Island Lake Range Sued

[Dan]

http://hometownlife.net/Brighton/News.asp?pageType=Story&StoryID=36125&Section=Page%201&OnlineSection=Page%201&SectionPubDate=Friday,%20June%204,%202004

Township aims to muffle gun noise
By Jim Totten
DAILY PRESS & ARGUS

After complaining about a barrage of gunfire noise for over a year, Brighton Township-area residents are happy to see a volley fired back at the Island Lake State Recreation Area shooting range off I-96 in Green Oak Township.

Mark St. Charles, Green Oak Township supervisor, said the township would be filing a lawsuit this week against the state-owned range to force it to comply with the 65-decibel limit. He said it's an "unfortunate path" but the only way for the township to get the state to fix the noise problem at the range.

(snip)

Click on link for the rest of the article.

--------------------------


I figured this was coming.

[Barbara]

Yep. They've been complaining all along. Please, folks, be sure to voice your support to the Natural Resources Commission for this range. Those folks consistantly stand up for it and most get a lot of crap for it.

[Jim Simmons]

Based on what? I'd love to see just what theory they think they can win under. A township trumping a DNR authorized range? Based on that kind of noise record? I think not.

Never say never, but I think it's a long shot -- pun intended.

[Roger Roney]

I agree Jim, it will be interesting. Note, it was Wednesday that "a lawsuit will be filed this week." It is now Sunday morning, and no word yet if it was.

I've also heard that the "65 decibel" law may be (or have been when the range was built,) non-existant and/or the DNR person who signed the agreement was not authorized to do so.

I have posted earlier that we went through the same NIMBY and noise concerns when an ORV area was proposed. At the sound check, our "noise" could not be detected, over ambient, at the nearest neighboring house. So it is interesting to read this quote from the Press & Argus article; <snip>the township conducted additional sound tests last weekend and found gunshot noise ranging from 79 to 100 decibels at various locations outside the range. It should be noted there were ambient background from the highway traffic that measured 85-95 decibels.And, where are the locations "outide" the range? At the parking lot gates? Grand River? Middle of I-96?

Too bad we do not have a "nuisance lawsuit, loser pay" law!

Roger

[Barbara]

My understanding is that Green Oaks does have a sound ordinance but it exempts government agencies.

Dan, were you ever able to get those sound tests from the Costco project?

[LivoniaDan]

Just as an aside..... I talked with some guy (resident) at one of the Brighton Twp meetings early on. He had no problem with the range, but said no one started complaining until the Skeet/Trap area became active.

[J 92 Brigadier]

I am not an expert, but would be interested in learning how they will obtain the sound tests, isolating the range from other factors and what is acceptable in court. We have an industrial zone behind us and I did some checking with the township on this issue as well as with our enginnering dept at work. It seems to me an acceptable sound test would entail hiring a specialist and testing at the property lines of the residents. It may be that the 65 dBA will be exceeded by birds, passing vehicles and other factors as well.

[Dan]

I never heard anything back from Green Oak on the sound tests.

[45 acp]

FIREARMS LAWS OF MICHIGAN — STATUTES
SPORT SHOOTING RANGES
Act 269 of 1989

AN ACT to provide civil immunity to persons who operate or use certain sport shooting ranges; and to regulate the
application of state and local laws, rules, regulations, and ordinances regarding sport shooting ranges.


691.1542 Sport shooting ranges; civil liability or criminal prosecution; state rules or regulations.
Sec. 2. (1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, and in addition to other protections provided in this act, a person
who owns or operates or uses a sport shooting range that conforms to generally accepted operation practices in this state is
not subject to civil liability or criminal prosecution in any matter relating to noise or noise pollution resulting from the
operation or use of the range if the range is in compliance with any noise control laws or ordinances that applied to the range
and its operation at the time of construction or initial operation of the range.
(2) In addition to other protections provided in this act, a person who owns, operates, or uses a sport shooting range that
conforms to generally accepted operation practices is not subject to an action for nuisance, and a court of the state shall not
enjoin or restrain the use or operation of a range on the basis of noise or noise pollution, if the range is in compliance with
any noise control laws or ordinances that applied to the range and its operation at the time of construction or initial operation
of the range.
(3) Rules or regulations adopted by any state department or agency for limiting levels of noise in terms of decibel level
which may occur in the outdoor atmosphere do not apply to a sport shooting range exempted from liability under this act.


SO what stupid attorney would even think he has a leg to stand on.
as I read the entire SPORT SHOOTING RANGES
Act 269 of 1989 I see it as a waste of court time and moneyand that there is no way they can win this.

[goldwing2000]

... if the range is in compliance with any noise control laws or ordinances that applied to the range and its operation at the time of construction or initial operation of the range.

They are trying to say that it does not comply with noise ordinances and never has. That's where the (alleged) issue is.

[Jim Simmons]

In the event the township attorney reads this board, I'm not going to discuss in detail the shortcomings in the range protection act, as applied in this case. And without attempting to stifle discussion on this issue, I'd like to suggest that we avoid addressing specifics. We don't want to inadvertently give any ammo to the bad guys.

[Barbara]

I dunno if the township attorney reads this board, but I'd bet its likely he reads the Daily Argus and this has been beaten to death there already, so I wouldn't worry too much about it. :)

[One of Many]

123.1102 Regulation of pistols or other firearms.
Sec. 2.

A local unit of government shall not impose special taxation on, enact or enforce any ordinance or regulation pertaining to, or regulate in any other manner the ownership, registration, purchase, sale, transfer, transportation, or possession of pistols or other firearms, ammunition for pistols or other firearms, or components of pistols or other firearms, except as otherwise provided by federal law or a law of this state.



If the STATE does not regulate the sound level (by Statute) produced by gunfire, how can any local unit of government do so on the basis of local ordinance, in light of the preemption law?

[Ken P]

123.1102 Regulation of pistols or other firearms.
Sec. 2.

A local unit of government shall not impose special taxation on, enact or enforce any ordinance or regulation pertaining to, or regulate in any other manner the ownership, registration, purchase, sale, transfer, transportation, or possession of pistols or other firearms, ammunition for pistols or other firearms, or components of pistols or other firearms, except as otherwise provided by federal law or a law of this state.



If the STATE does not regulate the sound level (by Statute) produced by gunfire, how can any local unit of government do so on the basis of local ordinance, in light of the preemption law?

It doesn't say anything about the use of firearms. The sound ordinance doesn't violate any of the above