121 Responses to “Tommy Guns in Wesley Chapel!
Suburban Growth and a Backyard Shooting Gallery Collide”

1. mark raines on February 25th, 2008 6:15 pm

   I support Dr. Land 100%.

   He was there first, and built his firing range under the laws that existed at that time.

   Just because a bunch of newcomers decided to build subdivisions around his property does not mean they have a right to stop his lawful recreational activities.

   It’s about as absurd as a bunch of newcomers building subdivisions around a farm and then trying to get it shut down because they don’t like the smell of manure.

   Does the term “grandfathered in” ring a bell for anyone?

   I was pleased to see that he denied the town’s request for an NRA inspection. And I really hope this ends up in the national news, which it certainly will if Wesley Chapel pushes the matter any further.

   P.S. I dont own any guns, but I think it would be kind of cool to own a machine gun for shooting tin cans on the weekends.

   P.P.S Mark D, you mentioned the statute that says in part: “or any other similar sport shooting” well, they also didn’t include muskets or any number of other firearms. The language is clearly written to include every legal firearm.

   If people don’t want to hear the noise, then they are free to move away from the area. If people don’t want to smell the smells of a farm, then they are free to move. But that is the extent of their rights.

2. Mark T. on February 25th, 2008 7:03 pm

   I live close enough to Dr. Lands property to hear him shooting on the weekend. Because I know he is a responsible gun owner, it doesn’t bother me a bit. He is considerate in that he only shoots during the day on non-school days. It people who live around him don’t like it…tough. He’s abiding by the law and thus should be protected buy it.

   Anyway, if Barack Hussein Obama becomes president, the Village council won’t have to deal with it because he’ll take the gun right out of the doctor’s hands.

3. john l barker on February 25th, 2008 8:03 pm

   I do not own an automatic weapon such as a thompson sub machine gun for several reasons like; they cost thousands of dollars and those quantities of ammo could easily break the budget at my house. I also do not own one of those new sports cars that go 200 miles an hour on our highways for the same reason plus one more; they’re to dangerous to other people. A thompson on an enclosed range is much less dangerous than a legally liscensed muscle car racing down the street.

4. Pollyticks on February 25th, 2008 10:04 pm

   “I don’t get it big Dan.” (quote from Oh Brother Where Art Thou, academy award winning movie)

   I do not get it….. what is so fun about target shooting with a Tommy gun? Seems a bit juvenile to me. If you want to shoot a Tommy gun…. go to a firing range, if they’ll let you do that type of thing.

   Maybe the good Dr. should give his neighbors an epidural to block what a pain in the arss he has become to them.

   I firmly believe in the right to bear arms, but his usage of a Tommy near this neighborhood is extreme. One of his neighbors says she has had bullets come into her yard.

   I was hopeful for a good outcome between neighbors when he was willing to work with everyone, but now that he has withdrawn his cooperation, it has greatly diminished my opinion of him.

5. Kathy Patterson on February 25th, 2008 10:19 pm

   I wonder if all those who so vocally support Michael Land have seen the firing range he has been shooting the machine guns into for the past 17 years. I feel safe in saying, NO THEY DID NOT. Because, if they had seen the range that I saw, and that the Wesley Chapel Council saw, they could not call this responsible gunmanship. The “sport shooting range” was small, worn, and had holes that bullets could escape. Do you consider it responsible to be firing a weapon of mass death and destruction into a worn out , home made firing range, pointed at another persons property? I consider it irresponsible, inconsiderate and negligent. Yet, he has claimed for YEARS that his range is safe. If it’s so SAFE, why has he spent thousands of dollars to upgrade it, and now won’t go through with an inspection? That says it all. It is gun owners like this who give the rest of the gun owners a bad reputation.

6. Mark T. on February 25th, 2008 11:09 pm

   Yep, seen the range where he shoots his weapons of ‘mass death and destruction’

   No issues with it and spending thousands of dollars to upgrade it is very responsible and considerate. But I’m sure it’s an exercise in futility because it’s only a matter of time before some liberal activist group storms a town meeting and shuts him down.

7. Daune Gardner on February 25th, 2008 11:13 pm

   Mr. Raines:

   I’ll admit that I’m not a big fan of our lovely county becoming a mere suburban extension of Charlotte but, having read a few of your previous posts, I am puzzled by your stance in this case. Aren’t you the one who frequently asserts that, if one doesn’t own the view, one is not entitled to it for the duration? Isn’t this then a case of one landowner cashing in his “retirement” by selling to a developer that then built the subdivision wherein the compainants now reside? Or are the end buyers not entitled to the same “protection” of property rights as those who buy and sell land in bulk?

8. Scott Ives on February 25th, 2008 11:53 pm

   Well, well, mark raines, here we go again with the ultra-conservative rhetoric. The NC statute seems to cover several categories of fire arms, but automatic weapon doesn’t seem to be on the list. Perhaps because sports shooters might not consider automatic weapons to be much, um, sport. Something tells me Picasso would have preferred a paintbrush over a paint sprayer. What would the sportsman say?

   Now you mention newcomers. Let’s explore that a bit, shall we? If a child is born in Union County to “newcomer” parents, does that make the child a newcomer or a native? I’m sure it will be enlightening to see where you draw the line. Now, are there any children of multi-generation U.C. families attending school at New Town Elementary? I hope not, for the sake of your argument. The County tells those kids’ families where they will attend school, so they can’t just move out (tough!), can they? First generation native or thirtieth generation native, these children don’t get a choice.

   What about the reclamation of bullets? Is there any lead in the ammunition? Is Dr. Land abiding by the EPA’s Best Management Practices for Lead (http://www.epa.gov/region2/waste/leadshot/) or is he creating his own Superfund site? If his in-the-line-of-fire neighbors are reporting stray bullets, I can’t imagine his lead reclamation program is all that effective.

   Any chance of a stray bullet travels toward a school bus, despite the increased barriers? What about the Hippocratic Oath, which can state: “I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.” I wonder if Dr. Land chooses to interpret that for his own convenience? Is he willing to accept the consequences should a bullet strike a child?

   I’ve been in the awkward position of having to explain to visitors (not newcomers as they don’t live in the Village) to my home that the sound they hear is not construction but automatic gunfire. I’ve offered a defense for the Doctor’s right to bear arms, but not for a Tommy gun. I grew up with bow hunters and they had a special regard for those who used automatic weapons. It wasn’t high and I echo their sentiment. At least Land doesn’t hunt with the Tommy gun, so there is one redeeming quality.

9. Mrs_Nunya on February 26th, 2008 9:25 am

   When we built our home 20 years ago, we were surrounded by woods and farmland and some residential development. We did our homework to see what the surrounding land had been zoned and how that might impact our decision to live here. We knew the wooded area was often hunted during dove season. We knew there were lots behind us, which family members of the farmer had taken over and would build their own residences on. We knew another area could be sold for development. We knew Monroe could eventually annex us and it might affect the school assignments.

   We don’t always have the opportunity for a crystal ball but there are things we can learn, previous to making a land or home purchase. It’s called doing the research via the various county and town governments, asking your realtor and checking with the local land owners.

   Shouldn’t there have been knowledge of the pre-existing condition with this shooting range? Didn’t the folks who bought/built in the surrounding area do their homework? I am always amazed at the “after the fact” observations/complaints from folks who seem to be fairly competent thinkers and writers. It appears they believe they have been “done wrong” by the system – which had been intact previous to their occupation. It also appears the “system” seems to work when it appeals to their needs, and they’ll fight it to their death to defend it. If they disagree with it, then the rules were “poorly written” and they’ll fight it to the “political death” of whoever is enforcing it.

   I am not a big fan of guns but I grew up with family members who were hunters. It was mainly a way for the men folk to gather together to spend a day in the woods and then drag themselves home to the frustration of their wives, who had to help clean and freeze the quail. (Only a little later in life did I learn to enjoy the delicacy of fried quail in gravy.) Everyone has their form of sport. Some are louder than others. I cringe when the motorcyclists buzz down the back road, where I live . . . but, “hello”, that’s a public road!

   This landowner sounds like he has been cooperative in the use of HIS land. Now folks are saying he is not willing to submit to an examination. When people feel like they are being attacked from many directions or backed into a corner, it’s human nature to come out fighting . . . . and in this case, shooting.

10. Joe Burgess on February 26th, 2008 10:04 am

    Mark D.,

    I have to call you out again for you twisting and spinning:

    Definition (2) of the act defines a Sport shooting range as “An area designed and operated for the use of rifles, shotguns, pistols, silhouettes, skeet, trap, black powder, or any other similar sport shooting” You’ll note that machine gun is not listed.(3) Logically, one can assume that had the General Assembly intended to include machine guns as a ‘Sporting Range’ weapon, it would have been listed at the forefront.

    A “machine gun” is a slang term for what is more properly known as an fully automatic rifle. The statute also did not mention “muzzle loaders” either, but I don’t think there would be any argument that the intent was to include this single shot rifle as well.

    And here’s a little side note that appears not to have made it into your research for your article. The reason that the Tommy Gun is called a “Submachine” gun is because it fires .45 cal pistol ammunition, as opposed to the farther traveling, more penetrating, high power rifle ammo found in both standard “machine-guns” (fully automatic), semi-automatic rifles, and (heres the kicker) sporting rifles used for hunting.

    Rifle and pistol fire, while loud and disconcerting, does not elicit a reaction a machine gun brings.

    Why if the residents would have no problem with the guy shooting “rifles and pistols” (again the Thompson submachine gun is a rifle) should they have a problem with the same guy shooting a different weapon. The weapon itself will do no more damage than the shooter ever allows. If Dr. Land exercises the same degree of safety with this weapon as he does with others, then the outcome will be the same.

    The communication of misinformation leads to uninformed and uneducated fear. This will be the downfall of the free society that our founding fathers not only gave to us, but entrusted us with to protect; unless we reverse the growth of misconception by promoting and conveying truth.

11. Mark D (The Scribe) on February 26th, 2008 11:36 am
    Joe,

    I will compare spins with you any day. You wrote quite a yarn yourself.

    I am not a weapons expert by any means, I am able to read a definition and in most circumstances, understand it’s meaning.

    You said: A “machine gun” is a slang term for what is more properly known as an fully automatic rifle

    The federal government definition of firearms uses the term ‘machine gun’ as separate class of weapon. In my view Tommy gun is slang, machine gun is specific.
    Taking a little poetic license: A machine gun by any other name is just as deadly.

    Internal Revenue ATF Code § 5845. Definitions

    (a) Firearm

    The term “firearm” means
    (1) a shotgun having a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length;
    (2) a weapon made from a shotgun if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length;
    (3) a rifle having a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length;
    (4) a weapon made from a rifle if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length;
    (5) any other weapon, as defined in subsection (e);
    (6) a machinegun;
    (7) any silencer (as defined in section 921 of title 18, United States Code); and
    (8) a destructive device. The term “firearm” shall not include an antique firearm or any device (other than a machinegun or destructive device) which, although designed as a weapon, the Secretary finds by reason of the date of its manufacture, value, design, and other characteristics is primarily a collector’s item and is not likely to be used as a weapon.

    (b) Machinegun
    The term “machinegun” means any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.
    (c) Rifle
    The term “rifle” means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed cartridge to fire only a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the trigger, and shall include any such weapon which may be readily restored to fire a fixed cartridge.
    (d) Shotgun
    The term “shotgun” means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed shotgun shell to fire through a smooth bore either a number of projectiles (ball shot) or a single projectile for each pull of the trigger, and shall include any such weapon which may be readily restored to fire a fixed shotgun shell.
    (e) Any other weapon
    The term “any other weapon” means any weapon or device capable of being concealed on the person from which a shot can be discharged through the energy of an explosive, a pistol or revolver having a barrel with a smooth bore designed or redesigned to fire a fixed shotgun shell, weapons with combination shotgun and rifle barrels 12 inches or more, less than 18 inches in length, from which only a single discharge can be made from either barrel without manual reloading, and shall include any such weapon which may be readily restored to fire. Such term shall not include a pistol or a revolver having a rifled bore, or rifled bores, or weapons designed, made, or intended to be fired from the shoulder and not capable of firing fixed ammunition.

12. Aubrey Moore on February 26th, 2008 12:37 pm

    This solution here is in the question of property rights, whether or not you can grandfather something of this sort, which rightfully scares people. Dr. Land should not be allowed to decrease the value of adjoining property, regardless of how long he has been doing this. There should be setback requirements for such conduct that are in line with the effects. He could then reduce the setback requirements by using silencing mechanisms.
    If you let this deteriorate into a gun rights argument, Dr. Land will win and nothing will be done. I really do not understand the above arguments to grandfather it in any way. It was only allowed in the past because adjoining property owners did not have to listen to it up close.
    I also do not understand the argument that we are losing our rights with respect to guns. The last 30 years has produced the most widening of gun rights that I can imagine. There has also been the rise of an irresponsible gun culture that did not exist locally 50 years ago. Someone did not like what I said, but take my word for it, if the man had been doing this fifty years ago and seen as a threat to families or livestock, and if he would not have stopped, he would have been found the victim of his own folly. The rise of the brat generation and brat’s rights is very recent, very.

13. john l barker on February 26th, 2008 2:12 pm

    Mark D; the same federal difinition declares that ANY weapon made before 1895 is an antique firearm and, as such, not subject to these rules. That would include, gatling guns, broon handle mausers and the browning 30 calibre water cooled machine guns. Not to mention a variety of military weapons of use in non US armies which were fully automatic. It is perfectly legal to own such arms and to fire them, although their value as collectors items would seem to inhibet the actual firing of these weapons.

14. john l barker on February 26th, 2008 2:17 pm

    PS: one of our local employers is in the business of manufacturing military firearms such as pistols and assault rifles (which can fire fully automatic). Shall we close them down?

15. Kathy Patterson on February 26th, 2008 8:07 pm

    With respect to people buying houses when the range was already there… Centex did not disclose to buyers that there was a gun range. Why there hasn’t been a class -action suit regarding this, I don’t know. Other realtors also think that this is not a material fact that must be disclosed. From what I have heard, The Board of Realtors is also not taking a stand on this. I do know that some realtors won’t even show houses in Stonegate for this very reason. This alone shows how property values are affected. If you can’t get your house shown, you can’t get it sold.

16. Tim r on February 26th, 2008 9:35 pm

    To all those who have voiced support for Dr. Land; thank you. As an acquaintance of Dr. Land, I have been to his range and can say unequivocally that his range is VERY safe and that he is one of the most ardent sticklers for gun safety and safe handling I have ever encountered. The backstop range itself is massive, is consist of a few hundred railroad ties encased in about thirty dump loads of sand and dirt, all of this is about 20yrds thick and very wide and very tall. Dr. land showed me how all of the bullets stop within a few feet of hitting the sand.

    Please, if you have worries of stray bullets, Dr. Land’s range, while the noise may evoke some unwarranted fear, is not a threat. There are more very real threats concerning stray bullets such as the deer hunting that often occurs just a few hundred yard or less from subdivisions, or the other less equipped target shooters in the area. There is not a bullet discharge in all of wesley chapel that is as well watched for safety concerns as those discharged by Dr. Land.

    For those who have claimed “stray bullets” hitting their property, pick one up and show it to rest of us, show us a bullet hole. I have heard at least two people claim that a bullet that had to have come from Dr. Land hit their property when they actually lived 1/2 mile or more in the opposite direction from Dr. Land’s house.

    As another note, Mrs Patterson, I believe I read in a waxhaw exchange article you were a close neighbor of Dr. Land, have you ever walked over and talked to the man, or let him show you why you should have no fear?

17. Joe Burgess on February 27th, 2008 10:47 am

    Mark D.,

    I stand corrected on the terminology and thank you for the information. Admitting my mistake with that (that’s why I’m not a lawyer), everything else I said was true. I too am not a weapons expert, but as of recent years I have become an enthusiast and am still learning.

    The legislation you presented just goes to show the contradictory nature of the overbearing Federal regulations on fire arms. According to these definitions, certain “Assault Rifles” as were banned in the 90’s (with absolutely no positive results, I might add) and as are potential to be banned again with a pending bill from the first session of the 110th U.S.House of Representatives are not really rifles at all as soon as they are made fully automatic, even though they fit every other qualification that would designate them to be a rifle. Oh well, tomato, tomato.

    I notice, however, that what seems to be spin from you continues even after presenting factual information to correct my mistake (thank you again).

    Taking a little poetic license: A machine gun by any other name is just as deadly.

    A machine gun, a rifle, a pistol, a crossbow, a bazooka, a rock, a nuclear bomb, a car, an ax, an hairdryer, a pistol, a pencil, a knife, a rope, a spoon, a stapler, a chair, etc., etc. are all equally non-life-threatening without a human being to activate and utilize each of these tools in such a manner that would threaten life.

18. Mark D (The Scribe) on February 27th, 2008 2:35 pm

    Hi Joe,

    You said:
    I notice, however, that what seems to be spin from you continues even after presenting factual information to correct my mistake (thank you again).

    Taking a little poetic license: A machine gun by any other name is just as deadly.

    I neglected to place a at the end of that line to indicate an humorous retort — a play off Shakespeare’s “A rose by any other name would smell as sweet”, not spin.

19. DW on February 28th, 2008 2:49 pm

    Here’s the issue… When people bought land and built homes around the range, there was no way to know it was there unless Dr. Land or his sons happened to be shooting at the exact moment you were home shopping. This gun range isn’t like a cell phone tower or something that could be discovered by a reasonable investigation – if so, it would be totally reasonable for people to take the doctor’s side because it’s a buyer beware situation.

    Here’s the other issue… Dr. Land isn’t a “neighbor” to people in Stonegate or WC. He lives in Matthews. His hobby, which apparently includes shooting off automatic weapons, disturbs people who live around him. If he WERE a neighbor, he’d have no choice but to be considerate when he engages in his hobby or run the risk of angry neighbors taking up an equally annoying hobby and practicing it at times that annoyed him. Instead, he shoots like a lunatic most weekend afternoons (actually, lots of afternoons during child nap times, which also is very disturbing), then heads back home to Matthews. I think things would be a lot different if his “neighbors” in WC could pay him back by shooting in his Matthews neighborhood.

20. Mrs_Nunya on February 28th, 2008 8:01 pm

    I am just curious, when most folks purchase a home or land, do they contact their local town administrator or planning office to check on zoning? Would Dr. Land’s property have been shown as having been zoned for it’s current use?

    This is not in retort to some of the above comments – just a question to see how it was listed.

21. Joe Burgess on February 29th, 2008 3:14 pm

    Mark D.

    Understood. Thanks again for some enlightening discussion. Forgive me if get a little heated on this issue. Our founding fathers ensured the documentation of the God given right keeping and bearing arms not only was included in our national Constitution, but also is found in 42 of 50 state constitutions for the very reason of protecting all other enumerated and undocumented rights against both personal attack and government attack. All too often we take this responsibility to lightly and allow those who would tear it down to chisel away at the right bit by bit through misinformation and fear mongering in the general population. We the people must depend more on ourselves, then our government if we wish to remain a free people.

    I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.

    James Madison

22. Jerimee on March 3rd, 2008 11:26 am

    You have machine gun fire within half a mile of a school and yall are still discussing the issue?

    While no doubt rich folks enjoy using weapons in a neighborhood far away from their own children, I think the needs of the local community ought to trump those of people coming from Matthews.

    Our brave soldiers are in Iraq now so that Middle Eastern children don’t have to hear gunfire from their schools. How horrible that there is a school in America where teachers and children have to compete with assault weapons.

    Where are our priorities? Where are the responsible adults?

23. mark raines on March 3rd, 2008 3:29 pm

    Jerimee,

    You totally missed the point. When Dr. Land built his gun range, there were no schools nearby. His range was totally legal, and is still legal.

    Now people have fled from the crime-ridden mecklenburg school system and headed to union county, and they discover that there is some rich doctor likes to shoot machine guns into a 60 foot tall shooting range that he built over 17 years ago.

    Tough cookies.

    He was here first. If people don’t like it, they are free to move.

    and if they say they can’t get the full amount or profit on the house they bought because of the noise, then thats tough.

    welcome to the real world, neo.

24. Pollyticks on March 3rd, 2008 4:11 pm

    Yeah, I don’ t think its too much to ask Dr. Land to STOP shooting his machine gun. How many “boy toys” does one need to fill an obvious void in ones life?

    I would suggest the neighborhood take up a petition and get other neighbors within hearing distance to sign it as well.

    Dr. Land should just pack it up and move on.

25. Pollyticks on March 3rd, 2008 7:25 pm

    Raines,

    Tough cookies! Yeah explain tough cookies to all those young families in that neighborhood who purchased a home without any heads up or knowledge of a mad man with a machine gun next door. Yeah…. tough cookies for for those toddlers and infants who wake up startled and crying to the sound of machine gun fire.

    Your lack of compassion for a neighborhood full of families is inhuman! You say you “tough” if this neighborhood’s property value goes down. Nice!

    If your version of the real world comes from Matrix movies…..than maybe Dr. Land isn’t the only one who has lost his mind:)

    “Remember… all I’m offering is the truth. Nothing more.”

    PT

26. Aubrey Moore on March 3rd, 2008 9:01 pm

    Mark Raines,
    I still have never figured out exactly what it is that people consider themselves heir to that gives them the authority to tell someone else to move on. Is it air, rocks, soil, trees, or is it ethereal, you know, of the spirit world? You are fond of saying things like “if you do not own it…” but there is obviously something that you own beyond some tract of land that gives you some sort of authority.

    And if that is the case, if in fact there is some sort of ethereal ownership that has to do with time lived somewhere, then why is there not some sort of ethereal quality within all humans that gives them the authority to make comment and attempt to change that which is not good? Ah, but there is such an ether and it is called the constitution, made real by our forefathers.

    But, that still leaves us with the question of your authority, because I can find its justification no where.

27. mark raines on March 3rd, 2008 11:52 pm

    Aubrey,

    Perhaps you would like to re-read this obscure text:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution

    It is what our nation was founded upon, and it spells out exactly what rights everyone in this country has.

    Yes, it is just a document written by men, but it supercedes any later laws written or dreamed up by politicians. The reason for protecting the constitution is that it keeps tyrants and liberal do-gooders from reverting to their socialist/communist/totalitarian/kingship desires.

    Democracy is an inherently fragile form of government, in that it can only exist until the majority realize they can vote the wealth of the few into the pockets of the many, thus dissolving the entire system.

    But as Winston Churchill said, it’s the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.

28. Aubrey Moore on March 4th, 2008 8:57 am

    Raines,
    I only asked one question. What is it that gives you the right to tell someone else to “move on?” I knew more about the constitution when I was 16 than you will probably ever know, so do not attempt to lecture me on it. Just answer my question. What power do you draw from to tell others to move on? If you can find that power in the constitution, then show me where, or to put it bluntly, admit that you can never finish any thought but escape by wrapping yourself in a flag and constitution that you have know little about, or into some logic that you found on some bathroom wall.

29. Mark T. on March 4th, 2008 9:40 am

    “Mad man with a machine gun”? Well, as usual the discussion moved onto name calling and slander.

    Dr. Land is not breaking the law. But, in this county the mob rules so it’s only a matter of time before the rules of the game are changed and he can no longer play with his ‘boy toy’ (more slander).

    As I said, I live close enough to hear him when he’s at his range. I’m more disturbed by the neighbor with the Harley-Davidson than the neighbor with the gun. So when you get rid of the guns can you get rid of the loud motorcycles too? Thanks

30. Pollyticks on March 4th, 2008 11:15 am

    Thank God and our country for the freedom of speech! I have no problem with this man having a firing range or weapons, but I draw the line with him shooting off his “boy toy” machine gun right next door to a neighborhood. It is mad and rude.

    I haven’t slandered anyone. He is doing a mighty fine job of ruining his reputation on his own, thank you.

31. Joe Burgess on March 4th, 2008 11:24 am

    Aubrey,
    Your response could very easily work in the other direction by simply changing who you addressed it to from “Mark Raines” to “Pollyticks”; because Pollyticks is the one who said:

    Dr. Land should just pack it up and move on.

    Pollyticks,
    Who are you and what cosmic power do you have to tell someone who bought and paid for his property and uses it legally to “pack it up and move on”? You use the term “mad man”. What evidence do you have that Dr. Land is a mad man? Perhaps you should take the evidence to local law enforcement so they take action before something tragic happens.

    You also use the term “boy toys” as if there should be some negative implication by that term. So be it, you buy your shoes, we’ll buy our guns and “fill an obvious void in life”. I’ll be sure to let my wife, my children, my extended family including my in-laws that when any of us go target shooting together that we all have an obvious void in our lives and that that is why we have chosen this particular hobby to do.

    Also, if Dr. Land’s shooting will devalue the neighborhood properties and prevent buyers from purchasing these houses, then how was someone able to sell them to the current neighbors? Hasn’t Dr Land been doing this for longer than the neighborhood was there? Hmmm??

32. Mark D (The Scribe) on March 4th, 2008 11:42 am

    I don’t think its necessary to lace our discussion with emotional hyperbole like ‘mad man with a machine gun. I don’t believe that Dr. Land is anymore than an gun enthusiast, who almost 20 years ago bought property to ride ATV’s and target shoot.

    As contrary it may seem to some, his being a doctor and the hippocratic oath notwithstanding, he deserves to be heard as does everyone involved.

    The issue does not involve the 2nd ammendment and the right to bear arms, the flag Mr. Raines is waving, but the conflict of land uses and safety of the public.

    Unlike the Wesley Chapel ‘old crony clique’ who has already lined up behind Dr. Land, not because he’s right or wrong, but because they want to stick it to the newcomers and Stonegate in particular any chance they get, this issue has to be decided by level heads.

    Is a private open air shooting range an appropriate activity in village is the question many are asking. Does Dr. Land by virtue of being here before development encroached on his land give him superior rights to that of his neighbors?

    Is there an amicable solution possible?

33. Rick Becker on March 5th, 2008 7:18 am

    Ah, Aubrey, don’t you get it?

    …and if they say they can’t get the full amount or profit on the house they bought because of the noise, then thats tough.

    You see, it works this way: if you work your way up through school, and college, and the job market…or maybe start a business…and eventually scrimp and save and buy one of those houses on a 1/4-acre lot that “Raines” insults people over…

    and if some action of government kills the value of your life savings…

    then: “TOUGH”.

    But if you inherit some spec land, or buy some “on the cheap” because it’s, say, landlocked or doesn’t perk or is otherwise not particularly valuable…

    and the government DOESN’T artificially pump up the value of that spec land for you…by, for example, building roads to it, and running sewer pipes to it, and building schools and providing all the associated public services to it, all at taxpayer expense…

    yeah, if the government doesn’t actively SUBSIDIZE your “investment” (aka your trust fund), then they are stealing from you. And they hate America.

    C’mon…get with the program, dude. It’s all in the Gospel according to Saint “Raines”.

34. Tulip on March 5th, 2008 9:55 am

    I am curious as to why the construction of a subdivision and elementary school were approved in the first place if the idea of having them so close to a gun range is unacceptable. The decision to build was made with full knowledge of the location and legality of the gun range. What has changed that Mr. Land must now satisfy his neighbors by moving out?

    The articles linked state that the school is satisfied with the concessions Mr. Land has made in firing weapons during school hours.

    So what about the residential neighbors? Their quarrel is not with Mr. Land as it was not his responsibility to disclose anything to potential home owners. They may or may not have issue with their agents as it is not clear the issue should have been disclosed during the home buying process. (t seems reasonable that it should have been disclosed but in the end it is the home buyer who is responsible to know just what they are purchasing. We have purchased 7 homes in the last 20 years and agents are usually surprised when we ask questions about more than just the immediate neighborhood. I want to know road plans, where new schools and commercial building is planned, anything that might affect my eventual property value or my peace of mind as I sit on my front porch swing and watch the birds.
    I want a 5-10 year outlook so I can make an informed choice about where to buy a home. Clearly these home buyers were not well informed.

    “Who owns the 20 acres next door to this subdivision and what is it used/zoned for?”

    See how easy that was?

35. Jerimee on March 5th, 2008 1:15 pm

    Who ARE you people? You are honestly saying, in public, that a gun range should take priority over a school? Seriously?

    Would you be comfortable saying that to a parent who has children in that school?

    If this isn’t an issue where common sense and decency ought to rule, I’m not sure such an issue exists.

36. Ken K on March 5th, 2008 1:41 pm

    This issue boils down to what is best for everyone involved. It is not about gun rights, but what is best for all of the property owners in that part of Wesley Chapel. Since it is obvious that New Town Elementary School is not leaving, and neither is Stonegate, maybe it is time for Doctor Land to sell this land to a developer, and purchase some land in a part of the county that is less developed, and likely to remain that way.

    I realize that when he purchased his current property, it was in the middle of nowhere. But not any more. Times change. He should be willing to do the right thing.

    As to the zoning of the land, if I asked for the zoning of all adjacent properties to Stonegate, would the report show Doctor Land’s property as having an active shooting range?

37. Liza Kravis on March 5th, 2008 1:45 pm

    Tulip – you’re asking a question that I asked someone the other day. I think the answer is – but I’d like it confirmed – that Dr. Land only started using the louder, more intrusive submachine guns recently. It sounds like the use of his gun range has increased – and so has become a more significant nuisance than his previous, more infrequent use of single shot rifles or similar.

    Can anyone confirm that for those of us who are not involved and trying to understand the facts?

38. Mark D (The Scribe) on March 5th, 2008 2:32 pm

    Tulip,

    The gun range is not licensed nor is it registered with any zoning administration. Dr. Land did not receive any kind of zoning permit to operate a shooting range — currently it is not required. Had you to called the local or county zoning administrators 6 months ago, they would not have know anything about his range.

    Dr. Land is licensed to own automatic weapons by the ATF. The County Sheriff verifies his licenses but since there is no county or village ordinance concerning the discharge of weapons or regulation of shooting ranges, he hasn’t jurisdiction.

    Its good that you believe in doing research before buying. I know many Waxhaw residents living in Cureton and Quellin ($400,000 homes) who live within a stone throw of Twelve Mile Creek sewer plant — wish they’d did more.

    You’d have to be clairvoyant to be better informed as evident by lack of up to date planning information available.

    Union County’s Land Use Plan was last updated in 1997. Wesley Chapel’s Land Use Plan was changed slightly in 2005, just enough so that a then sitting council member could get his land designated for commercial development (Note: Every member who voted for that ’special favor’ re-zone is now off the village council).

    Both Union County and Wesley Chapel are currently working on comprehensive use plans updates.

    Most of Union County is zoned one house per acre. Wesley Chapel is as well, except those subdivisions like Stonegate developed under county zoning with builder bonus (density) subsidies, effectively increasing density to an 2 house per acre equivalent.

    Due diligence is important, but to new home buyers in Union County, information like when and where roads, schools, subdivisions and utilities will be built is not information readily available — that would actually take planning.

39. Kathy Patterson on March 5th, 2008 5:58 pm

    So many people have kept asking a very important question about zoning, and doing your research before buying. The property the range is located on is, and always has been zoned RESIDENTIAL. Get it? Houses! No permits were required to build it. There was no paper trail for anyone to follow to determine there was a firing range there.

    There are no safety inspections are required, no maintainence is required, no lead reclaimation to protect ground water from lead contamination. There is NOTHING regulating firing ranges. At the present time, our own Village Council, who is trying to protect the public has no way to do that.

    To those who say that this range is so safe. WHEN did this range become so safe? WHEN was all this work done? It was only after the council began looking into this matter, that the improvements began.

    When did it become OK to let our teachers compete with gunfire for their student’s attention? At the present time, the school is saying that Land has agreed to stop firing his machine guns and larger guns during regular school hours. But that means he still intends to fire the other guns during shool and his machine guns while the children play on the playground during after school care. For the life of me, I can’t see how anyone could think that this is acceptable.

40. CW on March 5th, 2008 11:11 pm

    To quote the great Micheal Scott “Wikipedia is the best thing ever. Anyone in the world can write anything they want about any subject. So you know you are getting the best possible information.”

    I cant believe a Harley is compared to a machine gun. No one freaks out and thinks a mad Harley is going to run over them, but a machine gun in a residential and school area makes people very nervous about being hurt and kids traumatized.

    Yes this was in place prior to the school and neighborhood. And as stated before there is no way for people to really know what was going on. The facts are that this is a growth area and not country land anymore. As when any town grows certain things that were there before end up going away to conform to a town or city. People in Charlotte cannot hunt on their land anymore and other changes occur. Just because you could do something on your land in the past doesnt mean you can do it forever. It is not a vaccuum.

    One would hope that Land and the town can work something out to eliminate the range. The land could be sold and a profit made and a new range set up outside of a town. This would be for the common good. Otherwise this situation will continue to escalate with unhappy neighbors. This can undermine the growth plan of Wesley Chapel that seems like a smart plan. There is actual residential and commercial growth going on which is vital to the tax base for the village and the county. With the unhappiness at its present rate you know the village and neighbors will pursue anyway possible to stop the range. Eventually one way will be found.

    Land should work out options vs claiming to be cooperative and then withdrawing and arousing suspision that there is something to hide. This only draws more ire and attention.

41. Joe Burgess on March 6th, 2008 12:28 pm

    Jerimee,

    I am a parent and I would first find out the facts before make a judgment call based on unfounded fear. You said that the school was about a half mile away. The .45 cal round used in the Thompson is incapable of traveling that far. So if the only issue is noise, and Dr. Land is shooting at specific agreed upon times (believe this was said to be when school is out) while not violating any noise ordinances, then common sense should be to let a man do with his own property what he will as long as it won’t harm anyone else on and to their property.

    I think that might also suffice as a response to Ken, and with the last info posted by Mark D. might answer to Tulip and Liza about noise.

    Now all that said, I have recently heard of information from someone close to a counsel member (outside of this forum) that rounds can be found in a neighbors yard. If that is the case then Dr. Land must stop shooting there.

42. Pat on March 6th, 2008 6:38 pm

    Joe,
    I agree that facts are important. The maximum effective range of a Thompson is relatively short (75-200 yards), but the maximum range of a Thompson is approximately 1600 yards according to the Springfield Armory (see link below). I have found other sources that state the maximum range is 1700 meters. In either case, a bullet shot from a Thompson submachine gun can travel up to mile (a number of factors come into play). I believe that it is safe to say that rounds that happen to be fired over the safety berm could land even beyond the school itself if the school is only a half mile away. Given the inherent muzzle rise of a Thompson when fired (the longer the burst, the greater the muzzle rise), one accidental slip could easily cause rounds to go over a safety berm.

    http://www.rediscov.com/spring/VFPCGI.exe?IDCFile=/spring/DETAILS.IDC,SPECIFIC=10,DATABASE=objects,

43. Joe Burgess on March 7th, 2008 11:36 am

    Pat,

    Thanks for the data. Very helpful. Given this information and other details that are coming to light, I agree that Dr. Land should exercise more responsible practice of his hobby (and mine) and do it somewhere else. Also, it seems that the Village counsel needs to hurry up and pass ordinance preventing firing of a weapon inside town limits. Most cities have this, which is why I practice my hobby at licensed indoor ranges and out of town at appropriate sand pits and on my dad’s land (no neighbors or schools affected). This would put an end to the issue.

44. Jonathan T on March 11th, 2008 1:58 pm

    It’s easy to blame everything on the good doctor and it’s no wonder the realtors are backing the residents of the nearest subdivsion. Many of them sold houses to the people that currently live there. Since this was a material fact most likely known by the developer and the realtors, they had the duty to disclose this to their clients. Had they not known, they had the duty to discover a known fact. Seems to me that everyone involved is trying to draw attention away from the fact that they have liablilty in this. Bottom line, don’t get mad at the person that was there long before you. Get mad at the people who didn’t do their job and disclose the shooting range.

45. Aubrey Moore on March 11th, 2008 3:48 pm

    It makes absolutely no sense that someone argues for Dr. Land using the logic that he was there before the others got there. That land was zoned R40 long before Dr. Land got there. If he has decreased the value of the land around his land, or if he has created a hazard for those who might occupy that land, then he should be forced to either stop what he is doing, or so change what he is doing as to end the effect on adjoining neighbors or property.
    It is blaming the victim to put the blame on those who developed the adjoining land, sold the lots, or bought the lots. This is literally the logical equivalent of blaming a gun murder on the gun in stead of the operator of the gun. It is the same illogical thinking as blaming students at a school for not carrying guns themselves that they could use to stop a mass murderer. If Dr. Land is able to continue his operation, then it will be because years of NRA bull has created an atmosphere in which anything that a law abiding gun owner does is protected by the Constitution. We have gone so far left on this issue that if you did not know better, you would swear that it is a liberal creation.

46. mark raines on March 12th, 2008 4:00 am

    Aubrey,

    There are laws protecting farms all over this nation. The problem, as always, is that newcomers move to a rural area, and suddenly decide they don’t like the smell of cow manure or the noise of tractors, etc. It’s almost a universal situation that the newcomers try to use their voting power to strip the farmer of his rights to continue farming.

    Which is why nearly everywhere there are grandfathering laws that basically allow the farmers to tell the newcomers to go to hell.

    Look- a cattle farm with lots of cows and manure is technically decreasing the value of a house that was just built next door to it. But so what? If the farm has been there for decades, the newcomer has nobody but themselves to blame.

47. Pollyticks on March 12th, 2008 9:57 am

    These “newcomers” weren’t told of this gun range, or the fact that Mr. Land owned or would purchase a MACHINE GUN and start firing off shots close to this neighborhood. It’s a bit unsettling on the nerves, I’m sure.

    If you move beside of a farm, you know what you are getting yourself into.

    Those who appear to be protecting Dr. Land’s rights aren’t addressing this machine gun issue. It’s one thing to own a gun range and its another thing to start firing off a machine gun.

    I believe in protecting the rights of farmers and gun owners. BUT…. there comes a time when you have to call someone out for being irresponsible with those rights. If Dr. Land wants to fire off a machine gun then he either needs to move or find a gun range that will allow him to do so.

    We can go round and round on this issue. Those who are protecting Land must ask yourselves why. Are you protecting his rights at all cost and for no concern for the safety, well being and quality of life for others?

    It do find this whole thing “mad” and unsafe.

48. John on March 12th, 2008 10:42 am

    Mark,

    Comparing this gun range to a farm, which you have done more than once in this discussion, is just plain silly (could have used stronger language but I will refrain). A farm is easily identifiable and does not hide itself very well. It is in plain sight. This gun range is unregulated, unregistered, and undetectable to anyone until you actually lay ears to it – at which point is usually too late for the homebuyer (especially those from out of the area).

    Your disdain for “newcomers” seems very clear (I’d be curious to know how long you have been in Union County so as to determine what the criteria is for being a “non-newcomer). Since you support the “he was here first” mantra… let me throw this at you. What about the residents around Land’s property who have been there LONGER than Land has? Wait… impossible, blasphemy, I could have sworn from all the defenses of “he was there first” that Land was literally birthed from that property.

    Believe it or not, taking Stonegate out of the equation… people have actually lived around Land’s property way before he ever owned it… in some cases 20 years prior to him. What would you say to those folks? Do they, in the spirit of the “he was there first” argument, have the right to tell him to “go to hell”?

    Oh, and going back to a comment you made on March 3rd… Land is not firing “into a 60 foot tall shooting range” (talk about exaggeration for effect). Not even close. And addressing the noise, since you seem so insensitive to the plight of the residents around Land, I will extend an invitation to you or anyone else. On a weekend during which Land is “enjoying” his hobby 6-8 hours on both Saturday and Sunday, swap houses with me . Bring your children, your friends, and your friend’s chidren. Have them play outside. Attempt Sunday dinner. Try reading a book or taking a nap. Try watching a movie or ballgame. Then, on the following Monday, report back and let us know how it went. You might be surprised…

49. Joe Burgess on March 12th, 2008 1:57 pm

    Pollyticks,

    Not sure if you noticed, but as I have received more information on this issue I have changed my opinion that Dr. Land should not be firing weapons on the property in question anymore. I still have to disagree with your assessment though. It’s not about which gun is being fire. It’s about the affect on neighboring property owners who have a right to be safe on there land. The “Tommy Gun” by comparison is less dangerous in the hands of a responsible shooter than many of the guns you might unknowingly would say to be OK for Dr Land to shoot. The majority of hunting rifles shoot a higher powered, farther traveling round than does the Thompson with greater potential for causing death. If the information I have been told is true (rounds landing in neighbors yard), then it’s time for Dr. Land to do the responsible thing.

    That said, if the information I just mentioned is non-factual hearsay, and he is not endangering anyone else, then he should be left to do with and act upon his own property as he pleases. His right to swing his fist ends where (and only where) his neighbors nose begins.

    That bring me to:

    Aubrey,

    Come on man. I was almost with you right up to the baseless attack on the NRA, even though your analogy was a little skewed to try to swing gun rights folks over to your argument. The logical equivalent would actually be to blame the dead victim for the murder, not the gun, but you are a poet to be sure and are due some license to be sure. Anyway, I have to say thank God for the NRA, or else the “Brady Bunch” with its nonsensical misrepresentations of facts and history might have already disarmed us all.

    The NRA, like any entity of its size, has its flaws, but it is far from true to imply that they advocate the removal of reasonable regulations or irresponsible gun ownership and operation by abusively wielding the Constitution. The NRA has contributed more money and resources to education and safety for responsible ownership and use of firearms than any other organization in history. They even co-lobbied with the Brady campaign on the recently passed bill to tighten up the loopholes for background checking and preventing people with mental issues from purchasing firearms. This is hardly the actions of advocates of irresponsibility.

    Oh well, there’s my two cents my friend. I have to applaud the twist in your commentary putting a left wing view from right angle mirror on it. That was good.

    The moral of the story is: If Dr. Land is truly endangering his neighbors and infringing on their rights, then he is stepping outside of the scope and sphere of his own rights and should stop. If he is not, then he should be left alone. THE END (hopefully)

50. Ken K on March 12th, 2008 2:18 pm

    Mark,

    What does farms and cows have to do with a unregulated shooting range? Do farms and cows that are less than a mile from a neighborhood and school pose a risk to public safety? I do not think that any is saying that Doctor Land cannot farm on that land if so choses.

    I agree 100% that if you move into an abode that is next to an existing enterprise, whether that be livestock and farming, an airport, factory, sewage treatment plant, or whatever, then you have little right to complain about the smell and noise that comes from those industries.

    What we have here is different. It is an unregulated shooting range, where automatic weapons are discharged. This range is is less than a mile from an elementary school and a large neighborhood. That gives me concern over the safety of the students and staff at the school as well as the property owners of Stonegate.

    I am not saying that Doctor Land is not entitled to shoot his guns as long as he is in compliance of the laws. However, there is a time and place for activities such as shooting firearms, and I think that he should consider relocating his shooting range farther out in the county.

    Times change, and with it the way land is used. Wishing it were not so is not going to make it any different.

51. Paulus Newman on March 13th, 2008 1:49 am

    Hi there folks, just wanted to greet everyone before I go runnin my mouth for a minute. Now I for sure have heard this gun fire, but honestly, I can’t recall hearing it on a weekday. As a matter of fact, not once have I heard gunfire coming from his home on any of my weekdays. Now the weekend is different. What school do you know of in session on a saturday or sunday Mr. Ken. He seems to be considerate of the young children. So all of you trying to find reason to argue, just stop. It’s a waste of breath. Now I haven’t seen this gunsite, nor his guns, and thats not my concern. It’s a buncha bologna! And Mr. John Barker, one so commenting on expensive muscle cars, that doesn’t seem to be the issue at hand now does it? It seems as if there is a load of jealousy in that department so please stay on topic. Anyway, the point I would like to get across is that, obviously Mr. Land has many that favor his hobby, which I for one stand for. He has never once in the last twenty so years seem to come up with an accident, not one that I remember hearing about. So obviously he must be doing something right.
    Who are any of you to say that he has no right? Isn’t that what our 2nd Amendment is all about? Regardless, he has his right to shoot on his property if he so chooses and we should have no say in it at all as long as he’s safe. Anyway, you folks take care now, ya hear!

52. Pollyticks on March 13th, 2008 5:39 pm

    Paulus Newman

    Why don’tt you stick with salad dressing and race car driving? I guess big boys with big toys stick together no matter the consequences to the lives of those “folks” and “newcomers” around them. No Academy Award for you. Maybe I”ll throw in a nice dunce hat for ya. Hope that didn’t “Sting” you too bad. This isn’t the wild west with Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid.

    Our family can hear this machine gun from our neighborhood a few miles away, so it MUST be loud to the closer neighbors.

    If Dr. Land has nothing to hide why doesn\’t he let the media come in and see how safe it looks and how much of an impact it could be having on his neighbors.

    Those of you commenting here to protect one man shooting a machine gun toward a neighborhood and near a school with no compassion for those that are affected around him, completely floors me.

    Whatever happened to Dr. Lands oath “To Do No Harm” Or how about the modern day hippocratic oath where one part of it states:

    “I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.”

    PT

53. chris land on March 13th, 2008 8:49 pm

    My name is Chris Land, and I am the eldest of Dr Land’s four sons. My father has been an avide gun collector and enthusiast for as long as i can remember. He tought me and my three younger brothers to shoot when we were very young, and has always engrained in our heads the importance of gun safety and responsibility. He has been called “crazy” “lunatic” “madman” and plenty of other slanderous names throughout this ordeal. Nothing could be further from the truth. The land the range sits on was purchased over 15 years ago and my dad bought it to have fun with his kids and a place to ride atv’s and shoot our guns. My dad is a professional in the commuinty and has delivered thousnads of children in his 25 + years of practice as an OB/GYN. He is the best dad ever, and a favorite with all of our friends because we always did fun stuff at our “woods” house. Most of my friends dads liked to golf or play tennis or some other boring hobby, but I guarantee my father alwyas spent every moment of his spare time with his kids, and engaged us in fun, character building hobbies that we all have grown to love. Some guys like golf, some like to play cards, and some just work all the time and do not spent any quality time with their children… My dad loves to shoot his automatic weapons. It is his favorite thing to do and it simply makes him happy, and that is all myself and the rest of my family can ask for. I can assure anyone that dr land is an incredibly intelligent family man, and is one of the nicest people you will ever have the pleasure to meet. He is within his rights and it is too bad that people moved out to the country to avoid ever increasing meck. county taxes, but they should have thought what they were doing before flooding union county with overwhelming growth, and the belief that they can just turn rural property into “yuppie” ville. Dont judge a man you do not know and if you dont like the idea of living near a FULLY REGULATED AND LICENSED gun range, leave and go back to the city….. My father is the most sane man I have ever met and he wishes no harm on anyone. He has made his living bringing life into this world thousands of times over…. It brings him more joy than shooting (he actually delivered me) and I hope people will stop judging him and leave our family alone, because they have no right rubbing my dads name and reputation in the dirt, he does not deserve it.

    PS

    Watch the news tomorrow night (friday) and you can see for yourself the results of the NRA range inspection that Dr Land has paid for and initiated himself. You will see that our backstop could stop a howitzer tank blast many times over and it contains more than 2 million lbs of earth and scores of concrete and railroad ties. NOTHING could make it through, and it is so large it would be impossible for ANY bullet to ever stray beyond the earth it was shot into. Also if you live in W. Chapel and enjoy your right to shoot any type of weapon please show your support in the weeks to follow, and keep the city council from attempting to take away your rights to be a responsible gun enthusiast in our community.

    Sincerely

    Chris Land

54. mark raines on March 14th, 2008 12:32 am

    Chris,

    Here here! Kudos to you and your father.

    I do have one small request- do you think your father could rent an actual howitzer and fire a few rounds off in celebration when Wesley Chapel finally admits defeat? I’ll pay for the ammo.

55. Joe Burgess on March 14th, 2008 2:55 pm

    Chris,

    So far all my comments have been base on information that is hearsay from this forum and from another individual outside of this forum. I have not seen the facility, nor know the facts. So unlike some with the same amount of information (Pollyticks), I don’t feel qualified to pass final judgment.

    If everything you say is true, then good for your Dad. We need more like him in our world. Thanks for coming on here and telling your side. If I ever have the opportunity, I’d like to buy you a beer and perhaps go shooting sometime.

    Joe Burgess,
    Monroe
    jbopinionated@yahoo.com

    PS. What news channel?

56. RU Serious on March 14th, 2008 3:22 pm

    To Mr. Chris Land,

    Hooray! Your father gets the “Father of the Year” award – just not the “neighbor of the year award”. Whatever type of father he is to you has no bearing on the discussion. It is his current actions that are in question. I personally enjoy shooting, and I am a gun owner. But I do it in a silly little place called an indoor gun range, although I don’t believe that they would allow a machine gun there for obvious reasons. As a parent of two children at the school near your range I think your actions are childish. “We were here first so we can do whatever we want! So there!!”

    First off, there are hundreds of people who were here before you were who do not like the gunfire. They said to stop – so will you? After all, they were here first, and I’m sure you will defer to their wishes.

    Secondly, please quit playing the “outsiders from Charlotte” card, especially since YOU DO NOT EVEN LIVE HERE!

    Thirdly, I agree that no one should be calling your father names – it doesn’t help the discussion.

    To Mr. Raines,

    After having just started to read the postings on this site I need to ask you something:

    Are you serious? Or are you just an Internet troll?

    Please tell me you are not allowed to play with sharp objects? Please?

    RUS

57. Curt Gillock on March 14th, 2008 3:31 pm

    I am a Wesley Chapel taxpayer & I fully support Dr. Land’s God given rights to shoot any firearm on his property. I honestly didn’t know it was legal to shoot in Wesley Chapel. Now since I know i can I intend to shoot in my backyard whenever i please. I also encourage all other legal firearms owners to go outback & fire few clips. A howitzer? Now that sounds like fun. Keep your powder dry.

    The harassment of Dr. Land by Wesley Chapel’s renegade council is just one more reason why this gang needs to be run out of office.

58. RU Serious on March 14th, 2008 5:13 pm

    The right to keep and bear arms means you can own/possess a gun and use it for defense. This was not a God-given right, but was given by man in the form of our Constitution. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say you have the right to shoot the gun in a busy neighborhood.

    It’s people like this that keep me from ever joining the NRA.

    Just in case you forgot: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

59. Pollyticks on March 14th, 2008 10:26 pm

    Ok….I’ll tame my language and say that the whole thing is “off”….. although I am sticking to my guns with my previous comments.
    If Land wants to come in with guns a blazing…. with no regard for his neighbors….. then he should get used to people firing off at the mouth. It’s called freedom of speech. Don’t shoot the messenger.

    PT

60. mark raines on March 15th, 2008 12:09 am

    RU Serious,

    No, I am not a troll. I am a libertarian. (no, not a librarian) I believe the singular role of government is to protect private property. Without private property, you by default have communism.

    Mr. Land has every right to fire any gun he wants on his range. If the new surrounding neighbors dont like it, they have two choices:

    1) move away
    2) change the US constitution.

    good luck with number 2

61. Joe Burgess on March 15th, 2008 6:47 am

    RU Serious,

    Are you serious? All rights enumerated in the Constitution are God given. The Constitution was simply man putting them on paper. That’s how the framers viewed it. Study the your history a little. It would do you and your fellow citizens some good.

    By the way, my name is Joe. You’ve heard from Mark, and Chris. Do you have a real name? Don’t worry, you don’t have to disclose it, but it is harder for me to take someone serious when they feel it necessary to hide their identity. Mr. Raines might not always be the most diplomatic in this forum, but he’s got good points in many cases. I’d feel better with him have sharp objects, than with you discussing, debating and defending our rights.

    Unfortunately, due to travel, I did not get to see the news report Chris mentioned. Have you seen the facility? Until I do, I’m not gonna pass judgment. As far as the neighbors not liking gunfire, there are alot of things we all don’t like to hear in a days time, but that doesn’t mean we have a “right” not to hear them.

    One more thing. If you shoot your guns at an indoor range, you should already be aware that most indoor ranges do not allow most rifles to be shot in their facilities (that goes for all the ones I know of around here). Not sure what they’d say about the Thompson, with its pistol ammo, but the point is moot anyway.

62. Michael R. Land,M.D. on March 15th, 2008 8:43 am

    FYI : An official NRA range inspection was performed yesterday 3/14/2008 of the private shooting range owned and operated by Dr Michael R. Land on 1402 Bloomsberry Lane, Waxhaw. N. C. 28173. A list of a few of the invited “guests” attending before and after the inspection were members of the Wesley Chapel city council, Sheriff Eddie Cathey, Larke Plyler, Sr.- Chief of Police of the Stallings Police Department,Jarrod Mccraw-Safety/Security Director of the Union County Schools,several members and officials of the Charlotte Rifle and Pistol Club including the current president Mr Chuck Philip,members of the press from the Charlotte Observer, the Enquirer Journal, The WBTV News, WCNC News, and The Union County Weekly. Mr Newton from Greenville , South Carolina was charged by the national office of the NRA to perform this technical inspection and he will generate a formal written report of all of his findings to that office. A complete and unedited copy of this report will be provided to the Wesley Chapel city council, Sheriff Eddie Cathey,Jarrod Mccraw, and members of the press. The timetable to recieve this written review is approximately 2-3 weeks.Mr. Newton verbly gave a very strong safety stamp of approval concerning all safety aspects of my firing range including a review of all types and calibers of weapons fired.. He was present as stated above for hours to answer all and any questions ask of him from the invited guests concerning my range and its safety. A few “facts about my bullit backstop-it is made of 1,200 TONS of fill dirt,sand , and timber. That is 2.4 MILLON pounds, the equivalent of 750 full sized cars or 16,000 full grown men. It is 60 FEET thick at the base ,20 feet tall and 80 feet wide with side berms of dirt 20 feet high. Twenty feet deep into this man-made mountain is 150 railroad ties stacked 15 tall and 10 deep . A short video report is currently on WCNC 14 now. I am told that the WBT -TV video report will be broadcast Monday 3/17/2008. An article should be in the neighbors section of the Union County edition of The Charlotte Observer on Sunday,3/16/2008. The Union County Weekly will print their report next Friday 3/21/2008.

63. RU Serious on March 15th, 2008 11:05 am

    Mr. Burgess,

    It is unfortunate that you believe one’s name has more importance than one’s words.

    ‘Tis but thy name that is my enemy;–
    Thou art thyself, though not a Montague.
    What’s Montague? It is nor hand, nor foot,
    Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part
    Belonging to a man. O, be some other name!
    What’s in a name? that which we call a rose
    By any other name would smell as sweet;
    So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call’d,
    Retain that dear perfection which he owes
    Without that title:–Romeo, doff thy name;
    And for that name, which is no part of thee,
    Take all myself.

    I shoot at Firepower in Matthews – primarily an old .22 rifle from my father and my own Sig P226 – neither of which I would ever dream of shooting on my property in my neighborhood.

    And I’m sorry but I believe you are incorrect about your view of the Constitution being “God given”. But that discussion has no place in this area. If you would like I would be happy to post my email address where we can have a (hopefully) intelligent, informative and most of all a FUN debate.

    RUS

64. Stephanie on March 15th, 2008 3:28 pm

    Thank you Dr. Land for everything that you have done and will continue to do. Please don’t ever give up your fight for what is right. I am sorry that your character has been attacked to the degree that your son felt that he had to defend you. You have more support then you will ever know.

    Stephanie

65. Joe Burgess on March 17th, 2008 11:02 am

    RU Serious,

    Your name does not really matter to me. I myself use assumed names in other forums I frequent. The error was mine in placing any emphasis on your real name.

    Concerning our other disagreement, I would prefer to keep debates and discussions out of my email whenever possible. The only reason I included my email address was of invitation to by a beer for Chris and now for his dad as well.

    Instead I would like invite you to another forum more suitable for the furtherance of that discussion:

    http://outdoorsbest.zeroforum.com/zeroforum?id=40

    This one provides a lot of fun and enlightening discussion and wealth of differing ideas and information specifically related to the 2nd amendment and political discussion in general.

66. Curt Gillock on March 18th, 2008 1:26 pm

    RU serious, seems you are the who doesn’t understand the meaning of these God-given rights.

67. Pollyticks on March 25th, 2008 1:13 pm

    You can stand behind the constitution with a machine gun pointed and blasting away toward a nice neighborhood, but that still doesn’t make it right. Dr. Land you are at the wrong place at the wrong time. This is 2008. Your lack of judgement amazes me.
    I’m sure you’ll see this one going to the Supreme Court.

    PT

68. Neil Gimon on March 26th, 2008 7:33 am

    All,

    In reading the papers, this site, and others, and in admiting in honesty, I do not have any firearms at all.

    I do, however, support homeowner rights. Within reason.

    Who was there first? Who is practicing proper safety protocols? Who is trying to accomodate the neighbors as best as he can?

    I always find it ridiculous when houses pop up around a site that has been in existence for long time, such as a cement plant. Then, the new home owners rise up in complaint that the trucks arriving at the plant are too loud for the community, and cause stones to hit their cars, and potholes in the streets. Eventually, the cement plant is closed.

69. JT on March 26th, 2008 7:33 am

    Pollyticks,

    I find two items wrong with your previous posting. #1 No machine gun in pointed or blasting in the direction of any neighborhood. #2 The neighborhood you are referring to isn’t a very nice one. I think you are just grasping for anything now.
    Let’s put this in perspective. Say you move to a new subdivision of 40 houses or so. It is so new that you are the first one to move in. You drive your car back and forth to Charlotte every day to and from work. Over the course of 10 or so years, everyone who has moved in after you has decided to “go green” and they only ride bicycles. In fact, not only do they think your car is bad for the environment, they say it is noisy and a danger to the neighborhood. They point out that far many more deaths are caused by automobile than by guns (or bicycles for that matter).
    You argue that you were there first. After all, you moved in before anyone else and no one had a problem with you driving a car back then. They tell you that times has changed and that you are a danger to the neighborhood and are bringing property values down. You say that it is your right to drive a car. They point to the fact that there is no place that states this in the Constitution (like the 2nd Amendment does for guns) and that driving is a privilege, not a right. You appeal to the community and the local politicians but half of them are only riding bikes now. You go through superfluous vehicle inspections to prove that your vehicle is safe and that it is not releasing excessive emissions but no one cares. How do you feel now?
    I only bring this up to show you how dangerous it is to use this logic. If you successfully use it in this situation, how many liberties and rights will you give up as an American when this becomes the precedent? Hope you have a nice bike.

    - JT

70. Pollyticks on March 26th, 2008 9:37 am

    I’m not grasping at anything other than the rights of these neighbors who should be protected just as much as Land. I also believe in protecting our rights to bear arms….. BUT……. let’s use a little common sense here.

    JT you like to give examples, so I’ll give one. Mine may not make any sense, just as yours did not. Let’s say I’m an avid jackhammer enthusiast. Also let’s say that there weren’t any noise restrictions in our area or laws prohibiting the recreational use of my jackhammer. One day, I decide to dust off my trusted old jackhammer and go out into the backyard and start jackhammering away.

    I have the right to do this day or night, on holidays, weekends, during neighbors BBQs, babies and toddlers nap time, etc. I take all the precautions. I put on my gloves, my headgear and earplugs. I tarp off the area in which I’m jackhammering. I feel I’m being responsible to protect the safety of others as well as myself. Boom, boom, boom, boom, boom. After three hours I’m not tired at all. Oh what a thrill! Boom, boom, boom, boom! But, wait a minute….. does this make any sense in this neighborhood? What if I was on farm land next door and decided to jackhammer day or night? Would it make any difference? The noise on one side of the fence is the same as the other.

    The point I’m trying to make is that this machine gun is loud, powerful and is a killing machine. I’m sure the noise factor is very close to be the number one concern for these neighbors, other than the overall safety of his gun range. I’m sorry but I will not ease up on the Doctor because of the complete lack of judgement he has made during this controversy. He should know that his machine gun is too LOUD for the neighborhood next door as well as those who live in the nearby community.

    At first Land appeared to want to work with the town and then he stopped all communication and started “playing games” and not wanting to reveal any findings on the safety of his gun range. Then, after he realizes the beauty of the blog and how people can use the rights to freedom of speech to express their feelings about this controversy, he calls in the media to do a story about his range. And, to top it all off, he poses for a number of photos in the article that look like they were taken from the 1800s. It was a bit “dramatic” in my opinion.

    As my mamma would say “If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen”. Land should have known that shooting his shiny new machine gun next door to a neighborhood and school would create controversy, as well as NOISE. The thing that IRKS me is that he wants to stand behind his constitutional right to annoy the hell out of his neighbors.

    I wouldn’t be blogging about this whole thing, if he had just kept to shot guns. But, there are others out there who don’t think the range should be there at all.

    I do have a question. Is his gun ranged fenced off to where a curious child or toddler could not find their way back there when he is shooting?

    PT

71. JT on March 26th, 2008 10:10 am

    Pollyticks,

    Are you running out of good ideas? It amuses me just how worked up you are getting. Let me cite the problems with your example. #1 You say you decide to “dust off your trusted old jackhammer” one day. Dr. Land has been using his property for a gun range long before the houses came. He didn’t just dust off his trusted old tommy gun one day. #2 You talk about noise restriction as if he fires his guns all the times. As I recall, he doesn’t fire them at night or during school hours. Your whole example is incoherent babble
    I can’t blame Dr. Land for cutting off communications. People like you don’t understand logic and liberty. There is no point arguing with that because you will never get it regardless of how good of a point he makes. As far as your point about the curious toddler or child wandering over there, where are his or her parents? Probably too busy blogging about how dangerous the range is instead of looking after their kids. I do, however, agree with your mamma’s quote, “If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen”. Perhaps it’s time you got out of the kitchen.

    - JT

72. mark raines on March 27th, 2008 7:18 am

    Pollyticks, you said:

    “The thing that IRKS me is that he wants to stand behind his constitutional right to annoy the hell out of his neighbors. ”

    This is the point at which you “fail”. Your displeasure at someone asserting their constitutional rights says it all- You dont believe in the constitution, or at least you don’t believe in the parts that upset you.

    Take the next boat to China- you’ll be more happy there where they don’t have those pesky things such as constitutions and “freedom” ..

73. Mark D (The Scribe) on March 27th, 2008 8:09 am

    Mr. Raines,

    “Take the next boat to China- you’ll be more happy there where they don’t have those pesky things such as constitutions and “freedom” ..”

    It seems you have only one answer to anyone who disagrees with your ‘Montana survivalist’ philosophizing.

74. mark raines on March 27th, 2008 6:57 pm

    Seriously, what “board” was I appointed to?

    Has there been a write-in campaign for me on some union county board that I am unaware of, or am I missing a too-subtle-to-notice joke?

    And BTW- thanks for painting a picture of anyone who believes in property and gun ownership rights as a “Montana survivalist”. You’re showing your true liberal colors.

    I’m sure you read the news, don’t you? The supreme court just days ago decided that the second amendment to the constitution actually *does* mean citizens can own firearms, much to the chagrin of liberals everywhere who want the nanny-state to have exclusive access to weapons of self-defense. (it’s a lot easier to control a population when they have no means of fighting back against government, so liberals clearly want a disarmed citizenry for convenience’ sake)

    Funny how Washington DC, the place with the most restrictive gun ordinances in the entire country, also has the highest gun murder rate of anywhere in the country. In western states where gun ownership is considered morally OK and people can even carry them openly on a holster, there is an amazing lack of gun deaths.

    Funny how statistical evidence works like that.: you know, to show the truth and stuff.

75. Mark D (The Scribe) on March 27th, 2008 7:34 pm

    No Mr. Raines, I was painting you that way. It’s your words that leave little doubt to what extremes your opinions lie. The right to bear arms, target shoot or hunt has nothing to do with Dr. Land’s backyard neighborhood gun range.

    The license to drive a car doesn’t give you freedom to misuse it or endanger other drivers, neither does having a license to own a machine gun.

    Your issue has to do with an obvious disdain for newcomers to Union County. If you had a stable of horses — could you live next to Dr. Land? No.

    Your arguments Mr. Raines are disingenuous.

    The following photo shows Dr. Land’s 10×12 foot ‘Shooting range’ before he made improvements, recently shown in the local papers.

    I would appreciate an explanation from anyone familiar with weapons more powerful than a 22 cal. target rifle, how this pile of wood bears any resemblance to a safe gun range as Dr. Land has professed. Are 12inx12in railroad ties sufficient to stop 45 cal. machine gun rounds. Where is the ricochet protection? Where is the ballistic berm?

    

    Does a pile of wood constitute a safe gun range? Do you call it an installation of notable size that Centex, the developers of Stonegate would have had a clue about? Are realtors going to trudge around properties now looking for tell-tale piles of wood to warn new buyers of a ‘possible’ gun range?

76. Pollyticks on March 27th, 2008 7:57 pm

    Dr. Land has not shot machine guns over the past few years at his firing range. Shooting his machine gun is relatively new for the community. Please correct me if I’m wrong.

77. mark raines on March 27th, 2008 9:21 pm

    Mark D,

    As you are well aware, Dr. Land has made significant improvements to his gun range since that photo was taken- in a recent charlotte observer article it was stated that his range now includes nearly a hundred railroad ties as well as dozens of dump truck loads full of dirt- the phrase used was “enough to stop a howitzer round”.

    BTW- I notice you edited your previous post where you claimed I had been appointed to a “board” position. What were you talking about?

78. Pollyticks on March 27th, 2008 9:25 pm

    JT stated:

    “People like you don’t understand logic and liberty. There is no point arguing with that because you will never get it regardless of how good of a point he makes. As far as your point about the curious toddler or child wandering over there, where are his or her parents? Probably too busy blogging about how dangerous the range is instead of looking after their kids. I do, however, agree with your mamma’s quote, “If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen”. Perhaps it’s time you got out of the kitchen.
    - JT”
    ————————————-

    I understand logic when its logical. My Dad is retired Air Force and worked at the Pentagon. My brother was 82nd Airborne. My nephews are both in the Army, one in Korea and the other one just came back from Iraq. I grew up with guns. I’ve shot them and I respect them. My parents live in the county on 10 acres. My brother owns an enormous amount of weapons, including semi-automatics. None of them would DARE think about shooting a machine gun on their 10 acres, if they owned one. They are surrounded by farm land and some nearby homes. Why wouldn’t they do it????? Out of respect for their neighbor’s safety and serenity…. that’s why!

    I went on youtube tonight and looked up gun ranges and machine guns. Watch the videos. They are very loud, and most of the outdoor public ranges that allow machine guns are on more than 7 acres of land! I doubt very seriously they are right next door to a neighborhood and school.

    I stand behind the constitution and my rights to freedom of speech BUT I can’t say BOMB on an airplane and I’m OK with that.

    I don’t live in this neighborhood, but I can hear his Tommy from our neighborhood a few short miles down the road.

    PT

79. Pollyticks on March 27th, 2008 10:30 pm

    Mark Raines states:

    I’m bored with your postions:) Wonder if its the same thing? Just joking. Apart from my gun rage and rants…..Mamma’s staying in the kitchen cooking up humble pie and crow for those of you who are hungry. I may help myself to a bite or two along the way.

    Seriously, I do hope that we all can meet on some common ground on other topics here…. just not on Land’s property. I already have partial hearing loss in my left ear.

80. JT on March 28th, 2008 8:14 am

    Pollyticks,

    You strike me as the kind of person who would buy a house beside a sewage treatment plant only to petition the city to close it because of the smell.

    - JT

81. Curt Gillock on March 28th, 2008 9:26 am

    JT, the same kind of person that buys a house close to an airport & then complains that the planes are too loud.

82. Pollyticks on March 28th, 2008 9:51 pm

    Curt and JT,

    Ha:) Have you ever lived beside an active farm with cows and chicken houses? You know what happens when you ASSUME…. right?

    But, I guess you have it all figured out. I would much rather live next door to chicken houses than live beside of someone who stinks of arrogance, indifference, old cigars, and cheap wine.

    PT

83. Michael R. Land, M.D. on March 28th, 2008 10:20 pm

    To Pollyticks..
    Machine guns were first fired on my property in 1994! I am not a newcomer to this sport! Complaints of noise go back to the late 1990’s-in fact Wesley Chapel city council had Sheriff Mcguirt talk with them about this subject on the public record in the fall of 2001. A Stonegate homeowners newsletter makes reference to my range and automatic weapons fire in 2004,therefore this noise is not “new” to the neighborhood.Kathy Patterson claimed that she was in the process of beginning contruction next to my property and she conspired with the Stonegate HOA to shut my range down in 2004.She didn’t take occupancy of her home until the summer of 2007 . Her assertion that this was a safety issue doesn’t hold water considering she didn’t even live next to me at the time she started complaining about my range.
    My Sept.2007 backstop was made of 150 railroad ties -15 high and 10 deep ,reinforced with 30 tons of sand in front and sandwiced between 8 feet by 16 feet of 5/8 inch plywood with 4 inches of sand between. This backstop was inspected by our own Sheriff Eddie Cathey in September of 2007, and he felt it was a very safe range at that time.That backstop met the NRA technical standards without any of the subsequent upgrages. I elected to massively improve the looks of my range with hundreds of tons of dirt,sand and timber to make the range backstop aesthetically pleasing to the untrained eye. The previous “old range backstop” served its puropose perfectly for years in that a single bullet NEVER left my range EVER!!!! Lastly, people claim my “Tommygun “is the noisemaker. NOT SO …..it is relatively quiet compared to my beltfed .308 HK 21K and my 8mm beltfed MG 34. The vast majority of the fire the past two months has been automatic 22 rimfire and 12 guage shotgun fire shooting clay pigeons (shooting #8 birdshot). I sold my BMG 50 L82A1 in 2004. My 45-70 1894 lever action cowboy gun, sarcastically referred to by you as looking so 1800’s, is in fact the LOUDEST gun that I fire on my range !!! I displayed this firearm to the media for this reason and because it is recognizable as a popular big game hunting rifle.!

    Now…regarding your accusation of MY contacting the media to cover this story…nothing could be further from the truth. My neighbors contacted me while my wife and I were attending a gynecologic oncology meeting in Phoenix, AZ on 02/08/2008. We were informed that TV news choppers were hovering over my property and that news teams were trying to access my property while I am 1500 miles away. My personal cell phone number had also been given to members of the media by someone although it was never authorized by me! Because of this, I received numerous unsolicited calls and messages from the media during my trip. I cut my trip short by 3 days in order to return home to bolster my security system. I felt this necessary considering both WCNC 14 and WBT had compromised our privacy and safety by advertising to the world the location of the range and the types of weapons being fired there!!!. From that point on, I and my wife have been dogged by the media and by curiousity seekers!

    In reference to your comments related to my cancelling the first scheduled inspection–I wan’t trying to hid anything as I have NOTHING to hide sir! The reschedule was done at the advice of an attorney. I decided to shoulder the financial cost of the NRA inspection and to make the UNEDITED AND COMPLETE findings available to all concerned parties!!

    We all know that the complaints about safety are unwarranted. The truth of the matter is that it is all about noise and property values.

84. Pollyticks on March 28th, 2008 11:08 pm

    Dr. Land,

    I think your explanation about complaints going back to 1994 regarding your private gun range sums it all up nicely.

    I’m a Mrs. not a sir. It will be interesting to see what the outcome will be for your gun range. From the research I was doing online the other day, I’m reading about quite a few outdoor gun ranges being shut down similar to yours because of neighborhood development and growth in the area.

    Mrs. PT:)

85. Michael R. Land, M.D. on March 28th, 2008 11:08 pm

    TO Pollyticks,
    Why do you have to hide under the white KKK cloth of “Pollyticks” instead of your real name? Are you ashamed of your identity? Are you afraid to take a stand in full view of the public as I have? It doesn’t matter to me as I have already figured out who you are! And for your information..neither my cigars nor my wine is cheap! It is not I that is arrogant. Have you read your own posts…you define arrogance. I would also like for you to know that trespassing is illegal and can be prosecuted.

86. Pollyticks on March 28th, 2008 11:25 pm

    Dr. Land,

    Now….. I’m trying to keep my patience. The cheap wine and cigars comment was NOT directed at you. Go back and read that post. Maybe the comment hit close to home for you.

    Also, you have NO idea who I am. What is this KKK comment you are making? Is this an organization that you would be familiar with? Also, I have NEVER even driven near your gun range. The closest I’ve ever been to it is when I’ve passed Stonegate a couple of times. The first I’ve seen of your range is through pictures posted here at the Scribe. I have never trespassed on your property. Please don’t flatter yourself.

    If you spent more time at the bed side with your patients and less time practicing daylight obstetrics/inductions…. so you can have more free time at the range, maybe you would decrease your overall risk of lawsuits.

    Someone needs to check your head for schrapnel, because everything you have implied in your last post is way OFF target.

    Obviously, if I don’t have to put my real name on forums, I would prefer not to. This is the case with any other forum I may choose to comment on.

87. JT on March 29th, 2008 4:23 pm

    Pollyticks,

    You should run for office as much as you like to change the subject and personally attack your opposition as opposed to sticking to the issue. It looks like you have run out of points to make. If you must know, I don’t drink wine and the only “old” cigars I enjoy are finely aged at the right humidity. I agree with Dr. Land in his assesment of your arrogance. Correct me if I’m wrong but coming to a community and complaining about the way things have been done since long before you got there is extremely arrogant. Who are you to tell others what they can and cannot do? I guess you have nominated yourself as the final authority of what is right and wrong. God help us all. By the way, don’t worry about having to be my neighbor. You couldn’t afford it.

    - JT

88. Maria Land on March 29th, 2008 5:19 pm

    Dear Mrs. Pollyticks…

    I have kept quiet for some time now in spite of having read your ongoing
    insults and atttacks against my husband. I, not my husband, perceived you to be
    a man as I could not imagine anyone of the feminine gender being as cruel and
    callous as you appear to be. I also support my husband and will continue to do so…all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary. Perhaps these other ordinances to which you refer were passed because others chose not to fight for both their property rights and 2nd
    amendment rights. We will continue to defend OUR rights my dear.

    You obviously know nothing about my husband or you would know that he has
    stopped the practice of obstetrics over nine months ago!! Furthermore, for over
    30 years and after having delivered more than 5,000 babies, not a single
    obstetrical lawsuit was filed against him. If you were or had ever been lucky
    enough to have been his patient, you would know just how caring an individual
    Dr. Michael R. Land is. I take great offense to your insults and highly suggest
    that you cease with directing them towards the man that I love and in whom I
    have the greatest of trust. Other than perhaps annoying you with the sound of
    his gunfire, he has done nothing to harm you and doesn’t deserve to be attacked
    in the vicious manner in which you and others on this forum have chosen.

    To those of you who have supported and defended my husband, I want to express
    my appreciation. Michael and I will both be attending the council meeting
    scheduled for April 1st and hope to see all of you there.

    Maria Land

89. Pollyticks on March 29th, 2008 8:40 pm

    JT,

    Now, look who is being arrogant! How do you know what I can and can’t afford? Hmmmm? I have a beautiful lake view from my front porch, and I can assure you I’m not living in a van down by the river…. not that there’s anything wrong with that. All puns aside…. what I CAN’T afford is giving you the respect that you feel you are entitled to due to your overall arrogant posts here at V.S.O.

    Could it be that I’ve hit a nerve with Daddy Warbucks?! Funny that you didn’t deny being indifferent….one of the worst qualities a human can possess.

    Forgive me if I stand up for people’s safety and serenity over one man getting his jollies shooting a machine gun in the middle of a town and who accuses a blogger of being with the KKK and illegally trespassing on his property.

    I want to make one thing crystal clear… I have never even driven into Stonegate’s neighborhood or down the road where his gun range is located. I can, however, hear his guns inside my home a few miles down the road. Regarding Land’s other comments on the KKK…. that is troublesome and confusing and obviously not correct. Not sure he should be shooting guns being that he seems to be very confused and disoriented.

    Could it be you are Pollyticked off because I’m a woman who has an opinion and has stayed strong on issues she believes in?

    I’m glad you have a passion for fine cigars. So does Bill Clinton.

    People slammed me for calling Dr. Land a “mad man with a machine gun”. Land has now surfaced and has allowed the media to do a story on him and now he is here at V.S.O. He need not worry about me damaging his reputation. He is doing a fine job of that on his own.

    PT

90. Pollyticks on March 29th, 2008 9:16 pm

    JT,

    It’s all coming back to me now… you stated that Stonegate wasn’t a nice neighborhood. Did you say this because you think the people are not nice or because they don’t live in homes over a million dollars?

    If you would just take the time to get that silver spoon out of your mouth for a moment to eat some crow and a slice of humble pie, maybe you would feel a little less grumpy, Daddy Warbucks

    PT

91. Mark D (The Scribe) on March 29th, 2008 9:40 pm

    Editor’s Note:

    Now that everyone has had their say — a few times over, I will not post anymore comments not specifically on the topic.

    Don’t make me quote Rodney King!
    

92. mark raines on April 9th, 2008 7:03 pm

    Just an update folks- tonight at 11pm on WBTV there is a story on Dr. Land.

    Apparently once his neighbors realized they could not win a legal fight, they have now resorted to a barrage of death threats via telephone and letters.

93. Mark D (The Scribe) on April 11th, 2008 7:18 am

    Mr. Raines,

    In my lexicon, a ‘barrage’ does not equate to one. As far as I know, Dr. Land has received only one letter and no telephone ‘death threats’ — none have been reported.

    Wild exaggerations serve only to inflame the issues at hand.

    The letter Dr. Land received, easily construed as a death threat, is not the way civilized people address differences of opinion and cannot be tolerated.

    If there is any way this letter can be traced to the source, I hope the Sheriff and SBI can find the culprit.

    I think is it time to allow a cooling down period both in the news and the ‘Scribe.

94. JohnH on April 18th, 2008 8:23 pm

    From the outside looking in……. (I live in Alabama and have no axes to grind in this one…..)

    You people are funny (speaking to Dr. Lands detractors) Your lack of knowledge of firearms and regulations is showing. If the good Doctor passed all the scruntinty of the the local police AND that of a Federal law enforcement agency, namely the BATFE, in order to own a Thompson sub machine gun, then he could easily have had it silenced as well. That means you wouldn’t have ever heard it…. Feel safer now???? You people are reacting to the fears given life in too many movies and too many hours watching our anti-gun television shows and news. Get a life, and get honest, this man has gone to extremes to enjoy his hobbies while his attackers have done nothing but feed their boogie man.

    Just think, with a supressed Tommy (Yes it’s legal) all this time he could have been on his land blasting away with thousands of rounds every weekend, and you’d have never known the difference. You are not whining about the noise, but whining because you are afraid of guns.

    I hope the good doctor wins this one. If there is anything that the Founders of this nation feared is was tyranny. It is the reason they did NOT create a pure democracy but instead created a Republic. You people would force on this man the very kind of tyranny the Founders feared most. (Go read “The Federalist Papers”)

    From the oustside looking in, it strikes me that tempers and fears have gone well beyond reasonable solutions. I hope the good doctor has his Tommy suppressed, and leaves you folks with nothing to complain about.

95. Bill McGuirt on June 19th, 2009 11:56 pm

    WCNC tonight reported that Superior Court Judge Spainhour ruled in Dr. Land’s favor. The Court has decided the issue and now his range is considered to be legal under the Sport Shooting Range laws.

96. mark raines on June 20th, 2009 12:20 pm

    What a great ending to a long and sordid court battle.

    Congrats, Dr. Land!!!

    Your case is a perfect microcosm of union county- long time residents being overrun by mostly northern urbanites who move here looking to find an idealistic countryside, and cheap housing, then they start joining local government and pass laws to re-create their northern hell holes, and complain if they smell cow manure or hunters in the woods.

97. Mark D (the Scribe) on June 20th, 2009 1:10 pm

    Congratulations Mr. Raines, you continue to be the poster boy caricature of what is happily a slowly shrinking pool of narrow minded, 60’s era all or nothing ideologues who profit by change then complain about the change to everyone who will listen.

    Union County has grown incredibility over the last 15 years, many locals profited by development of their land. They paid to play by electing the corrupt politicians who greased the skids and their palms with unrestricted residential development, while an understaffed and poorly performing government was stacked with employees whose voter registration was more important than their qualifications.

    You want more examples, look at the corruption of Wesley Chapel before 2005. Backroom deals, 3 shopping centers at once, a council member orchestrated the sale of his property for a $1.5 million on the last shopping center.

    And you blame the victims of this widespread corruption. Why aren’t you to blame Mr. Raines? You were here. Didn’t you see it?

    A vast majority of the people who moved here DON’T want to change Union County to the places they left. Survey after survey shows that people want to keep the rural favor of Union County. How often have you complained about zoning restrictions to minimize development.

    Make up your mind Raines, you can’t just cherry-pick. High density zoning leads to subdivisions and subdivisions bring in new people and people don’t want to live next to a cowboy with a machine gun blasting away willy-nilly.

    Hunters and cow manure is not the issue and you know it. Many of the people fighting against Dr. Land’s shooting range are Union County natives. If you don’t like newcomers that’s your problem, not ours.

98. mark raines on June 20th, 2009 2:22 pm

    Mark D,

    you said:

    “Survey after survey shows that people want to keep the rural favor of Union County.”

    Um, of course surveys show that. Everybody on planet earth would prefer that there were no houses built next to theirs, that spoil their view of a vista that they do not own. All the while they forget that THEIR house is already spoiling the view. Union County did just fine until all the smart-growth liberals from the northern states started flooding into the area and trying to force their viewpoints on southerners who have lived here for hundreds of years.

    We will do fine after the yankees all leave- and that will probably be sooner than later now that all their mcmantion mortgages are exploding in their faces!

    Face facts, Dr. Land won, and your side lost. Don’t be a sore loser!

99. Neighbor in Danger on June 20th, 2009 4:11 pm

    The firing range is clearly a safety and property rights issue. Does one man have the right to play at a "hobby" that keeps others from using their own property in a normal way? Does his right to shoot his guns in a residential area- which has ALWAYS been zoned R-40- trump others rights to let their children swing or play in their back yards? Should his recreation keep others from walking on their property which is down range, knowing gunfire will start on and off all day? Do other ranges allow people downrange when there is live gunfire? NO.

    I was at the Appeal hearing. The judge said twice that machine guns are NOT covered under the Sport Shooting Range Protection Act. Land was there, as were his attorneys, and also heard this statement. Yet, he has decided to ignore what the judge said, and continue firing the machine guns at a "sport shooting range." This shows a disregard for authority of the judge, and a lack of concern for the community he fires the weapons in. This shows an arrogance that has always been apparent.

    Land and his attorneys wanted to lump machine guns into a "subset" of rifles. Anyone with any firearms knowledge knows this is ridiulous. A rifle is defined as a weapons that shoots one bullet per trigger pull. A machine gun is defined as a weapon that will continue firing bullets as long as there are still bullets in the clip or magazine or until the trigger is released.

    North Carolina even tightly regulates machine guns and restricts their operation, manufature, use, possession and sale, because of this. They are classified as Weapons of Mass Death and Destruction in NC. THEY ARE NOT RIFLES. NOR ARE THEY CONSIDERED ANY TYPE OF SPORT SHOOTING WEAPON.

    None of the guns listed in the definition of the sport shooting range, "rifles, shotguns,pistols,silhouettes, skeet, trap, black powder or any other similar sport shooting" make mention of machine guns. Nor do they fire repeatedly until the clip is empty.

    It will be interesting to see just how the Sheriff’s department will handle this when the ruling and transcript are released to the public. Will they enforce a noise and nusiance ordinance against the machine guns since they are not protected or will neighbors have to go to the Magistrate to get a court date each and every time a machine gun is fired?

    Land claims he is legally allowed to own machine guns because he is protecting a business. It is curious how someone can own 5 machine guns when he could not account for ANY business that he is supposidly protecting. He could provide NO business name and could not provide a business license number in his sworn testimony to the Wesley Chapel Board of Adjustments. Just what business is he actually protecting today as he is firng these weapons of mass death and destruction in a neighborhood?

    Land testified he has a curios and relics "business" yet the ATF clearly states: "A LICENSED COLLECTOR IS NOT AUTHORIZED TO ENGAGE IN BUSINESS AS A DEALER IN ANY FIREARMS, INCLUDING CURIOS OR RELICS….THE SOLE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF HE COLLECTOR’S LICENSE IS TO ENABLE A FIREARMS COLLECTOR TO OBTAIN CURIO OR RELIC FIREARMS FROM OUTSIDE HIS OR HER STATE OF RESIDENCE."

    Land went on to testify that HE is a business because he is a phyiscian at Bradford Clinic. He said that because he takes phone calls from Bradford Clinic that he is protecting himself. Just who is in more danger? The neighbors surrounding HIM and machine guns, or is he in more danger from the phone calls he takes?

    NC law says that "banks, merchants and recognize business establishments for use in their respective places of business" can apply for a permit "FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEFENDING THEIR SAID BUSINESS." How many times in the thousands of rounds fired was he protecting a business? How many calls have been logged in the sheriff’s department about situations that required him to fire in defense of his business? NC firearms law does not say you can use these weapons in a recreational use and for a hobby.

    NC law also states that in addition to verifying he lawful use of the machine gun, it’s the Sheriff’s responsibility to take into consideration the inherent danger to the public before issuing the machine gun permit. If the sheriff was told there was a business, is it really reasonable to assume the use of a machine gun is safe in a residential area? Just what is so important to protect that is more valuable than a human life?

    Even IF there is a business, is it reasonable to assume if Land is protecting the business, he would carefully fire the machine gun into a firing range while chasing a thief away? If he was protecting a business, he would fire where ever the thief ran. These bullets would travel for miles in what ever direction they were fired- your home, a school or playground, unless the were stopped by something or someone first.

    Let’s just quit beatng around the bush. There is no evidence of any business. Even if there was, a neighborhood is not a safe or reasonable place to use a machine gun to protect that business. It appears that poor judgement was used in allowing this permit to be issued and now the neighbors are the ones in danger, with their rights being violated.

    The NRA report that declares this range is safe lacks details. My own report by a range specialist states there is nothing safe about this range. The NRA should be embarrassed at the report they released beause there are many contradictions in their own Range Source Book. The NRA does not even have standards for the machine guns fired there. The standards used for machine guns are military standards, which this range does NOT meet.

    The judge may have issued a ruling in favor of a zoning issue, but there are many, many more issues to be resolved. Zoning is just the first of many legal issues for this range.

100. john l barker on June 20th, 2009 4:32 pm

     Mark R. although I am not from the north, I think you have a point and I took your advice. I found a 100 year old house with a great view of 200 acres af pasture and woods. I live on it and I do not have to worry about spoiling some else’s view nor someone spoiling mine. Plus my horses eat well on all that grass.

101. mark raines on June 20th, 2009 5:04 pm

     "Neighbor in Danger", or should I say lead attorney in the prosecution against Dr. Land posting anonymously?

     (nobody else could crank out that many talking points and references so quickly unless you already had them on your computer.)

     You are forgetting the core issue. Dr. Land was there first. He was there before people decided to build McMansions all around him. The realtors and developers who sold lots to those people should have warned the buyers, but they did not.

     Your anger is directed at the wrong people.

     You are trying to make the same argument that northern urbanites have made for decades when they move to rural southern areas.

     "But I didn’t know that hog farm next to my development would smell so bad! I am going to make sure it gets shut down, even though it has been in operation for 85 years!"

     "I didnt know that farmer’s tractor would block traffic so much, so I’m going to sue to make sure he is shut down!"

     "I didn’t know that those chicken coops were so loud! I’m going to sue to shut them down!"

     Face it- Mr. Land was there before any of the houses around him were built. HE WINS. They should have never built those houses that close to his property. Everyone involved in building those houses knew his range was there.

     Sorry- I have no sympathy for people who buy houses next to a train track and then complain that the noise keeps them up at night.

102. mark raines on June 20th, 2009 5:07 pm

     Mr Barker, you said your 100 year old house has a “view” of 200 acres. Do you actually own those 200 acres?

     Because if you don’t OWN that view, don’t fall in love with it, as my daddy used to say.

     Otherwise, if you actually bought 200 acres you must live about 50 miles from any town in union county unless you are a multi-millionaire.

103. Lt. Col. Patrick Beekman USMC (Retired) on June 20th, 2009 5:49 pm

     I am reluctantly going to join this debate. I have no idea what are the NRA safety standards, but I am fairly certain that Dr. Land’s range does not meet the minumum safety standards for the U.S. military to fire his .45 cal sub machine gun. I don’t believe it even meets the safety standards to fire a .45 cal pistol as forth in DA PAM 385-63. If he, or any other shooter, overshoots the safety berm, those rounds could land outside his property. Furthermore, I don’t believe he has a reliable means to secure the saftey danger zone beyond the safety berm (or to the left and right flanks) from wondering people or animals. Accidents and mistakes happen, we are all human. No one can guarantee that a safety berm will be hit with every shot, especially one with the muzzle rise of a .45 cal sub-machine gun. But to know that should an accident happen you could injure someone or worse borders on recklessness. Just my thoughts from a retired Marine who has commanded an infantry battalion, who has shot everything from a pistol to a main tank gun round and everything in between, and who has been in charge of one of the three Marine Corps Scout-Sniper Schools. I would never shoot anything on that range…and I dare say that I am a more experienced shooter than is Dr. Land. The NRA may say it is safe, but I am certain that the U.S. military would not allow its trained professional to fire anything on that range because the risk is too great.

     If I am wrong Dr. Land, I apologize, but I honestly doubt that I am. Like you, I enjoy shooting weapons very much. However, I would seriously reconsider what you do on that range. It just isn’t worth the consequences, regardless of what some judge may say. There are innocent people down range from you. You just don’t own enough land to ensure those rounds that do clear your berm will not exit your land and impact on someone else’s property. I strongly doubt you have any desire or intent to every hurt anyone. You seem like a good man who may be caught up in a very emotionally charged debate. Take the emotion out of it and please do what is safe. Close down that range. The land is just too small to be shooting the weapons you are shooting in an open air facility.

104. rural friend on June 20th, 2009 6:10 pm

     As for Dr Land, Machine guns, and business protection, NCGS 14-409 D states that "it is unlawful for any person…to…use or possess machine guns, sub-machine guns, or other like weapons," Further in tha tfirst paragraph it continues. "This prohibition does not apply to the following: 1. banks, merchants, and recognized business establishments for use in their respective places of business. However, these persons must first apply to and receive from the sherriff of the county in which their business is located, a permit to possess the weapon for the purpose of defending their business;" And, no I am not a lawyer. You can read this in the NC General Statutes, available on-line to all. Now, I may not be the brightest bulb in the box, but it seems to me that A) Dr Land’s 5 acre tract is NOT a recognized place of business, nor is he a merchant or banker, B) He is clearly NOT using the machine guns for the specific purpose of defending his business. He is using them for sport shooting purposes, which is clearly in violation of this statute and should therefore not be permitted. The sheriff should enforce the state laws and make him cease firing his machine guns.

     I live in close proximity to the firing range. And yes the rifle firing is loud and intrusive in the event that you are trying to spend some time outside with friends and family. But when he starts firing the machine guns, you cannot hear yourself talk. Yes it is a violation of every noise ordinance. Yes it is still a violation of the Wesley Chapel Firearms Ordinance. It is just plainly a case, especially now, of one man taking his rights to the extreme simply now to prove a point. Dr Land should take his toys to a registered gun club where he can fire the machine guns at will. He needs to be stopped before somebody gets hurt by one of his stray bullets flying out of his range. But, then again, maybe that will prove the point to Union County officials.

105. Neighbor in Danger on June 20th, 2009 6:29 pm

     Mr. Raines,

     Again, you are not correct on the facts. HE was NOT here first. His range is in direct line with a barn, which was built in the early 1970’s. As I recall, his property was not bought until 1991. Can you do the math? There are other neighbors that were here much before 1991 who are being affected and have voiced complaints.

     You are trying to make this problem and North/South issue, or “Us against them.” I resent that because I was raised here, and I was here first. So were many neighbors who are adversely affected. This is not just a Stonegate issue.

     Secondly, NO ONE who bought homes in Centex’s Stonegate was informed by Centex there was a range . In those days the range was not used nearly as often, and machine guns were not fired. If you visited the development during a quite time, there is ABSOLUTELY no way to have known the range was there. There were NO PERMITS TO LOOK UP, NO SIGNS POSTED, NO FENCING, AND NOTHING IN THE AERIAL PHOTOS. Unless you were there while the shooting was taking place, there was NO WAY for these home buyers to find out. Many, many people viewed the homes when it was quiet, built and moved in only to find out about the hidden range afterwards.

     I believe the EPA regulates hog farms, and the like. I also imagine there is a way to research where hog farms are. NO ONE regulates firing ranges. If I were to build a rake shed in my back yard I’d have to get a permit. Did he? Well, yeah, he actually should have but just didn’t. Now I guess the judge must think that even though he did legally require a permit, it’s been so long that- hey- just forget it.

     My point is that no one is there to see what is going on, what upkeep is done, and what safety practices are followed. All of us are at the mercy at what ever he deems appropriate and safe. By the way, the information he gave to the Union County Weekly, March 21 – 27, 2008, is in just another statement that is
     inaccurate. “Every few weeks, Land said he refortifies the gun range, hauling in additional dirt to restore the ideal 45-degree slope.” There has been no additional dirt brought in to refortify the slope since he finished work on the range in March 2008.

     Even if he had brought in dirt that would violate the grandfather status because he is not allowed to materially alter a non-conforming structure by adding to it.

     You say people should not have bought houses so close to him…….I say he knew this was a RESIDENTIAL area and he chose to build the range in an inappropriate area, asking for a confrontation later. The NRA Range Source Book that he used to build the range, states to be sure to put the range in an appropriate area to avoid problems later. It recommends a light industrial area.

     Who is in error? People who build and buy houses in a residential area, or someone who buys the residential property with the “purpose” to “establish a shooting range?”

     I’d say that because no homework was done on the part of the range owner, HE has caused this mess to be brought upon himself.

106. mark raines on June 20th, 2009 6:48 pm

     "Neighbor in Danger"

     You should go work as a politician because i’ve never seen someone compress so many official talking points into a single speech than you do. Amazing.

     And now you’re claiming that Mr. Land’s property was a developed residential area because there was a BARN in the nearby vicinity? Were people living in that barn? Was an entire development living in that barn?

     Here’s a hint for you- when you go to buy a house, you should probably check the area out and see if trains start zooming by at 6pm or if gangs start hanging out in lowriders at 9pm.

     Your anger needs to be directed at Centex for selling you a home without disclosing the firing range, which they surely knew about.

     Sorry, just face facts. Your side lost. Dr. Land was there first. A barn in the woods that is not occupied does NOT count as "developed", no matter how much you wish it to be.

107. simbachui on June 20th, 2009 7:17 pm

     Several points… the barn was built in the 70’s and these people left after a house fire in the 80’s not to return until 2007. It remained a vacant lot for the first 16 years of Dr land’s occupation and shooting. And Yes, there was plenty of gunfire including machine gun fire during the 90’s which included beltfed large calibers much larger than the the relatively quiet Thompson everyone complains about. If you read the Stonegate homeowners newsletter, I believe the fall (? )Oct. 2000 the prior sheriff Mcguirt spent a couple of hours informing the residents at that time, only a few compared to now, about the safety and legality of the shooting range.So, residents moving into Stonegate should have read their own homeowners association past-date newsletters and they would have been forewarned about the neighboring shooting range.

108. mark raines on June 20th, 2009 7:43 pm

     simbachui,

     i agree that residents should read the newsletters for their subdivision but I also believe that anyone who was about to buy a house in that area should have informed by either the police, or certified return receipt letter. or even better- buy the idiot who was selling the house to them.

     it sounds like centex pulled a fast one on the residents.

     like i said before, direct the anger at that company, no Dr. Land.

     but hey, half those residents will lose their home to foreclosure in the next 4 months once ALT-A mortgage loans reset, so there will be half as many people to complain. maybe mr land can use the empty mcmansions as additional target practice? centex would probably pay him to destroy them so they could collect the insurance money.

109. Neighbor in Danger on June 20th, 2009 9:36 pm

     Mr. Raines,

     FYI. I don’t live in Stonegate, and I’m not angry at Centex. I am a neigbor who lives on property not in Stonegate. This is not just a Stonegate issue.

     The people who lost their house in a fire always maintained control of the property, which was zoned residential. Surely Land had to have had an inkling that if there was a house there at one time, then a house could be built there again…..folks, it is a RESIDENTIAL AREA. He used that property for his ATV’s, and his kids played in the barn. They saw the old house site, and as a matter of fact had contact with the family. HE knew there had been a home there, and there was a real possibility there would be another one. He CHOSE to locate that range in the midst of homes. Even when he built the range in 1991 there were homes downrange within 1/2 mile. That was too close to have homes downrange. But that’s what he chose to do.

110. Pierre Le Cochon on June 20th, 2009 10:02 pm

     Several good arguments have been made regarding this subject. Mr Raines makes some good points and Ol’ Pierre is a strong supporter of property rights, but Pat Beekman’s argument is right on target. Pardon the pun, but I could not resist the temptation.

     Speaking of temptation, suppose we change some facts and see how we would view property rights in a different scenario. Instead of a target range that supported a hobby, what if he engaged in activities from which he derived a livelihood. For sake of argument, assume that the activity is legal in Union County, NC. After purchasing their property adjacent to his, to their horror, they discover that he is operating a nudest colony. Pierre recommends that they buy blinders for their children, sue the seller for nondisclosure and move to a more tranquil location.

111. mark raines on June 21st, 2009 10:03 am

     Pierre,
     I used to live very near to a nude beach.

     The problem was that most of the people who are nudists are not the people who should be going around naked.

112. Pierre Le Cochon on June 21st, 2009 12:06 pm

     Mr Raines,

     You’re right about some nudists. I’ve witnessed many of them on Mediterranean beaches; however, much to my visual pleasure, there were also many who were kind to the eye! One word of caution though, while walking the beach at Sitges, Spain I observed boy, girl, boy, girl, boy, girl, boy, boy, boy, boy, then finally boy, girl boy, girl. The tapas bars behind the beach reflected the same combination one observed on the beach in front.

     This little story is a reminder that one should look before leaping, read the fine print, and check out the neighborhood before deciding to buy.

     Pearls from Le Cochon! Happy Father’s Day one and all.

113. Good Neighbor on June 21st, 2009 4:58 pm

     This Raines guy has some issues — just in case anyone hasn’t noticed. With his statement “We will do fine after the yankees all leave…” makes me wonder if he is still fighting the civil war.

     But, everyone is allowed to have their opinion, regardless how insulting. At least the guy has found something to fight for in life, or is he just looking for a fight regardless of the issue?

     Either way, his entertainment value has run thin to say the least.

     He doesn’t know what a Yankee is anyway — it’s someone from New England, not just someone from the North.

114. john l barker on June 21st, 2009 7:04 pm

     Good Neighbor; unless it is spelled YANQUI where it means a citizen of the USA.

115. Pierre Le Cochon on June 21st, 2009 8:52 pm

     Raines,

     I would characterize the assemblage of bodies I observed on the nude beaches of the Mediterranean as "The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly." While visiting the beach at Sitges, Spain I came upon a section of beach that held some surprises for which a warning sign would have been most welcome for me and any other unwary soul. I won’t explain the details out of fear of censorship.

     I mention this because, for me at least, it lends weight to the old adages of look before you leap, read the fine print, forewarned is forearmed, and check out the neighborhood before you buy a home.

     Needless to say I believe that Dr Land should savor his victory, then close his shooting range.

     Happy Father’s Day,
     Pearls from The Pig!

116. Deb Calamityjane on June 29th, 2009 4:03 pm

     Perhaps the BUILDER could have been honest enough to tell the prospective buyers any potentially bothersome issues in the area.

     Dr. Land was there before the neighborhoods and the laws. It’s called private property rights, folks. You don’t like it, hang around long enough and you can watch Obama take his away.

     But while you’re celebrating, remember: next, it will be YOU losing YOURS.

117. Sean N on July 8th, 2009 4:25 pm

     I heard a rumor recently that Dr Land sold the land to Centex that was used to build Stonegate.

     Any truth to this or just rumor?

118. john l barker on July 10th, 2009 3:04 pm

     No there is no truth to that rumor.

119. john l barker on July 15th, 2009 1:41 pm

     Mark Raines; since you were a Union County resident when the Stonegate community was a farm in 1990, perhaps you would care to inform the lady from Stonegate as to who owned that farm?

120. Rory on May 13th, 2010 2:11 pm

     So Neighbor In Danger, so now you know there is a range which was there legally from back in 1991, take up your issue with the developer or move. Why do you take precedent over someone there long before you?

121. Neighbor in Danger on May 14th, 2010 9:22 pm

     Rory,

     The Indians were here before you and me, does it make it OK we took their land? Come on and grow up. Many residents that are affected were here BEFORE this range. I grew up here. Don’t talk to me about who was here first. It’s not just people who built their homes after the range was built.

     Furthermore, whether this range is LEGAL, as you say, is not an established fact. It’s still waiting for a court to decide. Union County, at the time the range was built, stated not all uses were in the table of uses. If a use was not in the table, you had to assign it to the closest use. If no close use could be found, it was not permitted.

     Land claims ranges were not in the table, therefore not regulated. This is not true. When the Board of Adjustments assigned a use, after checking with the Union County Zoning Administrator, the use they assigned was outdoor reacreation facility. Land has claimed this use does not fit his range, but has never found a more suitable classification. Therefore, according to 1988 Union County Zoning Statutes, it is not an allowed use.

     We’ll see what the Court decides on this matter.

---

Post Your Comment or Opinion!

Please be advised: It is VSO policy is to confirm your validity via the an email to the address you entered in the form below. You may use a pseudonym for your name, but if your email address is not valid or you do not respond to an email query, your comment will be deleted in 24-48 hours.

User Note: To protect your valuable work in the event of a system error, we highly recommend that you copy and paste your finished comment to your notepad or wordprocessor before clicking the submit button.

* A new spam filter has been installed, if you have any difficulties please send an email detailing the problem.

Name (required)

Email Address(required)

Website

Anti-spam text: (Required)*
To prove you're a person (not a spam script), type the security text shown in the picture. Click here to regenerate some new text.

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail