statutes purported to protect the safety of it's citizens, including a raft of anti-gun law that certainly exceeds what is common or even necessary.

 

And finally, can a law like that being proposed in any way comport with recent Supreme Court guidance in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v Bruen, which instructs that current law must have an historical analogue if it is to be Constitutionally sound.  Specifically, the historical analogue must have existed in the founding era when the Bill of Rights was adopted in 1791, a time when prohibitions on gun use in unincorporated areas did not exist.

 

The ordinance, proposing to prohibit gun use within 300 yards of a “residential area”, may seem reasonable to some. After all, that's only a few football fields away. But do the math. A 300 yard radius around your home is more than 58 acres on which guns may not be fired. Using the football field analogy, it's about 44 football fields complete with end zones, with your property smack dab in the middle of that no gun zone.

 

Not only that, the ordinance is worded to include your own home as one of the residential structures within the definition of a “residential area”. Do you have a detached, residential garage? That's another. One more within 300 yards, and your rights are gone.

 

No thought is given to the direction of fire in relation to your distant neighbors. No thought is given to the ever increasing limits on private ranges as the population increases because the intent is not the safety of others. The intent is the same old Progressive creep we see in all those areas they now call the Chicago collar counties. The intent, scheduling debate just days after the midterm elections, is the same old ploy to avoid accountability to the electorate. The intent is no guns at all!

 

Beginning Monday, before you go to the polls, please contact the members of the County Board. Plan to attend the hearing, especially if you live in the area. Politely express your opposition to this infringement on your rights. Plan ahead by registering your intent to address the committee using their Request to Speak Form. Use the drop downs to choose the Judicial and Public Safety Committee meeting Thursday, November 10, at 9:00 AM.

 

 

Board Members may be contacted at the following:

 

Corinne Pierog, Madam Chair 630-232-5930

cpierog@kanecoboard.org

 

Myrna Molina 630-444-1201

mmolina@kanecoboard.org

 

Dale Berman 630-444-1202

dberman@kanecoboard.org

 

Anita Lewis 630-444-1203

alewis@kanecoboard.org

 

Mavis Bates 630-444-1204

mbates@kanecoboard.org

 

Bill Lenert 630-444-1205

blenert@kanecoboard.org

 

Ron Ford 630-444-1206

rford@kanecoboard.org

 

Monica Silva 630-444-1207

msilva@kanecoboard.org

 

Michelle Gumz 630-444-1208

mgumz@kanecoboard.org

 

Thomas A. Koppie 630-444-1209

tkoppie@kanecoboard.org

 

David Brown 630-444-1210

dbrown@kanecoboard.org

 

John Martin 630-444-1211

jmartin@kanecoboard.org

 

Ken Shepro, Vice Chairman 630-444-1212

kshepro@kanecoboard.org

 

Todd Wallace 630-444-1213

TWallace@kanecoboard.org

 

Mark Davoust 630-444-1214

mdavoust@kanecoboard.org

 

Barbara Wojnicki 630-444-1215

bwojnicki@kanecoboard.org

 

Michael Kenyon 630-444-1216

mkenyon@kanecoboard.org

 

Deborah Allan 630-444-1217

dallan@kanecoboard.org

 

Drew Frasz 630-444-1218

dfrasz@kanecoboard.org

 

Mohammad "Mo" Iqbal 630-444-1219

mIqbal@kanecoboard.org

 

Cherryl Fritz Strathmann 630-444-1220

cstrathmann@kanecoboard.org

 

Clifford Surges 630-444-1221

csurges@kanecoboard.org

 

Verner (Vern) Tepe 630-444-1222

vtepe@kanecoboard.org

 

Chris Kious 630-444-1223

ckious@kanecoboard.org

 

Jarett Sanchez 630-444-1224

jsanchez@kanecoboard.org

 

 

The ISRA first opposed and now supports this anti-gun initiative. IllinoisCarry will remain steadfast in our support of your rights against this, and all infringements.

 

Join us in opposing this anti-gun, anti-rights Kane County agenda. Join us at IllinoisCarry.com.

 

###

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/6/2022 at 1:30 PM, mauserme said:

...

The ordinance, proposing to prohibit gun use within 300 yards of a “residential area”, may seem reasonable to some. After all, that's only a few football fields away. But do the math. A 300 yard radius around your home is more than 58 acres on which guns may not be fired. Using the football field analogy, it's about 44 football fields complete with end zones, with your property smack dab in the middle of that no gun zone.

...

 

For the sake of accuracy:

 

It's a county ordinance prohibiting the discharge of a firearm, analogous to an ordinance like most incorporated areas have prohibiting any discharge within corporation limits. Most counties in the country (red, blue, yellow, green, whatever) have similar ordinances. This one prohibits discharge if the area enclosed by a 300 yard radius includes at least 3 occupied structures. (One house = one structure; one apartment building, no matter how many apartments there are = one structure; etc.) If there are 2 or fewer, including possibly your own, there's no prohibition.

 

If anybody wants to argue against it, IMO you'll look better if you understand what it is you're arguing against.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20+ years ago, there was uproar in a liberal eastern state over a pre-existing sports car racing circuit (Bridgehampton) as housing developments encroached. "The noise and exhaust fumes are hazardous", they cried. However, a study determined that the elitists' golf courses posed a much greater threat to the environment and water table from fertilizer and weed control run-off.  Just as "racing cars" are bad in the eyes of emotional people, so are "gun ranges".

 

Democrats kill what they do not understand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/6/2022 at 3:36 PM, Euler said:

 

For the sake of accuracy:

 

It's a county ordinance prohibiting the discharge of a firearm, analogous to an ordinance like most incorporated areas have prohibiting any discharge within corporation limits. Most counties in the country (red, blue, yellow, green, whatever) have similar ordinances. This one prohibits discharge if the area enclosed by a 300 yard radius includes at least 3 occupied structures. (One house = one structure; one apartment building, no matter how many apartments there are = one structure; etc.) If there are 2 or fewer, including possibly your own, there's no prohibition.

 

If anybody wants to argue against it, IMO you'll look better if you understand what it is you're arguing against.

 

The ordinances in other counties were passed before NYSRPA v Bruen, before SCOTUS demanded a text, history and tradition analysis.  Those who fail to understand that distinction should avoid posting in support of this amendment.

 

Additionally the ordinance, as proposed does not specify a dwelling, nor does it specify that the structure must be occupied.  As written a garden shed qualifies as one of the disqualifying residential structures. 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/6/2022 at 4:51 PM, mauserme said:

The ordinances in other counties were passed before NYSRPA v Bruen, before SCOTUS demanded a text, history and tradition analysis.  Those who fail to understand that distinction should avoid posting in support of this amendment.

 

Additionally the ordinance, as proposed does not specify a dwelling, nor does it specify that the structure must be occupied.  As written a garden shed qualifies as one of the disqualifying residential structures. 

 

Heller and McDonald are about owning firearms. Bruen is about carrying firearms. Neither is about discharging firearms. Perhaps those who fail to understand the distinction should indeed refrain from posting.

 

If people want to have the ordinance clarified to specify occupied residential structures rather than any residential structure, like a garden shed, I suspect the county board would be more open to such feedback than to pitchforks and torches.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/6/2022 at 5:19 PM, mauserme said:

NYSRPA v Bruen indeed defined the level of scrutiny that was lacking in prior decisions.  That level is above strict.  Attempting to make that less than it is, is doing the work of the anti-gun people for them.

 

If negotiations on the language are to happen, that will not be done here in an open forum.

 

Exhorting readers to attend a county board meeting and advocate for unrestricted firearm discharge does more to advance an anti-2A agenda than anything an anti-2A organization could do. If you wish to argue that there is text, history, and tradition for unrestricted discharge of a firearm without regard to location or population density, a county board meeting isn't the place to do it, anyway.

 

Meanwhile a county board meeting would be the place to suggest clarification to the wording of proposed ordinances. I'm not sure how you get from me literally saying

 

On 11/6/2022 at 5:07 PM, Euler said:

... the county board would be more open to such feedback than to pitchforks and torches

 

to suggesting that I wished to amend the proposed language formally on these forums.

 

Also, feel free to point to the words where I say I support the proposed ordinance. I think I haven't expressed an opinion about it one way or the other. I have pointed out that most counties have such ordinances. That's a fact. They do. OTOH I have expressed an opinion about your messaging regarding it. Those are different things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/6/2022 at 4:07 PM, Euler said:

 

Heller and McDonald are about owning firearms. Bruen is about carrying firearms. Neither is about discharging firearms. Perhaps those who fail to understand the distinction should indeed refrain from posting.

 

As said both Heller and Bruen defined the level of scrutiny to apply to 2nd 'restriction laws', so it's very applicable here, unde Heller/Bruen the same level of scrutiny applies to discharging a firearm as well, to claim otherwise is just being silly. Sorry but suggesting the test established in Heller/Bruen is only applicable to owning and carrying firearms and not actually using them is again silly, honestly it's silly as the Bruen ruling placed no such limitations on the test to only ownership and carry, quite the contrary it cast a broad net 'firearm regulation'

 

Quote

Today, we decline to adopt that two-part approach. In keeping with Heller, we hold that when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. To justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest. Rather, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only if a firearm regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s “unqualified command.” Konigsberg v. State Bar of Cal., 366 U. S. 36, 50, n. 10 (1961).3

 

Edited by Flynn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just read the ordinance.  It specifically states it's not intended to limit private ranges or hunting in areas zoned for same, and specifies single or multifamily residential structures.  First, it appears to me that refers to dwellings.  To be sure, you would need to check their zoning ordinance for those definitions.  A shed or garage is not a "residential structure," IMO.  Then, one needs to check on whether there are any existing target/skeet ranges or hunting areas, and whether any areas in the county are actually "zoned" for such activities (meaning that those are either permitted uses or permitted special uses).  Lastly, it states that it would be unlawful to discharge a firearm where same "is likely to subject residents or passersby to risk of injury."   If a range has proper bullet containment like berms, etc., it shouldn't apply.  The scary thing is 300 yards of at least (what I ASSUME to be) 3 residential DWELLINGS; that's over a sixth of a mile.  The ordinance is poorly written, ambiguous and can be subjectively enforced.  This will definitely make hunting on private land in the county "iffy."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The amendment does not say is is not intended to limit private ranges.  It's purpose is specifically to limit private, ie ranges of the type located on private property in unincorporated areas if the county

 

Language must be precisely written in order to convey the intent.  If they meant dwelling they would have said dwelling.  They said "structure" instead, which is much broader than a dwelling.  We are not in the business of assuming what they meant to say and hoping for the best.  We can only act upon what they did say.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Their including single family or multi-family "structures" implies dwellings.  A shed is a shed and a garage is a garage.  Agreed, it's poorly written and ambiguous -- and probably by intent.  If you have proper berms, walls or whatever, it's not likely to endanger anyone.  "Likely," though, is a subjective term.  The more I think about it, yes, I agree it is probably aimed at people who have private ranges on their property.  That being the case, the dingalings should just pass an ordinance with safety requirements for private ranges.  That's reasonable, if done in good faith.  (Do Democrats ever act in good faith?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"implies" is sucker bait. the law is as the law is written, not what some poor mook is misled to believe.

 

structure definition would include an open framework, definitely not a dwelling. An antenna tower would qualify.

 

a dwelling : a building or portion thereof, a tent, a vehicle, or other enclosed space which is used or intended for use as a human habitation, home or residence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/6/2022 at 6:31 PM, Euler said:

 

Exhorting readers to attend a county board meeting and advocate for unrestricted firearm discharge does more to advance an anti-2A agenda than anything an anti-2A organization could do. If you wish to argue that there is text, history, and tradition for unrestricted discharge of a firearm without regard to location or population density, a county board meeting isn't the place to do it, anyway.

 

Meanwhile a county board meeting would be the place to suggest clarification to the wording of proposed ordinances. I'm not sure how you get from me literally saying

 

 

to suggesting that I wished to amend the proposed language formally on these forums.

 

Also, feel free to point to the words where I say I support the proposed ordinance. I think I haven't expressed an opinion about it one way or the other. I have pointed out that most counties have such ordinances. That's a fact. They do. OTOH I have expressed an opinion about your messaging regarding it. Those are different things.

Being from central Illinois I believe most of Illinois's 102 counties do not have ordinances prohibiting shooting on private county land. There are many small villages that do not prohibit shooting. I live in one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't believe there is open question on this board on whether this ordinance is good or bad.  Of course it is a terrible way for Kane to become more like Cook, and ban everything they can.  As usual, the anti's take things in little pieces, and ban / restrict whatever they can at the moment, always moving away from freedom.  

 

Email sent to cpierog@kanecoboard.org, mmolina@kanecoboard.org, dberman@kanecoboard.org, alewis@kanecoboard.org, mbates@kanecoboard.org, blenert@kanecoboard.org, rford@kanecoboard.org, msilva@kanecoboard.org, mgumz@kanecoboard.org, tkoppie@kanecoboard.org, dbrown@kanecoboard.org, jmartin@kanecoboard.org, kshepro@kanecoboard.org, TWallace@kanecoboard.org, mdavoust@kanecoboard.org, bwojnicki@kanecoboard.org, mkenyon@kanecoboard.org, dallan@kanecoboard.org, dfrasz@kanecoboard.org, mIqbal@kanecoboard.org, cstrathmann@kanecoboard.org, csurges@kanecoboard.org, vtepe@kanecoboard.org, ckious@kanecoboard.org, jsanchez@kanecoboard.org.  If you cannot attend the meeting, at least let them know why this ordinance is a bad idea (email or phone)...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s also a money Grab. Notice in the penalty section C, it appears that you can be cited through an “ordinance violation”, which is cheaper and probably “doesn’t go on your record” kinda like the red light and speed camera 🐮💩!
 

ORDINANCE NO.
AMENDING CHAPTER 12 OF THE KANE COUNTY CODE
WHEREAS, the Kane County Judicial and Public Safety Committee has determined that it is in the best interests of the County to add Article IV to Chapter 12 of the Kane County Ordinance as authorized by the Counties Code 55 ILCS 5/5-1117 on the Discharge of Firearms; and
WHEREAS, the Kane County Judicial and Public Safety Committee has also determined that it would be in the best interests of the County to clarify language in the Code referring to the Discharge of Firearms.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Kane County Board that Chapter 12 of the Kane County Code pertaining to the Discharge of Firearms be added as follows:
ARTICLE IV: DISCHARGE OF FIREARMS Section
12-50 Definitions
12-51 Regulation
12-52 Enforcement 12-53 Penalty
12-50 DEFINITIONS
For the purpose of this chapter, the following definitions shall apply.
FIREARM. Any gun, rifle, shotgun, pistol, cannon or other device which is discharged by the igniting of gunpowder from within a firing chamber designed for such purpose as a component of the firearm.
RESIDENTIAL AREA. Any area within 300 yards of at least three single-or multi-family residential structures.
12-51 REGULATION
(A) It shall be a violation of this chapter to discharge a firearm in any residential areas of unincorporated Kane County where such discharge is likely to subject residents or passersby to the risk of injury.
(B) It shall not be deemed a violation of this chapter to discharge a firearm during the lawful defense of persons or property or in the course of making a lawful arrest when such force is justified under Article 7 of the Criminal Code of 2012.
(C) This chapter is not intended to limit target, trap, or skeet shooting in an established shooting sports facility, veteran’s organization, not-for-profit, or a licensed commercial business with a shooting range on property that is zoned for such activities.
(D) This chapter is also not intended to limit the otherwise lawful act of hunting under the Illinois Wildlife Code (520 ILCS 5/1.1 et seq.).
(E) This chapter is further not indented to limit the discharge of blank cartridges at sporting events, theatrical performances or the firing of salutes at military funerals or memorials.
 Packet Pg. 167

12-52 ENFORCEMENT
Violations of this chapter shall be enforced by the Kane County Sheriff or his or her designee(s) and, at his or her discretion, may proceed either through a notice to appear before the 16th Judicial Circuit Court or through administrative adjudication pursuant to the Kane County Administrative Adjudication Ordinance (§§ 2-320 to 2-334).
12-53 PENALTY
(A) Any person who violates this chapter shall be deemed to have committed an ordinance violation and shall be fined as set forth below. Each 24-hour period in which or during which a violation occurs shall constitute a separate offense.
(B) Kane County Sheriff’s Office Citation filed in Circuit Court. If the ordinance is cited for enforcement before the 16th Judicial Circuit, the fine amount shall be as follows:
(1) The first violation of this chapter shall be punishable by a fine of no less than $250. (2) The second violation of this chapter by the same person within a 12-month period
shall be punishable by a fine of no less than $500.
(3) A third or subsequent violation of this chapter by the same person within a 12-month
period shall be punishable by a fine of no less than $750.
(C) Kane County Administrative Adjudication Citation of Violation. If the ordinance violation is cited for enforcement through the Kane County Administrative Adjudication ordinance, the minimum fine shall be $115 for each violation, with a maximum fine not to exceed $500.
(D) Nothing herein in this Chapter shall preclude prosecution by the State’s Attorney’s Office of any person for the offenses of aggravated discharge of a firearm (720 ILCS 5/24-1.2) or reckless discharge of a firearm (720 ILCS 5/24-1.5) under the Criminal Code of 2012.
Passed by the Kane County Board on November 15, 2022

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...