http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40378-2005Feb20.html?sub%3DAR&sub=AR
Monday, February 21, 2005
She even adjusted to the bursts of gunfire from the outdoor shooting range nearby.
But over the past several years, the rat-a-tat-tat from the Cavalier Rifle and Pistol Club has increased as its membership has grown, to the point that the noise "becomes unbearable," she said. But because the club is grandfathered into county ordinances on noise levels, there is nothing she can do about what she describes as a "constant nuisance."
"I know they were here first, but what happens if they ever want to add more ranges on their property?" said Papit, 47, a marketing consultant whose 25-acre farm is about a two-hour drive south of the District. "The noise could get even worse."
Now Papit and a group of residents and local officials from across Virginia are fighting a bill in the General Assembly that would change the rules for shooting ranges that want to start up or expand.
Even though representatives for the state's shooting ranges said that Cavalier has no plans to expand, Papit said she is concerned that the county could not regulate the range's noise if it ever chose to do so.
House Bill 2282, sponsored by Del. William R. Janis (R-Goochland), would establish a statewide noise standard for outdoor shooting ranges. The measure would prevent local governments from setting their own noise standards.
Instead, the state would set an average of 64 decibels as the maximum allowable sound a gun range could register at the border of its property. The noise level generally equates to a television at medium volume or an animated conversation, researchers say. It would be one of the tightest levels in the nation, supporters say.
The legislation also would prevent nuisance lawsuits related to gun-range noise if the proposed state standard is passed.
The bill will be reviewed today by the Senate Committee on Local Government. It pits sportsmen's clubs, which called for the legislation, against representatives of local governments who say it would infringe on their ability to set noise regulations based on community standards. The measure passed the House of Delegates 85-13 this month.
"It's taking away local decisions that I believe are best made by the community that are most affected by this," said Sterling Rives, the Hanover county attorney.
Opponents include the Virginia Municipal League and the Virginia Association of Counties. "We oppose anything that limits the ability of local governments from doing their job," said Gerald E. Connolly (D), chairman of the state county group and the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors.
Janis said the bill is intended to keep localities from denying gun ranges the right to open on a site or expand simply because they might be a sound nuisance. He added that the disagreement was less about noise and more about residents in rapidly suburbanizing areas concerned about the idea of guns and shooting ranges nearby.
"Local governments . . . should not be able to act in an arbitrary manner," Janis said. "Land use may be governed by local governing boards to reflect the distinctive nature of the locality . . . but sound propagates in the exactly same way whether you live in a densely populated suburban area or a rural area."
The bill's opponents disagree, saying the proposed state noise standard is inappropriate because it doesn't take into consideration Virginia's varied topography -- which they said creates differing noise effects from shooting ranges.
The debate over the measure comes as a circuit court judge south of Charlottesville prepares to hear a claim by a gun range that says its state constitutional right to hunt and fish was violated when it was denied a permit to expand on its 450-acre campus.
The bill was introduced at the behest of the Virginia Shooting Sports Association and is in part a reaction to the circuit court case. Steve Canale, the president of the group, said that the popularity of practice shooting on such ranges has increased in Virginia. Ranges seeking to expand often come up against noise ordinances.
"What we're looking for is a uniform playing field," Canale said.
Opponents to the measure such as Papit -- some of whom are gun owners and hunters themselves -- say their concern isn't only about the volume, but also the frequency of practice fire as the facilities become more popular. She said that although hunting might be a right, she has certain liberties, too.
"We have the right to enjoy our property in peace and quiet," she said.