The Guardian
The family of a 65-year-old Washington state
woman who was grazed in the head by a bullet says they can’t prove it
came from the neighboring shooting range, but a metal detector turned up
more than a pound of bullets in their yard.
Linda Sperling, of Brush Prairie, is still recovering from a
concussion. She considers herself lucky the bullet didn’t do more damage
when she was hit on 26 January while in her yard.
Sperling heard what sounded like an explosion, put her hand to her head and found blood on her gardening glove.
She was rushed to a hospital, where doctors told her a bullet had entered and exited her scalp, The Columbian reported Monday.
“I didn’t even realize I’d been shot,” Sperling said.
“What if it was a quarter-inch deeper?”
Sperling’s husband and son believe she was hit by a stray bullet from
the Clark Rifles outdoor shooting range. The gun club has two rifle
ranges and a handgun range, according to its website. One of those
300-yard rifle ranges points toward the Sperlings’ property.
Clark Rifles’ vice-president, Dave Christie, said there’s no proof the bullet came from the range.
“We know about no rounds that left the range,” he said.
Maybe I'm being too critical, but what in God's name made them think that building a house at the end of a rifle range would be a good thing? Though to be honest, being closer to the berm and backstop actually makes it safer, though its not something I'd want to do.
ReplyDeleteI looked it up on Google maps because I was interested in seeing how far the bullet would have to travel, the house looks to be between 50 to 75 meters from the berm. Considering where the house is, the pound of bullets in the yard is meaningless. They were likely sitting there before they built since the range predates the house.
I wondered how old the found bullets might have been.
DeleteWhy would you put yourself and your family in harms way by building your home at the receiving end of an active firearms range.Berm or no berm its not a good idea
ReplyDeleteWow, now people have no right to build a home where they want without fear of being shot. Gun loons at their finest.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure the range will be checking out their safety measures to see what can be improved, but as the article says, they cant really prove it came from the range.
DeleteIt shouldn't be tough for the police to ask some questions to find out if anyone was shooting that day. In fact, looking at the range calendar, I see there are two range safeties assigned for the day, who could reasonably be expected to answer questions of this type.
I personally wouldn't want to build a house 50 meters from the end of rifle range. Sort of like building a house just off the end of a runway or drag strip. At the very least, it will be noisy, and there's always that chance....
Wow, just wow Fred! Would you want to build your home on a freeway and not have a fear of being mowed down by a fast moving big rig? The freeway was there first after all.
DeleteDo you want to build your house next door to a big airport and then complain that you have a right not to hear the noise?
Do you want to build your house next door to a meat packing and processing plant and then complain a right about not having to smell the smell?
The range existed long before the developers built those houses, the range operated before, during and after the houses were built. Sounds like a developer problem. So this one pound of projectiles were in the dirt, big deal. Are there any in the side of the house? Likely not. If it were that big a problem then she would have known about WAY before getting grazed (if that is actually what happened) by windows being blown out, holes in the house and more.
News of this kind of thing, reports that is, has happened before, nothing new. Some woman claimed the range a few blocks from her house was shooting strays at her house and the media launched on the reports. The problem began when she held up several unfired rounds while making the claim these rounds were being fired at her house. Actually claimed she dug several of the unfired rounds out of the side of her house. She had buyers remorse was what it added up to. She wanted the range closed because of the noise. She couldn't get anywhere with the police, they saw right thru it. She couldn't get anywhere with the media, they eventually saw thru it when they were educated on the difference between a unfired round and a fired projectile. So she filed a lawsuit to have the range closed citing noise and danger. She lost as the judge found for the range as having been long established before the new neighborhood AND had to pay the range legal expenses.
The issue did get resolved eventually tho, she moved.
If a place becomes a residential area, the gun range has to move.
DeleteRight, Gun, loon just claim the whole thing is a lie. I guess bullets are just dropping from heaven.
DeleteIt's nice you gun loons don't think the range has a responsibility to be a safe place whether someone moved in before, or after the range was there. You want to scream rights but not for a property owner, you tell her to just move. Typical gun loons, you think there are no rights, but gun rights.
"If a place becomes a residential area, the gun range has to move."
DeleteSorry Mike, there are these things called property rights. Its a private club, which means the members have purchased the land and built the facilities with their money. No different than if it were a business of some sort.
They even allow the public to use the range on Sundays as a public service. It looks like a very nice range. I wish there was one like that close to me.
http://clarkrifles.com/
Yes, yes, we know that's how things would work in your dream world, Mike, but that's not how it works in the real world where some priority does, in fact, go to property owners who were there first.
DeleteIf they DO actually have a problem with rounds leaving the range then they do, and in fact should, have liability for those, but they are not obliged to move their whole range just because people decide to move in next door.
"It's nice you gun loons don't think the range has a responsibility to be a safe place whether someone moved in before, or after the range was there."
DeleteYou're right Fred, the range does have that responsibility. And I'm sure they're looking into it because it looks like a well run facility. And judging by the fact that they have lived there for 35 years with this seeming to be the only damage or injury, it seems to be working pretty well. Gunsmoke brought up a very good point that I hadn't thought of. There is no mention of ANY damage occurring to the house by bullets from the range in the 35 years they've lived there.
The Sperlings have the same rights as any other property owner. And I'm sure if they wish, they can find an eager attorney to bring a lawsuit. And I'm sure the club is insured.
If a place becomes a residential area, the gun range has to move.
DeleteBullshit. If people build their houses near a gun range, it's their problem. At least one state (Illinois--not exactly known for pro-gun "extremism") actually has a law protecting ranges that were already in existence before the self-entitled busybodies moved in.
I know there are property rights, just like in Florida where that young man thought it was OK to set up a gun range in his back yard.
DeleteUsing guns outdoors in residential areas is dangerous and wrong.
Using guns outdoors in residential areas is dangerous and wrong.
DeleteBuilding houses next to gun ranges is stupid and wrong.
Again, apples and oranges Mike. The homeowner tried setting up a range in a established neighborhood. This thread is about a neighborhood being built around an established gun range.
DeleteDo try to keep priorities straight, even if you don't like them.
The home owner[s] could make an attempt to buy the range out if they wish and like just about anything, everything is for sale for enough cash. Then if successful with their offer to buy it out, then they could turn it into what ever they wish if their wish follows any applicable codes. But if the range owners don't want to sell it, then I guess the antis are stuck where they are at and will just have to STFU. Or move.
Just like the homes built at established freeways, airports, railways, meat packing plants, refineries and so on and on. Don't like it? MOVE or STFU.
"If a place becomes a residential area, the gun range has to move. "
Delete"Using guns outdoors in residential areas is dangerous and wrong."
Again Mike, the range was there first and and the residents made a decision to purchase property and build there, in the Sperlings' case seemingly less than 100 meters from the end of the rifle range.
Your comments seem to suggest that some property rights have priority over other property rights. How would this differ from them building near any other business that some might not like. Airport, nuclear or coal power plant, etc.
Several years ago, an attorney (big surprise) tried to start a petition going complaining about the disruptive sounds of artillery fire at nearby Camp Ripley. Keep in mind that the base has been there since the 1800's. The petition never went anywhere. And by the way, every so often a farmer will come across an artillery round in his field.
Setting up a range like that kid did, or even building a new outdoor range like this in a residential area, is a completely different scenario than continuing to operate one that was once not in a residential area and then had the residential area grow up around it. Sorry, but your false analogy doesn't negate the property rights of the range that was already there.
DeletePeople moving in doesn't even change their duties which have always been to keep bullets from leaving the range. It just makes their fulfilling this duty more important.
You guys are right. The range was there first and the homeowners came later. But, it has to do with the zoning. If an area changes from a rural area to an urban one over say twenty or thirty years, the older residents have to conform.
DeleteThere seems to be no mention of the range violating any zoning laws. Perhaps because they were there first.
DeleteIf there were a zoning issue here, it would have been mentioned in the article, but nice try.
DeleteAlso a nice try because zoning changes are hard to fight--if you have some vacant farmland, it gets re-zoned residential, and you want to put cows out on it, you're usually SOL.
HOWEVER, if you have a working beef or dairy farm on it when the re-zoning happens it is, again, a different animal, and unless the town wants to invoke the takings doctrine and eminent domain your property with proper compensation, you're usually going to get an exemption to that new zoning.
You gun loons continue to claim whoever was there first has the priority right, she can just move. BS. Being there first does not absolve the range of responsibility. We are not talking about a noise complaint.We are talking someone got shot by a stray bullet. If the stray shell from the army camp hit and killed a cow, the farmer can certainly sue for damages; the fact that the camp was there first does not absolve the army from responsibility. The home owner probably knew there was a gun range there before they moved in, that doesn't mean they have to put up with being shot by one of their stray bullets.
DeleteFred, outside the insults, you completely correct in your response.
DeleteI get nothing but insults from you gun loons, so please don't complain when you get them in return. That manner of communication was your choice, not mine.
DeleteFred,
DeleteIf you actually read what we said and limited your response to it you would notice that we had said that the gun range was responsible for keeping bullets on their property and that this was right and proper.
In case you need that stated more clearly: The range has a Legal Duty to keep bullets from flying off its property and onto that of others. A breach of this duty--that is, failing to keep bullets from landing on other people's property--will expose them to liability. The lady can sue if she can show that she was hit by a stray round from the range. She can also sue for any property damage caused by bullets from the range.
To simplify it more, you are correct in your comments about her right to sue over the bullet strike.
Our ongoing comments about the range being there first were and continue to be in response to Mike's incorrect assertion that the gun range should have to shut down and move since people moved in next door. They have nothing to do with the potential liability of the range for bullets that left their property.
So, zoning means nothing to you. How about the gross irresponsibility of allowing live rounds to leave the gun range? Is it so difficult to prevent this? Should gun ranges no be held accountable for this?
DeleteI say one-strike-you're-out. A gun range that allows the injury of a neighbor is out of business immediately.
Well Gunny, you said:
Delete"Don't like it? MOVE or STFU."
"limited your response to it you"
Sorry SJ you don't get to limit my speech especially when it was one of your gun loons who insist they move (see above). Shutting down the range was not the only issue mentioned, but thanks for telling me I don't have a right to free speech. You should aim a comment to your fellow gun loon and tell him her only option is not to move. She doesn't have to move, but she can expect the range to make sure she doesn't get shot.
"The home owner probably knew there was a gun range there before they moved in, that doesn't mean they have to put up with being shot by one of their stray bullets."
Wow, Mike! Step back from the sauce for a minute.
Delete1: I never said Zoning meant nothing to me, but nice try at ignoring my comment on the topic. I used a cattle farm as an example in that one, but the principle would stay the same for a shooting range.
2: Did you not look at my recent exchange with Fred? My comment right above yours said that they have a duty to keep rounds from leaving their range. As I noted in that comment, I had said similar things further up in this thread. Others have indicated the same--e.g. Gunsmoke's comment above. Why are you insisting on pretending otherwise?
3: Regarding difficulty of preventing bullets leaving--no, it's not that difficult to make sure that most bullets never leave the range--just set up a nice berm behind the targets and have proper procedures for shooters so that they don't shoot over the top of it, past it, or something else stupid like that.
When I say Most here, I'm meaning 99.9(I don't rightly know how many 9's here)%. A proper berm is going to catch almost everything, but when thousands or millions of rounds are fired into it there is the possibility that a truly freak incident might happen resulting in a bizarre ricochet. Which brings us to . . .
4: Ah, another little fun "one strike you're out" rule that would treat this type of freak accident the same as someone who let a neighbor be injured because they failed to even build a berm. How about a more reasonable approach. In our system we have intentional torts, negligent ones, and strict liability torts when hazardous activities are being undertaken.
The usual example given is blasting: You can do it safely, but there's still a possibility of someone getting hurt, and you'll still be liable for that. This would seem to be a reasonable standard for gun ranges. In this case, they'd have to pay for any injuries caused by bullets leaving the range. From this baseline the courts could add on punitive damages, legal fees, etc. as plaintiffs showed worse and worse behavior (e.g. no berm, insufficient berm and long history of complaints about bullets leaving range). These punitive damages could be severe enough to close down the bad actor ranges while leaving the good ones that just had a freak accident in operation.
Fred,
DeleteNice try with Gunsmoke's comment there, but if you actually read it he was talking about the idea of someone wanting to close down a range near their house--they could buy it out, give up and shut up, or move. He wasn't addressing the issue of stray bullets.
As for your nonsensical ranting about my supposed attempt to limit your free speech, all I did was make a suggestion that you limit yourself to discussing the things other people actually say rather than raving against the voices. If you don't want to take that advice, fine.
So, rather then hold the gun range responsible for their negligence you want to call it a "freak accident." Cute.
DeleteHow many bullets does it take to weigh a pound, do you think? Does that sound like a rare freak accident?
How many bullets does it take to weigh a pound, do you think?
DeleteSomewhere between two (for the half-pound bullets fired from the S&H 2 Bore Blackpowder Express) and seven-hundred (for the 10-grain bullets fired from the .10 Eichelberger Pup). There are undoubtedly examples of bullets outside that range of weights (outside both ends of the range), but that should cover the vast majority of possibilities.
Does that sound like a rare freak accident?
As has been pointed out before, we have no evidence that the bullets came from the range, or that the ones found buried in the ground hadn't been there for decades longer than the house has.
"How many bullets does it take to weigh a pound, do you think? Does that sound like a rare freak accident?"
DeleteIf it wasn't a freak accident, why is it the bullets were found ONLY in the ground? Why isn't there report of the house shot up? Do they have some kind of bullet magnet in the ground to catch all the flyover bullets and drop them into just their yard?
Sounds to me like they had built their house on some old berm pushover as the range was updating or changing the range in the past.
"Sounds to me like they had built their house on some old berm pushover as the range was updating or changing the range in the past."
DeleteThat certainly explains how she got shot in the head.
Yeah, Shelly, these gun nuts are nothing if they're not loyal to their kind. Kurt wants evidence that the bullets really came from the nearby gun range and Gunsmoke says there must be a bullet magnet in the ground. Anything but hold the range accountable for their unsafe practices.
Delete"So, rather then hold the gun range responsible for their negligence you want to call it a 'freak accident.' Cute."
DeleteIf you were actually responding to what I wrote and not a straw man you would note that I was saying that "freak accidents" can occur even without negligence. You would also see that I actually proposed a strict liability standard that would still hold the range liable for freak accidents when they happened.
"How many bullets does it take to weigh a pound, do you think? Does that sound like a rare freak accident?"
Others have covered the issue of how many bullets. All I will say is that I didn't opine as to whether this case was a rare, freak accident or an accident as a result of a negligent range. I don't know enough facts to opine on that. If the pound of bullets is true, and if they came from the range, then that would be evidence of a much bigger problem.
Kurt asked that there be a showing of proof that the range is the guilty party? Shocking! It pains the conscience!
DeleteKurt wants evidence that the bullets really came from the nearby gun range . . .
DeleteHow "nutty" of me, to presume innocence pending proof of guilt. Yeah, I do want evidence. Got any?
Didn't think so.
I WAS speaking to what someone said SJ. On with your lies......
Delete"Well Gunny, you said:
ReplyDelete"Don't like it? MOVE or STFU.""
That's what I said, and I meant it, still mean it, will always mean it. So how does that equate an insult to you?? OK, I will give you an appropriate insult then since you like them so much and then blame me for an insult that wasn't there.
Fred your a totally idiot for thinking I insulted you. Your a total ass for continuing to insert meaings to my posts that aren't there. Your a bumbling fool to attack anyone who has an opposite opinion from you. And a complete and total moron to attack those that even agree with you just because they are a pro gun poster.
Good enough for you now?
That's right idiot gun loon, you said it, you meant it. That not only means you are wrong but an insulting ass also. If you don't want insults, don't dish them out, simple, except for an idiot jackass like you.
DeleteNice try SJ, but I did stay to what someone actually said. Next lies guys.......
Nice attempt at yet ANOTHER LIE asshole. Your very first comment on this thread contained insults. You dish them out, you get them back. I said what I said to the homeowners, not you, dipshit. You have no reading comprehension at all you stupid anti gun loon moron.
DeleteFredFebruary 5, 2015 at 7:20 PM
Wow, now people have no right to build a home where they want without fear of being shot. Gun loons at their finest.
Your FIRST response Fred, yours! None contained insults until you showed up.
You dished them out. Your gonna get them back you stupid dipshit, now on to your next lie.
What bullshit Gunny, you have been insulting me, Sammy, Sandra, Mike, and others ever since I came on this blog. A total lie to claim it started with this post. You started the insults and you don't save your insults for just me. You are just a disgusting, insulting, lying pig. That's your character, that's why you do it to all.
DeleteHere's bit of an update that I found,
ReplyDeleteVANCOUVER, Wash. – The Clark County Sheriff’s Office said Monday that it could not find any evidence that a stray bullet from a rifle range hit and wounded a Brush Prairie woman.
Linda Sperling, 65, said she was shot in the head while gardening on her five-acre property two weeks ago. Her property is adjacent to Clark Rifles, a shooting club that has two rifle ranges and a handgun range.
Sperling was treated and released from PeaceHealth Southwest Medical Center.
After conducting an investigation that included interviewing Sperling and management at the rifle range, the sheriff’s office said it will not be pursuing criminal charges in this case.
Investigators entered three shell casings into evidence but could not find the object that hit Sperling, the sheriff’s office said. It also said it could not determine from which direction it came; however, investigators couldn’t rule out that the object did come from the rifle range.
“Investigators are unable to make any determination that the injuries were the result of criminal intent, recklessness or negligence at this time,” the sheriff’s office said in a news release. “Since there is no evidence of criminal activity this investigation is suspended.”
Clark Rifles is a privately owned shooting range.
The sheriff’s office said the owners of the range have closed it until a required inspection is completed by deputies.
According to the sheriff’s office, the last time the range was inspected was in 1996. It is supposed to be inspected after five years. Sheriff Chuck Atkin said he is looking into why the required inspections didn’t take place.
"We are going to adhere to the county code and conduct the required firing range inspections," said Atkins. "We should have been doing them before, but we weren't. Obviously I can't change the past but I can ensure that we follow the county code going forward."
http://www.katu.com/news/local/Clark-County-Sheriffs-Office-cant-connect-head-injury-to-shooting-range-291342121.html
So like Fred said, I guess the bullet just dropped from heaven? Wow!
DeleteThe range hadn't been inspected in 18 years? I guess the cops exempt gun loons from city code.
Didn't say that Sammy. It says that they couldn't prove a criminal case, especially since they couldn't even find whatever injured the woman. I'm sort of wondering where the shell casings came from. It might be evidence of the reporter knowing nothing about firearms, but shell casings (brass) stay on the rifle end of the trip.
DeleteI imagine various attorneys are lining up to offer their services for a civil suit. They have a lower burden of proof than a criminal charge.
I wonder why no one in the inspection department didn't notice they were overdue. An inspection suggests a permit being issued. The law enforcement side in a county usually doesn't get involved in things like operating permits. Its another area of county government, at least up my way.
I've come across something that clarifies the situation and it appears I was wrong in my comment regarding who does the inspections,
Delete"The sheriff's office doesn't know where the projectile that struck 65-year-old Linda Sperling came from, and where it went after it left her scalp. Given that her 5-acre property east of Hockinson abuts the range, investigators say it's still possible that the projectile came from Clark Rifles, though they haven't found signs of recklessness, negligence or criminal intent."
"Investigators interviewed the Sperlings, along with everyone who was at the range when the injury occurred. In all, 16 people associated with Clark Rifles were interviewed and three bullet shell casings were recovered from the range and processed as evidence. Clark Rifles fully cooperated with the investigation and closed at the sheriff's request."
That is where the brass came from that I wondered about.
"The firing range is permitted through Clark County Community Development and was last inspected by the sheriff's office in 1996, according to county records.
A review of past practices revealed that the previous sheriff's administration made a decision to not inspect firing ranges, according to Undersheriff Mike Cooke. He said he doesn't know what led to that decision or when exactly it was made. "
The Sheriff's Department DOES do the inspections, and someone on the inspector side decided not to, so it isn't the range's fault.
"County code requires that the sheriff's office inspect permitted firing ranges at least every five years. Sheriff Chuck Atkins told the agency to get up to code and begin inspections as soon as possible.
"We should have been doing them before, but we weren't. Obviously, I can't change the past, but I can ensure that we follow the county code going forward," Atkins said.
Besides adhering to code, Cooke said they want to develop a uniform process for inspecting ranges that makes sense and ensures that they're operating safely. "
And it sounds like the process wasn't very through when it was done. The current Sheriff looks to have a good plan in place to get things back on track and make things more consistent. A good thing overall.
And forgot the dang link again....
Deletehttp://www.columbian.com/news/2015/feb/09/stray-bullet-probe-suspended-clark-rifles/
Sammy,
DeleteOur legal system requires proof of responsibility before convictions or even civil damages. This lady can still sue, and if she can convince a jury that over 50% of the proof indicates that the bullet came from the range, she'll win.
As for where the bullet came from, maybe it came from the range, but it could also have come from an irresponsible hunter or other shooter several miles away.
"Investigators entered three shell casings into evidence but could not find the object that hit Sperling, the sheriff’s office said. It also said it could not determine from which direction it came;"
Sounds like lax practices to me, maybe the cops just don't press inspections on gun ranges as they do other businesses, just a little gun loon slant.
DeleteOur legal system said the range was supposed to be inspected every 5 years. Who's getting fired for not following the law?
DeleteIt's convenient you gun loons cite the law, then don't follow the law when it suits your ideology. I believe that's called hypocrisy.
"Our legal system said the range was supposed to be inspected every 5 years."
DeleteNot our legal system, just the local county code. As for who got fired, it sounds like it was a previous administration/Sheriff who is ultimately responsible, and he's gone. He got fired by losing the election.
The county code directs the Sheriff's office to inspect every five years. It didn't get done. The guy responsible is gone and the current Sheriff is working to make sure it doesn't happen again.
It certainly isn't the club's fault.
There you are again with your dishonest semantics. Don't you get tired of embarrassing yourself?
DeleteHere is a pretty concise and fair report on what is happening with the range.
ReplyDeletehttp://thegunwire.com/blog/video-wa-gun-range-hasnt-been-inspected-in-18-years/
And some reporter asked another good question in regards to having a range so close to a home,
ReplyDelete"HOCKINSON, Wash. (KOIN 6) — After a Clark County woman said she was grazed by a stray gun range bullet in January, KOIN 6 News wanted to know the legality of building shooting ranges next to homes.
Linda Sperling and her husband said they have found dozens of shells on their property, which they believe are from neighboring Clark Rifles shooting range.
After being grazed by what she believed was a bullet, Linda said she and her family want the gun range shut down for good. But Clark Rifles was built several years before the Sperling’s house went in.
“If you’re building a home on five acres, there’s nothing in our code that says you should be set back ‘x’ from the shooting range,” Clark County Director of Community Development Marty Snell said. “However, if you’re building a shooting range, it does require you to come through the county and get a conditional use permit and we would look at that on a site-specific basis.”
Snell said applications to build a commercial shooting range must be approved by his office and the sheriff. If provisions are made to ensure the safety of residents in the surrounding area, and the location and operation are in compliance with zoning regulations, Snell said they will be approved.
In the Sperling’s case, because the range was in place before their house, it’s not violating any code.
The existing code was drafted in 1995, 20 years after Clark Rifles opened its doors. Today, it would have to go through a much more stringent building approval process.
“It’s open, it’s transparent, it’s public. It goes to a hearings examiner, renders a decision based on the facts and the code and those decisions are also appealable to the court,” Snell said. “A new one just won’t show up in your neighborhood.”
http://koin.com/2015/02/11/clark-rifles-opened-20-years-before-house-built/
"A Hockinson shooting range whose neighbor said she was hit by a stray bullet has been inspected by an expert, who gave it a positive report."
ReplyDelete"During the investigation, however, the sheriff's office learned that it hadn't inspected the gun club in 19 years. Clark County code indicates that shooting ranges "shall be subject to periodic re-inspection by the sheriff every five years." The firing range holds a permit granted through Clark County Community Development and was last inspected by the sheriff's office in 1996, according to county records.
The sheriff's office readily admitted the oversight and inspected the range on Feb. 2.
For the inspection, a sheriff's deputy brought along George Pitts, the founder and chairman of the Oregon Association of Shooting Ranges.
Pitts said he founded the organization 15 years ago as a way to ensure member gun clubs, currently totaling 29, are safe, are environmentally sound and comply with local and state rules and regulations.
In an interview Friday, Pitts said that he looked the range over top to bottom and assessed Clark Rifles as above par.
"My sense of this was (Clark Rifles) has been very, very cautious and very responsible," Pitts said. "Everything I saw looked like these guys were bending over backwards to be good guys."
He went on to say that Clark Rifles was "probably as safe or safer than 80 percent of the ranges in Oregon. They're right up there in the top."
"With that review, legal options for the Sperlings are dwindling.
The family continues to argue that the range has grown and now uses every inch of its property, which makes their property unsafe.
Mike and Linda Sperling have reached out to representatives to find a solution.
The couple asked County Administrator Mike McCauley for a hearing on the shooting range's license.
"We believe that despite the good safety improvements and precautionary intentions by Clark Rifles over the years, the areas downrange from the shooting range are not safe," Mike Sperling wrote in a letter to McCauley.
McCauley met with the Sperlings and extensively reviewed county code, which uses terms like "reasonably safe."
Based on advice from the Clark County Prosecuting Attorney's office, McCauley said, the county doesn't have cause to hold a hearing.
McCauley said it's hard not to feel for the Sperlings, but the evidence so far collected doesn't indicate any code violations.
"I don't know if we have a solution to this issue that will satisfy the Sperlings," McCauley said.
Mike Sperling said that with other avenues exhausted, he plans to fight the shooting range in civil court.
"We can't seem to get the government agencies that let it happen in the first place to react to the fact that my wife was shot," Mike Sperling said. "My property is not safe, it still isn't safe."
http://www.columbian.com/news/2015/feb/20/expert-inspects-gun-range-finds-it-well-run/
Sweet! Buh-bye, Sperlings.
Delete