COLUMBIA TWP. — People packed the Columbia Township Hall on Monday to talk about whether the state can, or even should, give townships the authority to regulate firing guns on private property.
The meeting was organized by state Rep. Dick Stein, R-Norwalk, after residents in both Eaton and Columbia townships recently voiced concerns about irresponsible shooters hitting homes. Some homes have been hit with multiple bullets that went through walls and missed people inside by feet.
Township trustees were present, as were Lorain County Assistant Prosecutor Gerald Innes and state Sen. Gayle Manning, R-North Ridgeville, who left the forum early.
Unlike municipalities, townships can’t dictate whether lots must be a certain size to shoot, whether a certain backstop must be used when target shooting or whether to ban shooting in certain areas altogether.
A resident can fire any type of weapon they choose on private property, and state law suggests National Rifle Association guidelines for backstops, although backstops aren’t legally required to target shoot.
Ohio is one of six states with a law that refers to the NRA when it comes to backstops. Backstops in Ohio’s law are only referenced in terms of shooting ranges and not for shooting by residents on private property.
Stein said one problem with focusing on backstops is that not everyone firing a gun in a township is doing so for target practice. Some are hunting or shooting skeet, he said, which has nothing to do with a backstop.
“You can’t build a backstop for every varmint or animal you want to shoot,” Stein said. “It lies with the person to be responsible and know what direction they are shooting and if there are houses in that direction.”
However, Lorain County sheriff’s Capt. Rick Thomas said the bulk of complaints about shooting received involve target shooting where a person has “a form of a backstop or an improper backstop.” Capt. Don Barker added that the department mostly runs into people who are target shooting with a backstop that won’t stop the round they are shooting.
Deputies also have difficulty charging people criminally when it comes to negligent or reckless shooting. Barker said state law could be tweaked to give the law, which only deals with whether a person knowingly hit a home, more bite.
“Right now, we’re very limited with what we can charge by the Ohio Revised Code when it comes to shooting,” Barker said. “If you knowingly shoot into a house, it is covered by the (law). But if it is not knowingly it is not covered.”
Eaton Township resident Elizabeth Rattay told Stein that lawmakers should do something to help rather than just paying residents lip service. Rattay, a gun owner and member of the NRA, lives on Dye Road, and both of her neighbors’ homes have been hit with bullets.
Rattay said there are times she has to tell her children to get inside or go to the basement because she hears intense gunfire and it’s not possible to know whether more bullets will hit homes.
Rattay said at one time she would shoot on her neighbor’s property, but then she started thinking about the homes nearby. Apparently common sense isn’t so common these days, she said.
“You’re an educated man,” Rattay told Stein. “I know you can come up with wording that will be constitutional and safe.”
But longtime Eaton Township resident Harry Walker, who remembers when rural schools had rifle competitions, said he believes the main issue is a lack of education, inexperienced shooters and too many newcomers who want too many government regulations.
“We suddenly have an influx of people that have no idea what it’s like to live in a township,” he said. “They want to change our way of living, and that’s not the way it’s going to be.”
Not all newcomers want changes when it comes to gun laws. Columbia Township resident Tony Manning, who said he moved to the area a few weeks ago, told Stein to keep the state out of the townships.
“The primary reason I moved here is for more freedom,” Manning said. “I love hearing gunshots. I’ve got a neighbor in the back and one Sunday they cranked of 500 to 1,000 rounds, and I was so proud to be an American. I absolutely love it.”
But Columbia Township resident Kathy Kortan, who lives in a development where two homes have been hit, said she feels that just as people have a right to own and shoot guns, others have a right to feel safe in their homes.
“All of the elected officials, I just ask you to think about how you’ll feel when the call is not that I’m annoyed but I’m dead,” Kortan said.
Lisa Zver, an Olmsted Township trustee, said the problem of irresponsible shooting in townships spreads across the county and state.
Zver said Olmsted Township is developing fast, is no longer rural, and she wonders if there should be density requirements to shoot. People shoot in populated areas, she said, or at targets facing the Ohio Turnpike.
“I want my right to own my gun, but I’m not going to shoot it in a densely populated area,” she said. “That to me is the height of irresponsibility. I cannot imagine sitting in my home, having it shot up and being that close to being killed.”
A resident who lives on South Boone Road said he’s recently given the Sheriff’s Office an address where people are suspected of shooting at tannerite targets. The kits are sold and require mixing of two explosives, which generally only explode when hit by a bullet, and people sometimes use the mixture to shoot at old appliances or other large targets.
The two explosives can legally be sold separately, deputies said, but mixing the explosives is a felony.
The resident said recent explosions have shook his home. Others present said the windows of some homes have busted out after such explosions.
Thomas said the use of tannerite is illegal and if caught using it, people will be arrested.
“If we catch anyone using tannerite, and we can show they’re doing it, we’re going to arrest them,” Thomas said. “It’s illegal, flat out, no ifs, ands or buts. It’s not target shooting, it’s causing mayhem.”
This really shouldn't be an issue at all. What it sounds like is there is an influx of irresponsible gun owners just shooting away. I was taught back in the late 70's if you didn't know where your bullet was going to go or what was behind what you were shooting at you didn't shoot in that direction.
Maybe not today or tomorrow but one day if something's not done not only is someone going to get shot sitting in there home but someone's going to shoot someone they feel shot there house.
I know Ohio doesn't have a stand your ground law but if Police are powerless then it's up to the home owner to protect their own life.
If it's illegal for a hunter to discharge a weapon within 300 yards of an occupied building, it should be illegal for any nimrod to discharge a weapon with in 300 yards of an occupied building.
Maybe, ODNR should get involved before someone gets killed. ODNR does have to follow up on reports & complaints of illegal hunting and poaching don't they?
Btw, in my humble opinion the 2nd Amendment to The Constitution gives anyone the right to concealed carry without government interference or regulation.
Custo, I get your idea, but printing what you just did show premeditation and I don't think you want that out there...just saying. You might want to hit the delete button.
I live in Alabama now and have the last 10 years. I posted that because there are people out there especially seniors who will one day snap and do exactly what I would do.
I know that's why they're trying to address the issue, sooner or later someone will get shot. It'll be be because something wasn't done to prevent it.
This issue can be solved easily enough. If you can point to someone and show they were shooting the day a bullet hit someone's property confiscate the weapons make them take a hunters saftey course and fine them. After everything's been satisfied return the weapons.
That would limit people that own less that 58 acres could not shoot on their property, that is ridiculous and basically eliminates shooting in area with property less that 58 acres which is most areas that contain houses..
I have been shooting safely on 3.5 acres for near 50 years.
2nd amendment allows you the right to bear arms openly, not concealed. If you walked down the street with a shotgun openly, you are within your rights. The kicker is as long as it doesn't create a disturbance.
I know this is not a solution but might register with someone having common sense. To buy a gun, you sit in a gun safety course, you get a card with an expiration date and must be kept up to date if you have any future gun purchases at stores, mail order and gun shows. However, would be impossible to enforce during used gun, private sales.
Well in Ohio if you want to hunt you have to be age 10 or older and if a minor attended and successfully passed a hunters safety course, used to be. That is to get an Ohio's hunting license, may have changed since I was a kid. Maybe these people shooting never hunted or taken any kind of gun classes. A hunter know's better or should. So that leaves kids and first time gun owners.
You also do not have Constitutional right to hunt so that is not the same as having to get the govs permission to shoot. That same father and son could go shooting a gun even if he was six like I was. Of course my dad drilled gun safety into my head.
Knowledge is paramount. If gun safety was taught from an early age, you wouldn't have near as many kids shooting themselves with dads gun or whatever and moronic things like hitting a house would be even more rare than it is. That would take care of the kids and first time gun owner issue. There will always be idiots to screw up everything. always an exception.
Rights or not? If you don't have rights, you have nothing, do you believe you should have to take an iq test to exercise your right to free speech? What other rights are you willing to give up and let the gov decide if you deserve them? Where does it end? The right to not have the gov just walk in your house and search it at will protects the drug dealer just like it does the honest citizen, should you have to prove you deserve 4th amendment rights before you can exercise them? You don't take everyone's rights away because of very few idiots do something stupid. Should you lose your right to drive because I get a DWI?
Unfortunately one of the federal courts made a ruling that by having a gun you are giving up your 4th amendment rights. Which is why those 200+ vacancies in the courts need to be filled with judges that value the constitution.
I would like to see that in writing please, do you have a link ? If you get pulled over and have your CCW with you, that does not mean they can search your car or if you have a gun in your house they can just search your house. I will stand corrected if wrong.
The case deals with a guy the police had a tip was armed. In the trial the evidence of the gun was thrown out because they said it was an illegal search. On appeal the appeals court ruled that if a person has a gun (whether legally or illegally) they are considered armed and dangerous, which allows them to be searched without consent.
From the ruling: "In sum, individuals who carry firearms--lawfully or unlawfully--pose a risk of danger to themselves, law enforcement officers, and the public at large. Accordingly, law enforcement officers may frisk lawfully stopped individuals whom the officers reasonably suspect are carrying a firearm because a detainee’s possession of a firearm poses a categorical “danger” to the officers. ""
"Today we recognize one such burden: individuals who carry firearms elect to subject themselves to being frisked when lawfully stopped by law enforcement officers."
Hmmmm, you still need probable cause to make the stop in the first place which may have been satisfied by the call he had a gun. You still can't for example search a car just because the driver has a ccw and is carrying.
And I agree the example in this case is limiting. What I have issue with is how they are wording their opinion. It is easy to see how what they said can apply to this case, but it is also easy to see what they said could be applied to a lot of other cases. If you have a CCW or have even completed a background check to buy a gun you are now considered an armed and dangerous person and according to the one judge by your own actions you are consenting to give up some of your rights.
Think of how easy it would be for anti-gun people to leverage this to suit their own agendas. You have a CCW license, now they can say you are dangerous and can issue no knock warrants against you. If you are in a state that requires you to register your firearms or all firearm transfers need a background check, you are now a dangerous person that maybe breaking the law by having firearms you shouldn't have.
Them saying if you have a gun you are a danger to the public is like saying if you have sudafed you are a meth producer. One element does not link you to the worst possible outcome and it is wrong for them to assume that.
Driving is a PRIVLEDGE not a right, you're getting off track here. I am not saying to deny anyone their 2nd amendments rights. Get trained first, then you can purchase. I do not believe rights are being violated by maintaining a level of compentancy. Has nothing to do with IQ tests or the gov't searching your home. You're talking apples and oranges.
And you are trying to turn owning a gun into a privilege, again, if you have to do anything to exercise a right, it is no longer a right, it is a privilege. You give up one right, another will be right behind it as you can see thru history.
Your interpretation is that we should only have rights with the govs permission, mine is we have the right and should not to have to jump through any other hoops to exercise it. Fred, just forget it, we are wasting time and go get your snowblower back out so winter can be over with.....lol
Update the state law so that firing into any residence, occupied or not, is illegal. Get rid of that "knowingly" requirement. Fools do foolish things, that can and do injury and kill people, and many times do so unknowingly.
Ignoring or minimizing the issue doesn't make it go away. By minimizing it, those doing it will keep on doing it. The result is even harsher more restrictive laws that have a negative impact on everyone. Having laws that punish those that are reckless with their guns is not anti-gun. This is what happens when you have idiots that think they have a right to act fools and people defend them acting that way saying it is their right. Rights only go to the point where they start infringing on other people's rights.
Making everybody have a certain size property to shoot is not punishing those who misuse the right, it punishes everyone.
Giving townships the right to regulate guns on private property should never happen as all you would have to do is get people who are anti gun make the regs so bad it would in fact make guns illegal to shoot or maybe even own which should never been done without due process.
Could you imagine what a place like Oberlin would do to your rights if they had the power?
Increasing the punishment for those who specifically hits someones house would be more in line.
Again, I have read more issues with cars hitting houses lately than bullets.
Punish only those that commit the crime, not everybody in the area.
Firearm safety should be taught in school from a young age, education is the better answer.
"Punish only those that commit the crime, not everybody in the area."
That's the problem - it's not a crime to shoot someone's house unless you do it on purpose. If I get in a car wreck, I can get charged with reckless operation. Obviously I didn't purposely hit another car, but I clearly wasn't paying enough attention and/or driving unsafely. There needs to be the equivalent of reckless operation for shooting a house.
I'm not in favor of laws and regulations that state what they have to have in order to shoot. You can safely shoot with a house 10 feet next to you if you do it right. Passing regulations won't keep people from acting like fools. But you can pass laws that punish them for being reckless.
Pointing out that cars hit houses is irrelevant. You can't justify bad behavior by point to something else and saying it happens more often.
I agree on the laws for punishing people only who shoot a house. And I didn't try to justify anything, I was pointing out that as many cars have hit houses in the paper lately yet the same uproar for the lack of a better word has not been brought up about the cars. Either one is very rare.
It is not rare. It happens to houses and out buildings quite frequently, however it either goes unreported or doesn't get printed in a newspaper. just because you didn't read it in a newspaper does not mean it did not happen.
"Thomas said. “It’s illegal, flat out, no ifs, ands or buts. It’s not target shooting, it’s causing mayhem.”"
From what I can tell this was just the opinion of the state fire marshal based on his interpretation of the law. I don't think this has been ruled on in court. The state law referenced also refers to the intent to harm a person or property. A person shooting these targets out in a field is not intent on harming anyone.
Arresting them and trying to make their case would be very hard. As they say it isn't "illegal" until it is mixed. I'm sure most people aren't mixing them and leaving them laying around where they could be collected as evidence. It isn't considered an explosive device until a gun is fired at it, a fraction of a second later it is no longer an explosive device and no evidence of it is left behind. Further when they show up they won't know who mixed it or who shot it.
I think after it is mixed it is considered a dangerous ordnance. Because it becomes Sensitive ammonium nitrate which is illegal.
Ohio revised code 2923.11 and 2923.17. SAN. It is illegal for a person to mix and possess. I think people in Ohio have already been charged and convicted.
I guess you could always do an experiment. go mix some and then call the police to come inspect it and see what happens? Lol I'm not sure I would take a chance though. :) to everyone, shoot responsible and shoot sober
SECURITY WARNING: Please treat the URL above as you would your password and do not share it with anyone. See the Facebook Help Center
for more information.
SECURITY WARNING: Please treat the URL above as you would your password and do not share it with anyone. See the Facebook Help Center
for more information.
SECURITY WARNING: Please treat the URL above as you would your password and do not share it with anyone. See the Facebook Help Center
for more information.
