It’s not every day you get your own bill in the Legislature. I just wish it were not directed at me.

L.D. 79, “An Act To Protect Shooting Ranges,” is just that: It proposes to allow firing ranges to shoot within 300 feet of a building designed for human occupation if the range was in operation before the structure was built.

Currently, the law states that no one may discharge a firearm or cause a projectile to pass within 300 feet of such a structure. I assume the law was created for the safety of people and property, but I’m not an expert.

I’ve owned a property very near a firing range since 2013. In December 2015, I asked the owners to close it for seven hours a week so that I could use my land without fear of being shot. They replied “no.” Since that “no,” I’ve been complaining about the safety of the range as it relates to me and anyone else on my property nearest the range.

The authorities, at all levels, would do nothing, as “no law was being broken” – so I gave them a law to enforce. I built a 10-foot-by-12-foot cabin on my property, which I had every right to build. Unfortunately, it was 150 feet from the range, and after long delay, the authorities had to step in and the range was closed.

Now comes L.D. 79, “An Act to Give Tony’s Property to a Private Club Because They Don’t Have Enough Land of Their Own to Safely Operate.” It’s promoted as a bill to close a loophole, but what it’s actually proposing is to carve out a loophole in a safety law on behalf of firing ranges that really do not own enough property to shield themselves and safely operate.

Anthony Garrity

West Newfield

Copy the Story Link

« Previous

Letter to the editor: Sympathy won't solve Maine opioid crisis

Next »

Letter to the editor: Expanding voter rolls will end GOP rule