Goddamn lax gun laws

[Beth]

He told me the only thing I can possibly do is call the EPA and report lead discharge in the land. Well, aside from maybe making a noise violation complaint. The thing is here, we have to appear in court personally as witnesses and the judge is likely to throw it out. This is a redneck area. The judges have similar attitudes.

And thanks.

[Adora]

That's just fucking scary.

[wade-w]

Well, the relevant section (chapter 790) of the Florida code seems to say that your neighbors are within their rights. Unfortunately. This seems to be a very lax law, as far as I'm concerned. Here is what the law says on public discharge of a firearm:

1) Except as provided in subsection (2) or subsection (3), any person who knowingly discharges a firearm in any public place or on the right-of-way of any paved public road, highway, or street or whosoever knowingly discharges any firearm over the right-of-way of any paved public road, highway, or street or over any occupied premises is guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. This section does not apply to a person lawfully defending life or property or performing official duties requiring the discharge of a firearm or to a person discharging a firearm on public roads or properties expressly approved for hunting by the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission or Division of Forestry.

(2) Any occupant of any vehicle who knowingly and willfully discharges any firearm from the vehicle within 1,000 feet of any person commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(3) Any driver or owner of any vehicle, whether or not the owner of the vehicle is occupying the vehicle, who knowingly directs any other person to discharge any firearm from the vehicle commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

So as long as they aim at a dirt bank, they aren't firing over your residence and thus are not violating this statute. At least, I assume thats what the officer you talked to thought.

Now, you said these were kids, and mentioned "teenagers." Are they under 16? If so, was there an adult there supervising? Because this statute may be relevant:

(3) A minor under 18 years of age may not possess a firearm, other than an unloaded firearm at his or her home, unless:

(a) The minor is engaged in a lawful hunting activity and is:

1. At least 16 years of age; or

2. Under 16 years of age and supervised by an adult.

(b) The minor is engaged in a lawful marksmanship competition or practice or other lawful recreational shooting activity and is:

1. At least 16 years of age; or

2. Under 16 years of age and supervised by an adult who is acting with the consent of the minor's parent or guardian.

(c) The firearm is unloaded and is being transported by the minor directly to or from an event authorized in paragraph (a) or paragraph (b).

These are state laws; I'll take your word that your local jurisdiction has no additional legislation. I have to agree with you that these statutes are ridiculously lax.

[dave_a]

Originally Posted by wade-w

Well, the relevant section (chapter 790) of the Florida code seems to say ...

These are state laws; I'll take your word that your local jurisdiction has no additional legislation. I have to agree with you that these statutes are ridiculously lax.

At the state level I don't think the laws are too lax. What I find too lax is that there is nothing at the city/county level that is more stringent. And I wouldn't take Beth at her word that there are no laws at the county level because my impression is her belief that this is so is based upon what one officer said.

At the least I would do a web search entering the county and state with the word law and see what turns up. A call to the attorney/prosecutor's office requesting information would also likely turn up better info than the word of one cop.

My neighbor is a cop and the laws here forbid using any type of firework that flies or explodes, but from what he said he routinely does nothing about complaints if the people firing them off aren't launching them at someone.

[Beth]

Originally Posted by dave_a

At the state level I don't think the laws are too lax. What I find too lax is that there is nothing at the city/county level that is more stringent. And I wouldn't take Beth at her word that there are no laws at the county level because my impression is her belief that this is so is based upon what one officer said.

At the least I would do a web search entering the county and state with the word law and see what turns up. A call to the attorney/prosecutor's office requesting information would also likely turn up better info than the word of one cop.

My neighbor is a cop and the laws here forbid using any type of firework that flies or explodes, but from what he said he routinely does nothing about complaints if the people firing them off aren't launching them at someone.

No, I knew there was no law. That is why I made the initial post saying it was legal. I called the police in hopes that I was wrong or the ordinances had changed. They had not. From what I understand in my reading, most of the state is like this.

The officer talked to me for a very long time explaining things in detail. He offered to do a noise violation, meaning, he offered to hunt the owner down sincew I did not know his residential address and serve him with noise violation papers but he explained that I must appear in court and that the judge more than likely will throw it out since the man is within his legal rights. He said that contacting EPA may be my only option if it is a nuisance because the bullets are being shot into the earth and the lead could leech into the auquifer. He also said that he has a major that routinely fires off his automatic on one of his deputy's properties that is right next to a trailer park and that the trailer park people complain all the time, but the major is withing his legal rights and that the officer can, unfortunately, not stop it. The way he spoke, it seemed that he was not in favor of the gun law, but it fell into the 'right to bear arms'.

Wade, thank you. It appeared the kids were at least 16. They appeared to be in the 16-17 age group.

[godfry n. glad]

Um... Have you approached the property owner at all?

It could be that the property owner is unaware of the teens using that part of his/her property for such purposes.

Just make it clear that you consider their firing in the direction of your house at such a close distance as unnecessarily dangerous. Ask the owner to prevent this kind of activity on his property for your peace of mind. And his.

If the property owner refuses, I think I might place my request in writing, delineating the risk and noting that he had been asked to prevent the risk and refused and that he/she would be liable for any property damage or personal harm arising from such firearm activities he/she had been asked to terminate. Send a copy to him/her and to your attorney.

Attorneys: Couldn't this kind of behavior be considered "reckless endangerment"?

I'd also be tempted to "return fire"....that is, do some target practice into the opposite side of this berm that the teens are firing into, preferrably simultaneously to their discharge activity. Rash, but given the unwillingness of the authorities to terminate a high-risk situation, it might even out the risks and make it clear to them (but I doubt it). "Mutual Reckless Endangerment - MRE". 'Course, you probably don't have this option available, huh?

Also.... Bring this issue to the attention of your state representative and your county commissioner. They have the responsibility to legislate safe and reasonable gun use...despite what the NRA may believe. You are being placed in a situation of unnecessarily high risk because of the inaction of your elected representatives.

(see here: http://www.motherjones.com/news/spec...a.sidebar.html)

godfry

[Beth]

They aare at it again. I both want to cry and move.

Godfrey, a letter would do squat with this guy, but thank you. The owner is out there today with the kids. He also could give a flying fig about his neighbors. His culverting of a natural creek caused severe flooding around here after Hurricane Jeanne. We did the EPA and SwiftMud route with trying to get him to correct it. He appartly had connections and we would have to spend major money to hire a lawyer to file a class action suit.

I wish I could fire into the berm, but we do not own a gun and the berm is on his property.

He also allows a neighbor to set off quarter stick of dynamite from time to time in that dirt pile. It is sporatic and tolerated by the peeps out here, so, calling the cops does nuttin'. The guy only does it once and tinkers for a while and leaves, not much evidence for a report.

[godfry n. glad]

Hmmm.... I thought as much.

As for the berm being on his property, I'd say that doesn't matter squat, given the attitude of the law enforcement personnel in your area. But then, my idea was half-fast anyway.

If I were in your shoes, I'd be on the phone to one or more of my county commissioners, making pointed comments about responsible gun use and irresponsible county officials. Reckless endangerment is what you're dealing with. Got any investigative reporters on the local news rag?

And, yeah... I know the feeling of dealing with dickheads with connections. Legal approaches are for those with money and connections...the majesty of the law is that it prevents the rich and poor alike from sleeping under bridges.

godfry

(p.s.- I can't read your linked item because I'm permanently banned from what I consider that shithole of the universe (iidb, in case you're unaware)because they don't like talk of legal ramifications of their own irresponsible behavior.)