ordinance against discharging firearms 500' from ANY residence LET'S HAVE THIS FIXED!

[GunRelated]

He is presently doing his homework on the subject.

Thanks for giving your input, Mr. James. He told me that you had called, but I didn't know it was you that had called at the time when we spoke.

 

[GunRelated]

Just wanted to update this thread. Unfortunately, we have yet to see any legislation put into motion to change this ordinance; yet. I have made contact with Mr. Parent again as well as Mr. Goff on the subject and will continue to do so until I get an answer; either we can do it or we can't. I would also suggest to anyone that is affected by this ordinance to start contacting their local council members, let's let them know we really want to see this changed. If anyone else has any ideas on how to get this ball rolling, let's hear it. Let's get this done.

 

[GunRelated]

I also would like to share an experience I had today, which led me to getting back on focus to have this ordinance changed.

I decided to use the evening to sight in my AR and fired a few shots, then proceeded through the woods on my property taking about a 5-10 minute walk to my neighbors house before heading home. No sooner than I knock on the door I notice an LPSO unit hauling ass down our driveway towards me. At this point I have my rifle front slung in hand and my handgun on my side; I didn't have enough time to respectfully unarm myself before he got to me so I didn't because I didn't want to startle him. So as he pulled up, I kept my hands in out and let him know that both weapons were hot. I was surprised because he didn't draw down on me, or treat me as a criminal in anyway. I let him disarm me and he was very respectful the whole time.

Turned out, my neighbor/disowned family had made an "anonymous" gun call on me, something they have done before but long ago (they were told I was not breaking the law). So with all that, it reminded me about the people that are affected by the ordinance and ignorant and or vindictive neighbors. This ordinance affects a lot of safe shooters, and we need to do something about it.

Anyhow, I wanted to share my LEO encounter so I just put it here.

 

[kenny]

Thanks for the update.

I wonder how well we can use social media to get more folks on board, and pressure parish council to scrap this ordinance.

 

[dantheman]

Just asking , how close to a residence do you consider " safe to shoot " ? What is it exactly that you are asking for ?

 

[GunRelated]

Thanks for the update.

I wonder how well we can use social media to get more folks on board, and pressure parish council to scrap this ordinance.

Any type of social media is a good way to get a group together. Reach out through friends, and they can do the same. Hell, I know we have plenty LP residents on this board that wants to see this changed so they can safely shoot on their on property.

Just asking , how close to a residence do you consider " safe to shoot " ? What is it exactly that you are asking for ?

Here is what I would like to see, or at least something to build on.

This is the current ordinance as posted earlier in this thread.

Sec. 11-3. - Hunting, discharge of firearms on roads or highways.

(a) Hunting or the discharge of firearms on roads or highways is hereby prohibited, except by law enforcement officers in performance of their official duties.

(b) The illegal use of weapons or dangerous instrumentalities is the intentional, criminally negligent, discharging of any firearm, or the throwing, placing or other use of any article, liquid, or substance, where it is foreseeable that it may result in death or great bodily harm to humans.

(c) If the use or discharge of the weapons is within one hundred (100) feet of any parish road, state or public road, or within five hundred (500) feet of any residence, it is presumptive evidence of foreseeable death or that great bodily harm exists.

(d) Whoever shall violate this section shall be fined no more than five hundred dollars ($500.00), or imprisoned for not more than thirty (30) days, or both. (Ord. of 10-9-84) Editor's note—

At the discretion of the editor, an ordinance adopted Oct. 9, 1984, being nonamendatory of the Code, has been included herein as § 11-3





As you can see, section (c) is the one that we are focused on. As of now, it states and specifies that you cannot discharge a firearm within 500' of ANY residence which includes your own home. This alone is total horse **** legislation and god knows why it was worded this way.

Obviously the key word in this section is the word ANY, meaning even your own home. Why should the law be able to regulate how close we can be to our own homes to be capable of safely discharging a firearm, and what business is it of anyones anyway?

Now, I am not against the 500' rule when it comes to a neighboring residence (personally I would prefer 300') EXCEPT in which case that residence has given their written consent giving their permission for the neighbor to shoot; given everything is being done in a safe manner. The reason for this exemption would be to prevent vindictive neighbors, who are out of the 500' ft range, from keeping someone from shooting just because they have other neighbors that are in that 500' range even though they give their consent.


This is what I have in mind. Now, let's hear what everyone else thinks.

 

[GunRelated]

Got a response from Mr. Parent. He is going to get this in front of the council after the holidays. He invited me to speak on the matter. If anyone else would like to join in on this, let me know and we can put something together and make it happen.

 

[4sooth]

Charlie 12--if the parish law is more restrictive than state law--it is in conflict with the state and is not lawful.

 

[GunRelated]

Charlie 12--if the parish law is more restrictive than state law--it is in conflict with the state and is not lawful.

Could you provide a link for your source of this? If this were found to be correct, then this could be very helpful.

 

[GunRelated]

Got a response from Mr. Parent. He is going to get this in front of the council after the holidays. He invited me to speak on the matter. If anyone else would like to join in on this, let me know and we can put something together and make it happen.

Again, the more residents we can get to speak up the better the chance we have of being heard. If anyone has any ideas of what/how we could/should present to the council let's hear it. I know I'm not the only one that's would like to see this ordinance changed. Together we can offer an educated, well put together answer to the issue at hand that works for everyone.

 

[GunRelated]

Here are some court cases that were presented to me via PM. I found the outcomes to be interesting and could be something worth presenting. If anyone else has any or can find any similar cases, feel free to post them here.

http://www.leagle.com/decision/In LACO 20101103259

 

[charlie12]

Could you provide a link for your source of this? If this were found to be correct, then this could be very helpful.

Be glad to.

Sec. 13:93. Discharge of firearms.permanent link to this piece of content

(a)
Shooting of firearms within the city. It shall be unlawful to shoot or discharge a gun, pistol, revolver, rifle or other firearm within the city except in a regularly established rifle or pistol range built and operated under the proper safety precautions. The prohibition of this section shall not apply to members of the federal, state or municipal government authorized to carry such firearms, when acting within the scope of their authority.
(b)
Discharge of firearms in the parish; definitions; exceptions.
(1)
The discharge of any type pistol or rifle for any purpose by any person within one-half mile of any street, road or house in the parish is hereby prohibited.
(2)
The discharge of other types of firearms, including shotguns of any description which may be used for the explosion of cartridges or air gun, BB gun, gas-operated gun or spring gun, for any purpose by any person within five hundred (500) feet of any street, road or house in the parish is hereby prohibited.
(3)
The provisions of this subsection shall not be construed so as to prohibit any person from discharging a firearm in the defense of his person, family or property.
(Ord. No. 7421, § 1, 1-25-84)

See the date, it was before the Preemption law.

Be careful with the way LP is growing you wouldn't want any change to backfire on you and go the other way.

http://library.municode.com/index.aspx?clientId=10107

 

[GunRelated]

I know about the EBR ordinance, I was asking for a source of what 4sooth was saying.

I agree with you on the fact we need to approach this with an educated and thought out plan. A plan that would lift such silly restrictions such as being too close to your own home, but still give safety and piece of mind to the residents in the more populated areas.

 

[charlie12]

I know about the EBR ordinance, I was asking for a source of what 4sooth was saying.

I agree with you on the fact we need to approach this with an educated and thought out plan. A plan that would lift such silly restrictions such as being too close to your own home, but still give safety and piece of mind to the residents in the more populated areas.

Is this what he was talking about? http://www.legis.state.la.us/lss/lss.asp?doc=97860

After reading this

A. No governing authority of a political subdivision shall enact after July 15, 1985, any ordinance or regulation more restrictive than state law concerning in any way the sale, purchase, possession, ownership, transfer, transportation, license, or registration of firearms, ammunition, or components of firearms or ammunition; however, this Section shall not apply to the levy and collection of sales and use taxes, license fees and taxes and permit fees, nor shall it affect the authority of political subdivisions to prohibit the possession of a weapon or firearm in certain commercial establishments and public buildings.

I don't see where it has anything to do with pulling the trigger on a firearm. So is my slow way of thinking under that they couldn't pass a more restricted on owning it but could about firing it.
Is there some other one I'm missing?

 

[JNieman]

I don't understand what "pre-emption" would apply to this situation. Could someone explain what State pre-emption prohibits the parishes/cities from enacting further-restrictive ordinances about shooting on private property?

 

[GunRelated]

I don't understand what "pre-emption" would apply to this situation. Could someone explain what State pre-emption prohibits the parishes/cities from enacting further-restrictive ordinances about shooting on private property?

This is what I was trying to get at. I feel as though the state left out the specifics of discharging a firearm so the local governments could enact such ordinances as they see fit for their area.

 

[GunRelated]

It's all in the wording and I feel that if we can at minimum replace the word "any" residence with "neighboring" residence, or similar, it would be satisfactory.

 

[Emperor]

It's all in the wording and I feel that if we can at minimum replace the word "any" residence with "neighboring" residence, or similar, it would be satisfactory.

Wouldn't it be easier to just add the shooters residence exception? It is often easier to add verbiage that speaks more directly to your cause than to remove parts that speak to many.

 

[kenny]

It's all in the wording and I feel that if we can at minimum replace the word "any" residence with "neighboring" residence, or similar, it would be satisfactory.

That would be a good start, but it needs to be gone all together.

There are plenty of folks who live in areas that houses are in a row with endless woods out back. The way it is now, or even with neighboring added in, it doesn't do one thing to protect homeowners, or shooters/hunters.

Section B suffices the intent, section C takes it too far.

 

[Emperor]

That would be a good start, but it needs to be gone all together.

There are plenty of folks who live in areas that houses are in a row with endless woods out back. The way it is now, or even with neighboring added in, it doesn't do one thing to protect homeowners, or shooters/hunters.

Section B suffices the intent, section C takes it too far.

From a physics standpoint, the verbiage in Section C is factual. If an errant bullet kills your neighbor by accident, you knew it had the potential to do just that.