I am talking about the urban area. The "airsoft law", as the officer called it, only applies to the urban area, which is where I live.
Last edited:
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
Zionsville Attempting to Restrict Rural Shooting
- Thread starter GuyRelford
- Start date
-
- Tags
- property rights
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
I am talking about the urban area. The "airsoft law", as the officer called it, only applies to the urban area, which is where I live.
GuyRelford
Master
Here are the current firearms regulations in the Zionsville Code of Ordinances:
steveh_131
Grandmaster
Oh, there's plenty of problems with stray bullets in rural areas. 8 seconds of google reveals:
School bus struck by possible stray bullet on rural Oregon road - KPTV - FOX 12
Kid Shootings: 9-year-old shot by stray bullet while walking on rural road
Woman Recovering From Stray Bullet Gunshot Wound
Stray bullet injures 9-year-old boy walking with grandfather down street in rural area near Fulshear in Fort Bend County | abc13.com
We clearly need a Range Marshall to issue you the proper license before you can discharge a firearm on your property.
So Zionsville needs and ordinance because idiots exist in other places?
steveh_131
Grandmaster
Hey, this is Kirk's argument, not mine.
Fires have happened around live music, therefore all live music requires a fire marshall.
Accidental shootings have happened in rural areas, therefore all rural shooting requires a range marshall.
hornadylnl
Shooter
- Nov 19, 2008
- 21,505
- 63
Pretty sure the Great White fire didn't happen in Muncie.
I'm surprised the pro regulation crowd would think regulations are only necessary after a tragedy occurs, not before to prevent it.
HavokCycle
Master
if you've ever been to an indoor or bunker-type range, you'll see the problem. pockmarks in ceiling, floor, walls, pillars, dividers, stations/benches, etc, EVERYTHING and EVERYWHERE. its not the stuff that does down range and hits the back stop that is the problem. its the stuff that DOESNT is the issue.
my local gun club has an out door range, and has had numerous problems with rounds going off the range and heading off toward the neighbors farm.
my local gun club has an out door range, and has had numerous problems with rounds going off the range and heading off toward the neighbors farm.
hornadylnl
Shooter
- Nov 19, 2008
- 21,505
- 63
Apparently the neighboring farm owner needs to be killed by a stray bullet before any such regulations regarding shooting ranges can exist.
Absolutely, we have the this exact problem at our indoor range.
HavokCycle
Master
i have no idea whats going on out there. range rules are becoming restrictive, to the point of requiring an on-duty range master. i hate seeing the club turn this way but i agree, its unacceptable for rounds to cause a threat. i loved when it was quiet, and no one was there.
i get it, i do, and i'm concerned with its future.
CathyInBlue
Grandmaster
I love watching your mind at work. Honestly.
I'm glad to see Ken Campbell get involved. Very level headed and good sheriff. I grew up in Boone County, and he got my vote :P
Only relevant to say, elected individuals are very capable of supporting what's right. I hope his persuasion along with the citizens of Zionsville can urge the council for a fair write up at the least
Only relevant to say, elected individuals are very capable of supporting what's right. I hope his persuasion along with the citizens of Zionsville can urge the council for a fair write up at the least
The two at Large Members, Jeff Papa and Susana Suarez represent all of Zionsville - both the rural and the urban areas. Candace Ulmer is the representative of the rural area (former Union Township). However, all of the councilors will vote on the ordinance, so it would make sense to contact all of them. My understanding is Ulmer is the one behind the ordinance, as it is her district and she is responding to the wishes of some of her constituants. Here is a link to all councilor's emails: Town of Zionsville » Zionsville Government
When Zionsville was being reorganized, Union Township residents expressed concern over their gun rights. They were explicitly told that nothing would change. In the Plan of Reorganization, on page 7 it states "Residents within the town district and the rural district should be subject to the local ordinances that currently apply, before consolidation, to their respective districts." http://www.bccn.boone.in.us/reorg/pdf/Reorganization Resolution.pdf
In my opinion, that includes gun rights, as they currently stand, and stood at the time of consolidation.
When Zionsville was being reorganized, Union Township residents expressed concern over their gun rights. They were explicitly told that nothing would change. In the Plan of Reorganization, on page 7 it states "Residents within the town district and the rural district should be subject to the local ordinances that currently apply, before consolidation, to their respective districts." http://www.bccn.boone.in.us/reorg/pdf/Reorganization Resolution.pdf
In my opinion, that includes gun rights, as they currently stand, and stood at the time of consolidation.
Mr Potato Head
Plinker
This problem got me off my butt to go looking for a forum to try to get interest by other firearms owners before this gets railroaded through. Thus my first post.
This is not just a Zionsville problem. This is a any lawful firearms owner problem.
“(c) It shall be unlawful for any person to fire or discharge a firearm within 150 yards in proximity to or within the range of any person or assemblage of people, adjacent private property, vehicle, farm, dwelling, house, apartment, church, school, airport, or other building, park, trail, pathway or recreational area, or to fire in such direction such that any projectile expelled could or does strike, hit, enter or pass through any of the foregoing.”
What is the definition of a “farm” or “trail”?
This needs to be stopped NOW. Do the math. Assume you have a 20 acre tract 1,000ft x 1,000ft, since you could not shoot within 150 yards of a property line you would have a 50ft x 50ft area in the very center of your 20 acre property that you could shoot within. If you stand 10yds inside your property you could not shoot in towards the center of your own property even if you owned 10,000 acres. Anything under 20 acres forget about it. No discharge of a firearm PERIOD! No teaching our children or grandchildren the safe handling of firearms. No target shooting with a .22 on a Sunday afternoon. NOTHING! This affects the farm area surrounding Zionsville. Not inside the Zionsville city limits!
As usual this is an attempt to disguise a leftist law with a protective name like “To Provide For Safety in Discharging Firearms”
It’s real name is “To Prevent Lawful Firearms Owners From Safely Firing Their Firearms On Their Own Property”.
Even the Boone County Sheriff Ken Campbell has spoken out against this and is asking for time to speak at the meeting.
This is EXACTLY what all of the rural owners were assured would NOT happen as feared during annexation. The city people move to the country and want to destroy all long standing country activities.
This is about firing guns, not being safe with them. There are plenty of laws on the books dealing with the unsafe discharge of a firearm already.
Even those not in this area PLEASE copy and paste the council members email address below in an email and let them know this is total nonsense.
Yes I know it's asking a lot for a first post but please consider it.
jpapa@zionsville-in.gov; smundy@zionsville-in.gov; culmer@zionsville-in.gov; thaak@zionsville-in.gov; tschuler@zionsville-in.gov; ehopper@zionsville-in.gov; ssuarez@zionsville-in.gov; jyeo@zionsville-in.gov
This is not just a Zionsville problem. This is a any lawful firearms owner problem.
“(c) It shall be unlawful for any person to fire or discharge a firearm within 150 yards in proximity to or within the range of any person or assemblage of people, adjacent private property, vehicle, farm, dwelling, house, apartment, church, school, airport, or other building, park, trail, pathway or recreational area, or to fire in such direction such that any projectile expelled could or does strike, hit, enter or pass through any of the foregoing.”
What is the definition of a “farm” or “trail”?
This needs to be stopped NOW. Do the math. Assume you have a 20 acre tract 1,000ft x 1,000ft, since you could not shoot within 150 yards of a property line you would have a 50ft x 50ft area in the very center of your 20 acre property that you could shoot within. If you stand 10yds inside your property you could not shoot in towards the center of your own property even if you owned 10,000 acres. Anything under 20 acres forget about it. No discharge of a firearm PERIOD! No teaching our children or grandchildren the safe handling of firearms. No target shooting with a .22 on a Sunday afternoon. NOTHING! This affects the farm area surrounding Zionsville. Not inside the Zionsville city limits!
As usual this is an attempt to disguise a leftist law with a protective name like “To Provide For Safety in Discharging Firearms”
It’s real name is “To Prevent Lawful Firearms Owners From Safely Firing Their Firearms On Their Own Property”.
Even the Boone County Sheriff Ken Campbell has spoken out against this and is asking for time to speak at the meeting.
This is EXACTLY what all of the rural owners were assured would NOT happen as feared during annexation. The city people move to the country and want to destroy all long standing country activities.
This is about firing guns, not being safe with them. There are plenty of laws on the books dealing with the unsafe discharge of a firearm already.
Even those not in this area PLEASE copy and paste the council members email address below in an email and let them know this is total nonsense.
Yes I know it's asking a lot for a first post but please consider it.
jpapa@zionsville-in.gov; smundy@zionsville-in.gov; culmer@zionsville-in.gov; thaak@zionsville-in.gov; tschuler@zionsville-in.gov; ehopper@zionsville-in.gov; ssuarez@zionsville-in.gov; jyeo@zionsville-in.gov
That is a heck of a quality first post there Mr. Potato Head.
In reading the draft of the ordinance, it's much worse than most people would think, due to the language being used. Here's my take on this. I'd be interested in what Guy might have to say about my comments.
1. This ordinance would effectively criminalize ANY firearms discharge in the legal limits of
consolidated Zionsville. Section 9-2A part c states "or to fire in such direction such that any
projective expelled COULD (emphasis added) or does strike, hit, enter or pass through
any of the foregoing." The use of the word could effectively covers ANY discharge, since
a bullet could do so. It wouldn't matter if there were significant backstops or anything
else for that matter. The projectile could still theoretically do so, creating the violation.
2. The above clause does not use the word AND. Thus, the restriction regarding
discharging a firearm within proximity to the various people or objects stands alone, and
is severable from the clause quoted in Item #1. In this instance, it would also prohibit the
use of firearms in an indoor range. There is nothing to state that an indoor range would
be exempt.
3. These prohibitions prevent anyone other than owners of large property from
exercising their rights. Most properties even in the rural districts are not this big.
Figuring a radius of 150 yards to avoid running afoul of property lines, we are looking at
300 yards square, which would be close to two acres. This still runs afoul of the
limitation regarding discharge adjacent to a vehicle, dwelling, or other building. Unless
you are away from these even on your own property, you would be in violation, thus
requiring still larger property in order to avoid being charged. It's safe to say that
significant acreage would be required, and this would still not protect the owner from the
language quoted in Item #1.
4. The same considerations as expressed in Item #3 are further compounded as the
result of the restriction regarding streets, roads or sidewalks. If you were shooting a
rimfire pistol at targets on your 15 acre property from your sidewalk in front of your
house you would have multiple violations.
5. This effectively ends any firearms related hunting within Zionsville.
6. This could cause someone to be cited for firearms discharge, even if you were doing
so in defense of your person or another. There is no exemption for this.
7. It would be very helpful to have some indication as to precisely who introduced this
proposed ordinance. That person needs to be voted out of office. If town council will not
let us know who is responsible, then we should assume that ALL of them are and work
to get rid of them.
8. Under Indiana Code, a firearm is defined as follows:
IC 35-47-1-5
"Firearm"
Sec. 5. "Firearm" means any weapon:
(1) that is:
(A) capable of expelling; or
(B) designed to expel; or
(2) that may readily be converted to expel;
a projectile by means of an explosion.
As added by P.L.311-1983, SEC.32. Amended by P.L.3-2008, SEC.254.
Under this terminology, which is used in the proposed ordinance, it would appear that air
rifles and air pistols or even BB guns would be considered firearms. So, Cub Scouts being
taught basic marksmanship would be in violation of this ordinance.
In a response to a friend of mine, Jeff Papa stated that what we're seeing is only a draft. If that's the case
then we're entitled to see the revised version. Where is it? As an aside, Papa is the attorney for the Indiana State Senate.
My suspicion is that he and the town council attorney would have had significant input in writing this up.
Bottom line, we need to stop this ordinance, and then work hard to get rid of the politicians who thought that this was
a good idea.
FWIW,
J. Galt
1. This ordinance would effectively criminalize ANY firearms discharge in the legal limits of
consolidated Zionsville. Section 9-2A part c states "or to fire in such direction such that any
projective expelled COULD (emphasis added) or does strike, hit, enter or pass through
any of the foregoing." The use of the word could effectively covers ANY discharge, since
a bullet could do so. It wouldn't matter if there were significant backstops or anything
else for that matter. The projectile could still theoretically do so, creating the violation.
2. The above clause does not use the word AND. Thus, the restriction regarding
discharging a firearm within proximity to the various people or objects stands alone, and
is severable from the clause quoted in Item #1. In this instance, it would also prohibit the
use of firearms in an indoor range. There is nothing to state that an indoor range would
be exempt.
3. These prohibitions prevent anyone other than owners of large property from
exercising their rights. Most properties even in the rural districts are not this big.
Figuring a radius of 150 yards to avoid running afoul of property lines, we are looking at
300 yards square, which would be close to two acres. This still runs afoul of the
limitation regarding discharge adjacent to a vehicle, dwelling, or other building. Unless
you are away from these even on your own property, you would be in violation, thus
requiring still larger property in order to avoid being charged. It's safe to say that
significant acreage would be required, and this would still not protect the owner from the
language quoted in Item #1.
4. The same considerations as expressed in Item #3 are further compounded as the
result of the restriction regarding streets, roads or sidewalks. If you were shooting a
rimfire pistol at targets on your 15 acre property from your sidewalk in front of your
house you would have multiple violations.
5. This effectively ends any firearms related hunting within Zionsville.
6. This could cause someone to be cited for firearms discharge, even if you were doing
so in defense of your person or another. There is no exemption for this.
7. It would be very helpful to have some indication as to precisely who introduced this
proposed ordinance. That person needs to be voted out of office. If town council will not
let us know who is responsible, then we should assume that ALL of them are and work
to get rid of them.
8. Under Indiana Code, a firearm is defined as follows:
IC 35-47-1-5
"Firearm"
Sec. 5. "Firearm" means any weapon:
(1) that is:
(A) capable of expelling; or
(B) designed to expel; or
(2) that may readily be converted to expel;
a projectile by means of an explosion.
As added by P.L.311-1983, SEC.32. Amended by P.L.3-2008, SEC.254.
Under this terminology, which is used in the proposed ordinance, it would appear that air
rifles and air pistols or even BB guns would be considered firearms. So, Cub Scouts being
taught basic marksmanship would be in violation of this ordinance.
In a response to a friend of mine, Jeff Papa stated that what we're seeing is only a draft. If that's the case
then we're entitled to see the revised version. Where is it? As an aside, Papa is the attorney for the Indiana State Senate.
My suspicion is that he and the town council attorney would have had significant input in writing this up.
Bottom line, we need to stop this ordinance, and then work hard to get rid of the politicians who thought that this was
a good idea.
FWIW,
J. Galt
Really Hornadylnl??? I sure hope this was intended to be sarcasm!
Really...are you kidding me? As one of the range safety officers of the mentioned range, I do not appreciate the implication that we would rather kill people than try to remedy the situation. Like we enjoy seeing others die at our expense. Really...that is what you think responsible gun owners think? We fully recognize that range safety is paramount. To believe otherwise is insane. Which you seem to think we all are apparently.
You obviously do not know all the effort the club is going through at this time to remedy the situation. We are currently working with the NSSF, NRA, several legal councils, all local law enforcement, and several contractors to determine how to make the range as safe as humanly possible. As of this moment, the range was voluntarily closed until these updates are made. We (meaning the club leadership) knew that we could not leave the club open with the safety of the range being in question.
This range/club has existed for over 50 years. Complaints did not arise until recently when homes were built directly down range and in very close proximity to the range. Despite all of that, we want to ensure that we exhibit and embody an atmosphere of safety by both updating the facilities and adjusting our range rules to make the range as safe as humanly possible. That way shooters can enjoy our freedoms and our sport while local residents are free from the danger of stray rounds.
So as you can see, we are not waiting for our local government to enact regulation after someone is killed. We are working on things now. I guess that ruins your belief that we are awaiting the death of an innocent person before we decide that we might need to do something. That was such an ignorant statement.
Really...are you kidding me? As one of the range safety officers of the mentioned range, I do not appreciate the implication that we would rather kill people than try to remedy the situation. Like we enjoy seeing others die at our expense. Really...that is what you think responsible gun owners think? We fully recognize that range safety is paramount. To believe otherwise is insane. Which you seem to think we all are apparently.
You obviously do not know all the effort the club is going through at this time to remedy the situation. We are currently working with the NSSF, NRA, several legal councils, all local law enforcement, and several contractors to determine how to make the range as safe as humanly possible. As of this moment, the range was voluntarily closed until these updates are made. We (meaning the club leadership) knew that we could not leave the club open with the safety of the range being in question.
This range/club has existed for over 50 years. Complaints did not arise until recently when homes were built directly down range and in very close proximity to the range. Despite all of that, we want to ensure that we exhibit and embody an atmosphere of safety by both updating the facilities and adjusting our range rules to make the range as safe as humanly possible. That way shooters can enjoy our freedoms and our sport while local residents are free from the danger of stray rounds.
So as you can see, we are not waiting for our local government to enact regulation after someone is killed. We are working on things now. I guess that ruins your belief that we are awaiting the death of an innocent person before we decide that we might need to do something. That was such an ignorant statement.
hornadylnl
Shooter
- Nov 19, 2008
- 21,505
- 63
Tell that to those here who believe government regulation is unnecessary until someone gets hurt. Too bad for the first one hurt I guess.
Site Supporter
Staff online
-
d.kaufmanStill Here
Members online
- lovemachine
- semperfi211
- Creedmoor
- WebSnyper
- johntheplinker
- partyboy6686
- loudgroove
- DoggyDaddy
- DangerousDave
- Mgderf
- nucular
- Gravyman
- BP84
- Hoosier Carry
- snapping turtle
- KittySlayer
- James82
- Zeb
- mike8170
- indyartisan
- Ziggidy
- boljr01
- Fire Lord
- DragonGunner
- GunErgy
- Jp44357
- Michigan Slim
- MrHank
- d.kaufman
- Firehawk
- Vanguard.45
- 22LRFan
- Bennettjh
- Midwestjimbo
- Steel and wood
- rkwhyte2
- slims2002
- Jeffforpresident
- chezuki
- eric001
- printcraft
- Demoderb1989
- bstie
- Waldog
- Basher
- JimH
- BoilerWes
- ZurokSlayer7X9
- Sdiersing
- MrSmitty