The Results Are In
The following is a synopsis of an interview conducted by Ginny Simone with Keith Tidswell of Australia's Sporting Shooters Association. The entire interview is available as "Surprise, Surprise" in the "Archive News" section of:
One year after gun-owners were forced to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed, including semi-automatic .22 rifles and shotguns, a program costing the government over 500 million dollars, the results are in...
A dramatic increase in criminal activity has been experienced. Gun control advocates respond "Just wait... we'll be safer... you'll see...".
OBSERVABLE FACT, AFTER 12 MONTHS OF DATA:
Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2%
Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6%
Australia-wide, armed-robberies are up 44% (yes, FORTY-FOUR PERCENT)
In the state of Victoria, homicides-with-firearms are up 300%
Figures over the previous 25 years show a steady decrease in homicides-with-firearms (changed dramatically in the past 12 months)
Figures over the previous 25 years show a steady decrease in armed-robbery-with-firearms (changed dramatically in the past 12 months)
There has been a dramatic increase in breakins-and-assaults-of- the-elderly
At the time of the ban, the Prime Minister said "self-defense is not a reason for owning a firearm"
From 1910 to present, homicides in Australia had averaged about 1.8-per-100,000 or lower, a safe society by any standard.
The ban has destroyed Australia's standings in some international sport shooting competitions
The membership of the Australian Sports Shooting Association has risen to 112,000, a 200% increase, in response to the ban and as an attempt to organize against further controls, which are expected.
Australian politicians are on the spot and at a loss to explain how no improvement in "safety" has been observed after such monumental effort and expense was successfully expended in "ridding society of guns". Their response has been to "wait longer".
"...The best organization you've got there, the biggest organization you've got there is the NRA. We don't have an organization that size. We didn't have an organization that size, and as a consequence, we suffered. And we hope that you don't suffer..."
Sporting Shooter's Association
Please read the commentary by Bob Crook. I’ve already received several emails and phone calls regarding this proposed bill---all of which has been in strong opposition and rightly so. Please pay particular attention to the “60db” commentary toward the end. As many of you have already pointed out, passage of this bill would in effect shut down nearly ALL outdoor ranges in the state and certainly POC’s.
Please make you voices heards to your legislative representatives.
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2009 2:09 PM
Subject: Member Comments New Bill - Firing Ranges
We don’t normally ask for comments on bills, but they are always welcome. Please read the following comments from members which generally track our own evaluations. Call/write/e-mail YOUR legislators –include your name/address/phone/e-mail so they can get back to you. When corresponding with the appropriate committee, AT A MINIMUM, you must include your name & town. Nothing upsets the clerks/aides, and subsequently legislators, more than out of state messages or unknown origin unless the person states he fishes, hunts, shoots in CT and therefore has an interest. If you didn’t receive the original message on the AG Range Bill, it’s on the website www.ctsportsmen.com under Legislation-Other Proposed bills
Applicable Statutes: (Underline ours)
Sec. 22a-68. Definitions. (g) "Stationary noise source" means any building, structure, facility or installation which emits or may emit noise, beyond the property line on which such source is located, except any on-site recreational or sporting activity which is sanctioned by the state or local government or farming equipment or farming activity. A recreational or sporting activity shall be deemed sanctioned by a local government if (1) the activity has received all approvals or permits required by the local zoning authority, (2) a resolution sanctioning the activity has been adopted by the legislative body of the local government, or (3) the activity is owned or operated by the local government. (I don’t have the data, but my memory serves that the standard decibel level is 90 with 10 added for recreational use = 100 at the property line)
Sec. 22a-74a. Exemption of firing and shooting ranges from criminal and civil liability for noise and noise pollution. (a) Any owner, operator or user of a firing or shooting range operating on October 1, 1998, shall be exempt from criminal prosecution with respect to noise or noise pollution violations and immune from civil liability with respect to noise or noise pollution resulting from shooting activity on such range provided the range was, at the time of its construction or operational approval by the municipality in which it is located, in compliance with the provisions of this chapter and regulations adopted hereunder.
(b) No standards in a noise control ordinance adopted by any municipality for limiting levels of noise in terms of decibel level which may occur in the outdoor atmosphere shall apply to any firing or shooting range exempted from liability under this section if such standards are inconsistent with the provisions of this chapter or the regulations adopted hereunder.
(c) This section shall not limit the ability of a municipality to evaluate and regulate any increase in noise attributable to a physical expansion of an existing firing or shooting range.
Member Comments EDITED: Many critical observations of the AG. This bill was undoubtedly not written but was undoubtedly approved by him. The following succinct statement by a member is undoubtedly the most valid: “I doubt there is anyone on the State’s payroll who is technically qualified to pass judgment on range matters”.
Why registration? What cost/benefit? Are State Police assets available? Do they have requisite knowledge to withstand court challenges?
(1) Why are ranges used solely by "peace officers" exempt? (2) “but not be limited to” a bullet discharged from a firearm at the firing range landing outside the property on which the firing range is located. So it’s OK for cops to make noise and threaten public safety (as defined), but not civilians? How about digging into the safety record of municipal and State law enforcement and National Guard ranges, before holding civilians to a higher standard? A stray bullet is a stray bullet, whether it’s fired from a police weapon or a civilian weapon. The “not be limited to” language is, guess what, excessively vague. I’d also like to see language which ensures that a private landowner is not subject to these restrictions.
“shall not include any facility that is operating solely for use by sworn peace officers as training in their official capacity as peace officers.” Are the few police ranges more safety conscious than sportsmen’s ranges? Many sportsmen’s ranges are used by police at no cost to include SWAT & night firing. Should that activity be curtailed solely to protect the club?
(1) What and "who" determines a "threat to public safety"? (2) “Threat to public safety” as determined by whom? The next door neighbors? People in the next county? Tourists?
(1) I read from noise level studies that are online that 60 decibels is very low in fact the same as an electric toothbrush. (http://www.lowermanhattan.info/extras/pdf/062007_SpecificNoiseLevelsforCommonNoises.pdf ) (2) Ridiculous! 60 Decibels? That's conversational level!; "60 decibels?" 60 db is the level of sound of the last croak of a dying bullfrog. This is a small number designed to shut down all ranges; it looks like we have a pattern here. At what level does harm to hearing occur? It is thousands of times louder than 60 db. (3) “60 dB” is a meaningless number to an experienced engineer making sound level measurements because of different “weighting” scales used. “60 dB” (generically) is the Sound Pressure Level (SPL) attributed to a normal speaking voice measured at 1 meter. That is an extremely low number which nearly guarantees that the firing range could not even host shooting adult air guns. Ref:
Representative sound levels measured at 6 feet from source:
An Arrow T50 heavy duty stapler into a piece of wood. 97 decibels
A Swingline light duty stapler into a piece of wood 93 decibels
A battery powered 1/2" drill 71 decibels
Closing the door on my Ford Explorer (not slammed) 85 decibels
Empty soda can hitting a cement floor from shoulder height 86 decibels
Opening a full soda can 85 decibels
The sound of a doorbell 71 decibels
What a bunch of bilge. This is just an excuse to extort a registration fee, impose some arbitrary rules to make it easier for the "new neighbors" to close down existing clubs or ranges so their property values will increase. How many range accidents have there been in this state?
“such other information as the commissioner deems necessary”. Unnecessarily vague. Would the Commissioner need to know the operator’s Social Security number, how many children he has, his health records, and whether he’s been divorced?
The felony conviction provision should only relate to crimes which endangered someone; if an operator was convicted of felony tax evasion, that’s irrelevant.
(1) Fines are ridiculous!!!! (2) Seems unusually harsh compared to something like General Electric polluting the Housatonic for a few generations, or Pratt & Whitney testing jet engines in East Hartford and Middletown.
We all know what this is about: Further harassment of Blue Trail Range.