I, as many people are, am deeply troubled by the recent event of the deaths of children by a mad man. It is greatly saddening to see and hear the details of this slaughter of innocents by another citizen of our great country. The hue and cry raised after this event is even more troubling. The call to restrict firearm ownership and the restrictions against certain types of firearms makes my blood boil especially when you realize this is a societal problem not a problem with firearm ownership or use. I was going to write a long winded diatribe about the Second Amendment, it’s meaning, and the value of having this right reserved to the people instead of the government but in the din of everyone else on the planet commenting I thought it would be best to bring this home to Island County, after all we are a local Island County blog and we try to deal with local issues that have a direct effect on all of us.
What is the history of firearm usage and the exercising of the 2nd Amendment in Island County? What exactly have we lost and what will we lose in the future with more legislation against firearm usage?
My earliest recollection of firearm usage was when my father would setup a bale of hay in our backyard on North Whidbey and we would target shoot with 22 rimfires against what we called the “shooting stump”.
We had a good backstop of several miles of trees to stop any stray bullets and shot at this stump for several years until a new development was built behind our property that made it unsafe to use anymore. We missed the loss of our “shooting stump” it was easy and it was convenient but too unsafe to use with the new development. At that time it was not a huge loss as we had many other places close by to shoot and target practice.
At that time all county gravel pits and dumps were open to shooting. Mom would pack a snack and we would load up the truck and go to one of the gravel pits. We would shoot up a couple of bricks of 22 rimfire maybe go through a box of clay pigeons and several boxes of shotgun shells and then look for agates in the gravel of the pit. We still have jars and jars of agates found in these pits from days of cheap entertainment.
The use of the gravel pits and dumps went on until the mid 70′s. One day when going to the gravel pit there was a sign at the entrance, the sign said no trespassing and no shooting. On visiting other pits they were also posted. On contacting the county we were told they were closed due to liability concerns. There was no public input or vote they were just closed off from public use due to some unknown liability the county was concerned about. Was there ever any harm done by allowing shooting in the county gravel pits? None that I am aware of, there were no deaths, there were no injuries, there was no property damage but the pits were closed anyway. Liability they said…
From then on you had a choice, either you knew someone who had a private pit to use, you joined one of the gun clubs on the Island, you paid to use the range at Greene’s gunshop or you went out of the county. Luckily we knew several people who had private pits but eventually these were sold or developed and shooting was not allowed by the new owners. What were the citizens of Island County left with? If you owned no property that was conducive to shooting you were stuck with shooting at paper targets at a range somewhere and paying to do so. Gravel pit shooting was dead on the Island, no county land was available for any firearm usage except for hunting. We went from having many small local places to shoot for free to none in a coupe of years.
Now let’s fast forward to the year 2012. Nothing had really changed in the past 40 years, the county pits are still closed, citizens practicing and exercising their 2nd Amendment rights so that they may become well regulated still had limited choices in doing so. Those that owned suitable land could still exercise their rights without fear they would be closed down. Until now. Now we have a group of homeowners trying to enact new legislation to curb target shooting on private property. They have purchased their homes in a rural county with a rural lifestyle, they have made themselves a little utopia by enacting rules and regulations called bylaws and codicils that they all have agreed to live by, they have injected themselves and their utopia right into the middle of our rural Island and they do not like the remainder of the rural lifestyle that surrounds them. They are now attempting to close down the last choice that property owners have to exercise and practice being well regulated in tune with their 2nd Amendment rights that have been reserved to them.
It is now time for the people of this county to stand up and be counted. We have watched the county ignore a large portion of their electorate for way to many years and give their attention to those that could care less about our 2nd Amendment. We have seen large portion of our county preserved using millions of public funds, we have seen our public lands locked away here on the Island and made inaccessible to those with other uses. If you hike, bike, birdwatch or ride horseback you are covered here in Island County, the county is unable to tell you what right they are preserving with these actions because they are preserving no rights they are just serving special interests. If you wish to exercise and practice your 2nd Amendment rights you are forgotten about.
It is now the time for those supporters of the 2nd Amendment make reasonable demands of the county government that we vote into office.
What would those reasonable demands look like?
1- Outright rejection of the proposed Island County Shooting ordinance.
2- A statement by our County Commissioners upholding the values of the Second Amendment and upholding the rights of the citizens to safely practice those rights on private property. A notification process should be developed as we have for people effected by NAS Whidbey noise zones that will notify new property owners of the fact that we are a rural county and will preserve all rural uses of private property on the Islands including target shooting on private property.
3 - Opening up of selected county gravel pits for target shooting and designating them official shooting areas.
4- Development of County wide shooting ranges. One on the North end of Whidbey, one on the South end and one on Camano.
5- A freeze on all funding to all development of hiking, biking and riding trails and a freeze on all public funds going to the preservation of land on the Island until the needs of the people wishing to practice their 2nd Amendment rights are met. No more taxpayer dollars going to preservation or special interests until the basic needs of the people are met. Now you say that firearms usage is just another special interest and we are no better than them by calling for taxpayer dollars to be spent on shooting ranges. Preservation, hiking, biking, horseback riding and bird watching are not rights reserved to the people. Exercising your 2nd Amendment Rights to be “well regulated” or trained is one of the rights our forefathers reserved to us the people and it deserves the full attention of our elected leaders and adequate funding to assist in preserving and practicing that right.
For way too long we have seen our tax dollars go to the needs of others. It is now time for firearm owners and those that believe in the 2nd Amendment to stand up and be counted. We have preserved over 7000 acres on the Island through public funding of the Whidbey Camano Land Trust at the cost of millions and millions of dollars of public grant funding and private dollars. We have seen the State of Washington take over large portions of our Island for our State park system spending untold millions of dollars doing so.
How much has the county spent on the citizens who wish to practice their Second Amendment rights so that they may become “Well Regulated”?
Absolutely ZERO.
How much has the State spent on the citizens who wish to practice their Second Amendment rights so that they may become “Well Regulated”?
Absolutely ZERO.
If we do not stand up for our rights they will be gone forever. Laws concerning the use of firearms or the firearms themselves rarely if ever are lessened, once a law is enacted restricting anything to do with firearms the law is never returned to where it was before. We have slowly seen the erosion of these rights right here in our own little corner of the world. Even with firearm ownership at record highs we have seen our rights slowly whittled away to nothing but the right itself. We can “keep” and we can “bear” but any resemblance to a “well regulated militia” is nothing more than pointless words if the right reserved to us cannot be exercised and practiced regularly.
Now is the time to end the nonsense here in Island County.
Please contact your Commissioners and get them to support the 2nd Amendment and the exercise of that right that was reserved to the people and not the government. Encourage them to look at and act on the 5 points above to ensure our Second Amendment stays alive at the local level.
References:
United States Bill of Rights Second Amendment:
“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
Washington State Constitution Section 24 Right To Bear Arms
“The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.”
Tags: Island County Shooting Ordinance, Second Amendment, Washington State Constitution Article 24
-
I recently happened upon this seemingly relevant information at
http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/10C13.txt :
“TITLE 10 – ARMED FORCES
Subtitle A – General Military Law
PART I – ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS
CHAPTER 13 – THE MILITIA-STATUTE-
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are –
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.”-
Yes Bill, WE are the people the 2nd Amendment is written for and our Right that it speaks of is reserved to us. It is an inalienable Right.
WE are the militia.The sounds that the homeowners of the Norcliffe area are hearing is the true sound of freedom. These freedoms were gained by someone elses loss who stood up for those freedoms at all costs.
In a recent article to the paper Jack Lyon wrote:
“There are parents who don’t let their children out in their own yards or that pack up their families and pets and leave their homes when this activity starts. Is that how people should be living in their homes where they expect to enjoy the peace, comfort and repose of their property?”
( http://www.whidbeynewstimes.com/opinion/letters/184023511.html )I wonder how many of these people that supposedly take their children and pets away when a neighbor safely target practices have had a frank discussion concerning this issue with themselves and their families? Do these people actually realize that if they are not part of the unorganized militia protected by the Second Amendment in our Bill of Rights they should be? Do the words written by our forefathers mean anything to these people?
Did these neighbors approach Mr Watanabe as an adversary? I do believe that they did. They wanted him to stop his “activity” at all costs. Instead of approaching Mr Watanabe as I would and ask to possibly join him while he was target practicing to determine how safe he is in his “activities” these people made adversaries of themselves.
Instead of engaging him in his efforts and determining the safety of what he is doing through educated eyes they made a demon out of him.
This is the same level of discussion that we are seeing on a national level…
Demonize the NRA, demonize gun owners, guns are bad.
I have one short statement to make to those people and it is:
“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
-
I have several guns, starting with a BB gun, a pelet Gun, a 4 barrel 22 derringer up to a 30 Caliber Carbine
I, we, have decided my wife should be trained to shoot all of these guns.
We’d like to start it when the weather improves
My first thought was Greens but then I thought we should try to use Mr Watanabe’s facility especially since I am a big defender of his right to continue his operation
Anyone know how I can contact him and arrange for his services?
I’d love for the commisioners, Homoalone, and the petitioners for “no guns laws” to see my YouTube video of why operations like Mr Watanabe’s are so valuable
Appreciate any help you might offer,
Bill-
I would certainly get rid of that .30 carbine. They are inherently dangerous and it can turn itself into a weapon of mass destruction at a moments notice all by itself. Human intervention is not necessary as we all know .30 carbines have a mind of their own. You do know that they fire a round everytime you pull the trigger until the magazine is empty don’t you? That makes it evil. If only it was black you would have 3 strikes against you and we would have to add your name to a database of people who own dangerous weapons that can think for themselves.
I can safely dispose of that .30 carbine and in it’s place I can give you a socially accceptable weapon. Of course it would be a single shot, no mysterious 30 round clips that will automatically turn you into a killer. No mysterious muzzle brakes, flash hiders and no mysterious black items attached to it. It would have to be a muzzle loader to fit into Dianne Feinsteins view of safe weaponry and only use flint or a matchlock as a firing mechanism. This would make you a “safe” firearm owner in the eyes of all things liberal. Then when you do go to the range to show your wife how to use them you will not be endangering the surrounding community with your weapons of mass destruction.
Oh the horror….
-
Bill, I know a state certified gun instructor that probably would be glad to teach us all
-
Jim and I know of a place where there’s a gun range where we once did practice shooting
When we get better weather, I’ll check with the owner and the guy who was our teacher if he’s still willing to help…might even be the same person you have
I’ll get with you at your Coffee meetings in the near future and we can discusss
I am sure there many new members in our group that would like to have it
Bill
-
-
-
-
-
We had a good backstop of several miles of trees to stop any stray bullets and shot at this stump for several years until a new development was built behind our property that made it unsafe to use anymore. We missed the loss of our “shooting stump” it was easy and it was convenient but too unsafe to use with the new development. At that time it was not a huge loss as we had many other places close by to shoot and target practice.
cliff, to use your own words, this is the exact issue with this propert owner shooting. it is simpy unsafe.
I agree with your comments, I love to shoot when I can, and your right, there is no place to shoot any longer without going to a pit ( if you can find one) or going to a range or simply going out in the state forest or national forest.
Therefore, its not a second amendment rights issue.
The issue should be finding a viable, safe location for all to enjoy the sport of shooting.
unforgunately as you indicated the times have changed…….
-
In our case it was unsafe. We now have a trailer 50′ directly behind the good old “shooting stump” and directly in the line of fire.
In Mr Watanabe’s case his range was inspected by the Sheriffs office and deemed safe to use on several occassions. The residences that are complaining are not in the direct line of fire of Mr Watanabe’s range or even close to the line of fire.
In our case we used the reasonable safety judgement that most firearm users have to determine that future use of our “shooting stump” was unsafe. This is the same reasonable judgement that Mr Watanabe uses and the local Sheriffs department uses to determine if it is safe to shoot or not at a specific location.
You cannot say “it is simply unsafe” without looking at specifics for each situation. I would much rather have our trained Sheriff deputies responsible for determining that a specific location is unsafe for target practice than have large areas of our county set aside as no shooting areas.
-
-
As the facts wouold show there two two sheriff deputies that visited Mr. Watanabe’s site. One said it was unsafe and the other said it was. It appears that both parties are choosing the one that benefits their perspective.
Sherrif Brown said he was going to visit the site on two occassions, and yet he has not.It appears to me the sherriff deputies determination of what is safe is subjective to say the least.
What qualifications does one have to have to determine what is a safe gun range especially amongst residential development? I’m just asking the question.
I would submit you expertise would be just as good. In fact I would trust your judgement over the deputies, just based on your story description of the shooting stump.I would like to suggest you vist Mr. Watanabe property to see this shooting area and report back to both parties. Providing you can keep an open mind in regards to safety.
-
The fact remains that Mr Watanabe’s private range has been determined to be safe by our sherriffs department on several occassions.
If they would have visited Mr Watanabe’s range and it was determined to be unsafe and that he was in fact discharging firearms in an unsafe manner the Sherriffs department would have seized his firearms and charged Mr Watanabe with reckless endangerment. This is then heard by a court of law.
In one case I am familiar with sherriff visited the “range” determined it was unsafe and the firearms were seized. The shooter had a court hearing, expert testimony was taken, evidence was presented and the judge enetered an order that he would not be able to use his property for the discharge of firearms until safety measures were taken. The firearms were returned, the shooter paid a fairly hefty fine and life went on.
We have a system that works and works well. I have lived on the Island for most of my life and cannot recall one instance of property, livestock or people being harmed by residents target shooting on their own property. Ever. Why do we wish to make laws protecting against a problem that does not exist?
In the case of Mr Watanabe there are no safety issues. This is not about safety, it is about those who have bought homes in a residential development in a rural county and in a rural setting attempting to restrict normal rural activities from taking place on someone elses property. They are attempting to use our County Commissioners to do so by passing a county code to do what the sherriff has refused to do because there is no real issue for the sherriff to deal with concerning a safety issue.
-
-
I have a neighbor who is an avid gun enthusiast. He used to shoot at all hours morning, noon, and night. The only thing my fellow neighbors and I objected to was his lack of an adequate backstop. We called the sheriff and they deputies came out and told our gun enthusiast that before he could continue to shoot he had to construct ten foot earthen berms around his “shooting range.” Note that we did not need our Island County commissioners to solve this neighbor dispute for us. However, there are 191 (one percent) who “feel” it necessary to restrict the discharge of firearms for the 99 percent. If Mr. Watanabe has an adequate facility that mitigates the safety concerns then he should be allowed to continue his recreational activities on his property. Yet the 191 won’t be satisfied with that solution because their purpose is to establish more government restrictions upon all of us. The 191, along with Angie Homola, are using the” Zero tolerance” strategy to push this ordinance through.
dwa, give up your motor vehicles now before someone gets hurt.
-
Mr. Wolfe
If one doesn’t operate their motor vehicle in a safe manner, your privledges are taken away.
It is not a sheriff deputy that takes them away, it just happens to be the courts of judges people like you put into office.-
dwa, the ordinance is taking away the rights of citizens to shoot on their property regardless of whether they are doing it in a safe manner or not. Watananbe’s neighbors are playing judge and jury, and everyone else on the island is on trial. You failed to acknowledge everything except the last sentence.
More people are killed by motor vehicles than stray bullets. Therefore, the likelihood of you injurying someone or getting injured yourself by a motor vehicle is greater. That is the premise of another draft ordinance that was presented to the Island County Commissioners. This new ordinance closes three additional roads, and allows the creation of “No Motor Vehicle” Areas using the petition method. What is so nice is that this ordinance only requires two people (registered voters) on the petition. Why is that you ask? Because it is the exact same number of Commissioners that are required to pass this ordinance, and that is really the only thing that matters. Notice that we are not denying you from owning a vehicle under this new ordinance, we just won’t let you drive it. Does that sound familiar?
Regarding your statement: SO WHAT!
What is also laughable is you can’t even spell my name correctly even when the correct spelling is right in front of you.
-
-
My apologies for the misspelling of you name.
It just seems to me that you are not willing to find soutions…. you rather be disrespectfull to someone elses view. So sad.
I don’t begrudge Mr. Watanabe wanting to shoot on his property. nor the renovation of his garage to living space without permits, nor his installation of an electric gate wihtout electrical permits, nor the continous burning without burning permits. It makes it very difficuly when one is held to a different standard.
The people against Mr. Watanabe didn’t ask for this ordinance, They simply wanted a safe environment for all concerned.
The entire situation has not been handeld very well from either side. It was the commissioners who open the flood gates.Apparently certain commissioners like to see their names in the headlines at the expense of the people.
Anyway, thank you for the stimulating discussion Mr. Wolf.
I’ll be damned I got it right.
You were wrong, I did not say “SO WHAT” I don’t appreciate you quoting me for something I did not say.
-
dwa, 1. the solution is right in front of you yet you fail to see it, and you have the nerve to call me disrepectfull. 2. Sounds like Mr. Watanabe is fed up with all the stupid permissions required by our government. Here is a quote for you: “In the Progressive Democratic Socialists utopian world, every human activity, and endeavor is illegal unless permitted by government, and government must control and regulate all activities and endeavors.” KJ Wolf 3. Yes the people did ask for this ordinance otherwise the ordinance would not exist. When you stated, ” They simply wanted a safe environment for all concerned,” remember that their proposed ordinance impacts MORE than just those “concerned.” 4. Yes, we have two Progressive Democratic Socialists sitting in commissioner seats and thank the saints that one of those idiots is getting the boot. Hopefully before they pass another mandate called curbside recycling, which heaps more legislative garbage upon the citizens of Island County. Too bad you can’t recycle their crap! 5. Referencing the comment “SO WHAT,” of course YOU didn’t say that! I did! Go back and try that reading comprehension thing again. 6. Congratulations on the correct spelling. 7. You’re welcome. Even though this “stimulating discussion” did not alter the current course of events. Too bad we live in a world where the idiots rule over the rest of us.
-
Mr. Wolf,
I beleive I see progress, we both agree we live in a world where idiots rule over the rest of us.
We also agree these idiots will either alter the current course of events or not.
In either case, it will take a loss of life for something is to be done or not.
It always takes a loss of life for anything to get accomplished.I love your passion.
-
dwa, you can’t prevent every possible tragedy from happening. People are dying from all sorts of “weapons.” Somehow idiots seem to think that legislation is the answer to everything. Did these 191 citizens push to make changes in the ICC that would allow property owners to shoot on their property and at the same time establish parameters that would mitigate the safety concerns that they have? The answer to that is NO.
“It always takes a loss of life for anything to get accomplished.” Will enacting “NO Dying Allowed” legislation prevent a loss of life? The idiots think it will.
-
-
Well, then you must be one of the idiots along with the rest of us, you vote don’t you? well then you must be a legislator along with the rest of us.
This ordinance was drafted by the Island County staff at the request of the comissioners. The 191 citizens you speak of never had any input or review of the ordinance. They simply were told to petition to get the issue even on the commissioner agenda and then someone would review Mr. Watanabe ability to shoot on his property. No one ever told him he had to stop, no one ever threaten him, In fact several of those folks tried to contact him to review and dicuss with him.
Again one sheriff deputy said it was safe to shoot and one sheriff sheriff deputy told it him was unsafe. So, as you are going with the deputy that said it was safe, I’m going with the deputy who said it was not.
This country was founded on the majority of the people to regulate itself.
You have the right to freedom of speech, and you have the right to own and bear arms.It was the majority of the people who gave you those rights. It was the majority of the people who gave you the very freedom you have today.
you also have the right to move to a third world country where you can go out and shoot you guns anytime, anywhere and at anything or anyone you want. but you won’t for the simple fact they don’t like or tolerate arrogant americans.
-
On a related note:
“Joyce Lee Malcolm: Two Cautionary Tales of Gun Control: After a school massacre, the U.K. banned handguns in 1998. A decade later, handgun crime had doubled.”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323777204578195470446855466.html
-
I was living in Scotland when an older gentleman’s home was broken into by two crooks. The gentleman drug out his shotgun and killed one of the intruders. The older gentleman was sent to prison for murder. That, my friends is no tolerant gun control when you cannot protect your family and property
-
-
1. “Well, then you must be one of the idiots along with the rest of us, you vote don’t you? well then you must be a legislator along with the rest of us.” dwa
At least this idiot has enough brain cells to recall and share a similar situation that was resolved without additional legislation. “I have a neighbor who is an avid gun enthusiast. He used to shoot at all hours morning, noon, and night. The only thing my fellow neighbors and I objected to was his lack of an adequate backstop. We called the sheriff and they deputies came out and told our gun enthusiast that before he could continue to shoot he had to construct ten foot earthen berms around his “shooting range.”
2. “This ordinance was drafted by the Island County staff at the request of the comissioners. The 191 citizens you speak of never had any input or review of the ordinance.” dwa
Apparently details don’t matter much to you. According to the WNT article: “Residents, however, worry that it’s only a matter of time before an accident occurs and someone is hurt due to the proximity of neighbors. The board did not approve the shooting ban at the time but residents were given the OK to begin researching a prospective ordinance.
Over the next several months, they compiled a large binder with information ranging from a ballistics study to ordinances already in effect in other counties around the state, said Homola during Wednesday’s meeting.
That research helped draft an ordinance that outlines a process in which communities that contain at least 20 parcels and 20 acres could petition the board to ban shooting in their area.” WNT
Even Angie Homola gave credit to the group during the commissioners meeting on December 20, 2012 right at time stamp 9:53.35. You can view the statement here:
http://www.avcaptureall.com/Sessions.aspx#session.9fca31da-4637-4117-bd7b-cfbf516246a6
3. “Again one sheriff deputy said it was safe to shoot and one sheriff sheriff deputy told it him was unsafe. So, as you are going with the deputy that said it was safe, I’m going with the deputy who said it was not.” dwa
At least this idiot is able to recognize that you incorrectly assume that I am taking one position over the other. This idiot recognizes the difference between a win/win solution that is equitable to both sides, and a winner/loser solution that places one side’s desires over the other by denying the latter.
4. “This country was founded on the majority of the people to regulate itself. You have the right to freedom of speech, and you have the right to own and bear arms.” dwa
This idiot knows that the “majority” you describe is long since dead. The “majority” when this country was founded recognized that the government was there to protect (the minority) individual rights. That is why we do not have a simple “democracy” form of government.
5. “It was the majority of the people who gave you those rights. It was the majority of the people who gave you the very freedom you have today.” dwa
This idiot has enough gray matter up stairs to recognize that the “majority” you speak of is not the same “majority” that exists today. The “majority” today has the mindset that the individual must yield their individual rights for the “greater good.” Therefore, the “majority” today is characterized as nothing more than two wolves and a rabbit voting on what they are going to have for dinner.
6. “you also have the right to move to a third world country where you can go out and shoot you guns anytime, anywhere and at anything or anyone you want. but you won’t for the simple fact they don’t like or tolerate arrogant americans.” dwa
This idiot has enough brain cells to recognize there is no point in conducting this “conversation” further.
-
It appears your view represents the majority of the people.
good luck……..
oh… and the WTN, there’s a reliable source…
Mr. Wolf, Thank you for your stimulating view points, I will admit you have some interesting points of view.
We’ll see where this all goes. Who knows, just maybe it turns out to be a win/win. -
I recently came across a well-written piece called:
“Questions for Gun Control Zealots”
http://www.newsmax.com/RichLowry/Questions-Gun-Control-Newtown/2012/12/28/id/469370 -
The earliest comments I’ve seen were 2nd Amendment this, 2nd Amendment that. This is a ploy and a distraction from what the issue is all about. How do I know? I am one of Mr. Watanabe’s neighbors. If you don’t live in this area you can’t possibly understand. I am a proud gun owner and although I like shooting, buying and collecting firearms I also know the difference between right and wrong. This is where the issue lies. Here are the real facts (all easily verifiable).
There are over 150 residences within a 6/10 mile area and Mr. Watanabe’s property is sandwiched right between two residential areas within this 6/10 square mile area.
No one (not even the sherriff or his deputies) can guarantee 100% that Mr. Watanabe’s recreational shooting will never result in a ricochet or stray round hitting a home, property, people or pets in the surrounding area UNLESS he doesn’t shoot.
Over 90% of the people who live in that 6/10 square mile area where the shooting is taking place are against Mr. Watanabe’s shooting (this 90% includes gun owners, hunters, etc.). Contrary to the BS comments we are NOT a bunch of tree-hugging liberals (some may be, but not most-we are a mix if civilians, active duty and retired military).
We didn’t move in on Mr. Watanabe and demand that he stop shooting. He moved in on us (just under a year ago) and started shooting (obviously without regard for the affects his actions would have on the people living in the surrounding area). He claims that he bought his property for the sole reason of being able to shoot in his back yard. Why didn’t he move to some place that was far away from residents (like a responsible gun owner would do). Cheaper real estate too.
And finally, for those yahoos who continue to whine about 2nd Amendment rights, nowhere does the Constitution state that you have the right to keep and bear arms and shoot them where ever you want to. We are a (somewhat) civilized society. We are this way because we agreed to abide by some simple rules of civilization. We can each do our own thing as long as what we do doesn’t affect other people. Believe me, what he wants to do does affect other people. If someone lives in fear for the safety of their selves, loved ones, pets, or property it is an issue. No amount of screaming about the 2nd Amendment or some sherriff or his deputies is going to change that.
-
“No one (not even the sherriff or his deputies) can guarantee 100% that Mr. Watanabe’s recreational shooting will never result in a ricochet or stray round hitting a home, property, people or pets in the surrounding area UNLESS he doesn’t shoot.”
Thank goodness we have an honest sherriffs department, too bad you are misusing their honesty. The standard in our laws is whether or not there is reasonable likelihood that humans, domestic animals, or property will be jeopardized. Sherriffs deputies have made the determination that humans, domestic animals, or property will be NOT be jeopardized by Mr Watanabe’s target practice. By using your logic we should never be allowed to shoot a firearm anywhere because there is not 100% guarantee that someone will not be injured. In fact using that logic we should not be allowed to have any firearms ever because there is always a chance of an accidental discharge and no one can guarantee you 100% safety.
It does not matter who moved in first, or last. Property rights do not stop when you are the last one to move into your neighborhood. And I would have to assume what Mr Watanabe states is true that he did purchase his property knowing that he would be able to target practice on his own land. He is in a rural area in a rural county. I would also look for this myself in any future property purchase.
“And finally, for those yahoos who continue to whine about 2nd Amendment rights, nowhere does the Constitution state that you have the right to keep and bear arms and shoot them where ever you want to.”
So we are just “yahoos” eh? Nice to see you have respect for others and the rights we hold dear to us. I can see why you are having troubles with your neighbor. We have laws in this state that protect us from people like yourself and those laws are indeed based on our 2nd amendment rights and the rights reserved to the people in our States Constitution Article 24. We have laws that are derived from our Constitutional rights that are called preemption laws and they do not allow cities or counties to enact laws contrary to state law to protect the use of these rights. Again the standard in our State law is whether or not humans, domestic animals, or property will be jeopardized and so far that has worked out well for all. These laws are designed to protect US the firearm owners against people like yourself and at the same time allow for actions that do jeopardize humans, domestic animals, or property to be stopped.
I have lived here almost all of my life and know of not one injury due to residents target practicing on their own property. That is just an inconvenient fact for you though.
Here is a plat map of the area including Mr Watanabe’s property and the surrounding neighbors, Mr Watanabe’s property is outlined in red:
http://www.islandpolitics.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/N0558.jpg
It certainly appears that Mr Watanabe could target practice safely without endangering humans, domestic animals, or property, he certainly has the room to do so safely on the property he owns. Of course this is assuming that he has a proper backstop which the sherriffs office has verified that he does.
This appears to be a case similar to mass hysteria. You obviously have people in your neighborhood, it may be yourself, that is spreading half truths concerning this issue. Every one of you keeps saying similar things such as:
“No one (not even the sherriff or his deputies) can guarantee 100% that Mr. Watanabe’s recreational shooting will never result in a ricochet or stray round hitting a home, property, people or pets in the surrounding area UNLESS he doesn’t shoot.”
You are twisting the facts to suit your purposes and I can see why people are up in arms over this. The sherriff has determined that there is no likelyhood there is danger humans, domestic animals, or property but that is not good enough for you. You want a 100% assurance which you will never get from anyone ever anywhere on the face of the planet and if you ever do I would not believe it. I am surprised you drive a car or walk on the streets knowing that there is not 100% safety in doing so, more people are killed by automobiles than have ever been killed by people target practicing on their property.
Approach your neighbors and tell them that the sherriff has determined that there is no danger to humans, domestic animals, or property in his activity and see where they stand on the issue. What do you expect your neighbors and fellow petitioners to say when you approach them with your diatribe that the sherriff cannot give you 100% protection which BTW they will never give to anyone. I mean really…
-
-
Commissioners PLEASE don’t solve a problem as insignificant as the Watanabe and his neighbors problem, less that 1% of county population, with an unnecessary solution that negatively impacts ALL Island County citizens
I want to share a personal gun story.
There’s a very popular sand dunes open play area East of San Diego, CA, where many camp and play with their dune buggies etc, but that has ended for our family
My daughter, three children and her husband often enjoyed that playgroundA few years ago they were there and the children and their mother of a camper next to them yelled for help; a couple guys were trying to steal their Dad’s dune buggy
Their Dad was out playing with my son-in-law but my daughter’s father in law who has a concealed weapons permit responded. The guys trying to steal the dune buggy decided to show the old man who was boss.
Grandpa pulled his gun and fired a warning shot into the air
The offenders responded by shooting and killing grandpa in front of my daughter and her childrenThree hours later a County Deputy arrived along with an emergency rescue vehicle
They departed with Grandpa’s body and the deputies left empty handed because all he interviewed said they knew nothing about a shooting; CASE CLOSEDGuns don’t kill people; people kill people with guns
Deaths and injuries are a result of accidental gun shootings
I have several types of guns and will use them to protect myself, family and possessions when and if needed
I have warning signs, alarms and video security devices on my property
WARNING TO ALL: I will not waste bullets and time dialing 911 nor will I ever fire a warning shot
Reply
An event calendar of upcoming conservative events on the Islands. To add an item to this calendar please use the comment form below or contact one of our authors directly.
Click
Here!
26 comments
Comments feed for this article