Against code of ethics for Law Enforcement to be "given" anything without payment. Here lies the good ole boy network still in existence. The owner will then be responsible for future ground water contamination liability. LEOs utilizing this "free" range will eventually be asked a favor in return. Nothing is free in this world or without expectations. Even free coffee is wrong. Reduced price, Ok, who can tell anyone what to charge for whatever, but free, WRONG! It also seems land owner may be in violation of zoning ordinances for allowing "public" use as firing range.!?
Also, gunlover, do your research. According to Rutherford County property tax records, Mr. Marvin has owned this property since 1995.
Question gunlover. Who pays for this property to be used by local LEO's? There are allocated funds for LEO training at an already existing facility that I understand a huge amount of tax dollars has already been spent in upgrades to that facility. The back stop you described certainly isn't enough for a .50 cal. Even if .50 cals. aren't being used any longer the poor judgement by anyone to shoot that round without "target, backstop and beyond" consideration is absolutely reckless. A few private citizens shooting guns on private property is normal. Law Enforcement putting numerous rounds down range causes concern for ground water contamination with large deposits of lead. These are safety concerns that CAN NOT be compromised. If this situation is not regulated there will be huge money paid out to land owners if their ground water is tested and contaminated. It will bring down the property value when it happens. The question I would ask you gunlover is would you want your property value to decrease for reasons that could be prevented?
Let me preface this conversation by saying everyone loves to hate law enforcement, UNTIL they need them. I have been a LEO (law enforcement officer) and I have been on various tactical teams as a sniper and less lethal munitions instructor. So, my opinion is from both sides of the coin.
I have no problems with all law enforcement agencies organizing and having some sort of a tactical response team. What concerns me, however, is the fact that many smaller agencies "create" a team but don't properly train and/or manage the team. It takes much more than ballistic vests, Kevlar helmets and H&K MP5's to be a SAFE tactical team. Much more important than equipment and the training associated with using that equipment is managing the mental aspect of officers/deputies involved with the team. Many members of tactical teams have trouble dealing with the freedom and responsibility of the level of force associated with a tactical team. Basically, the presence of a swat team is a higher level of force. Their presence is only necessary because the uniform division has encountered a situation that they aren't equipped or trained to handle. With all that said lets look at these local issues.
I am perplexed why the PIO Kyle Evans was initially deceptive about the training on this private property. I am equally confused about why these local agencies think they have to endanger the local residents by utilizing this private property, especially by firing a .50 cal. rifle. 3,000 ft range isn't large enough to safely fire a .50 cal. A .50 cal. will go through an engine block, so any residents down range are at risk. M4 .223 rounds also travel well beyond small arms fire ranges. Have these agencies circumvented the zoning laws in "creating" a private property firing range? Don't these agencies have a tax base funded facility already in existence and if so, why are they not using those locations? My belief is so that they can do what they want on this "private property". Who's paying for this private property to be used? Are the tax payers paying for another property for local law enforcement to utilize for training and if so did the government agencies acquire the proper "bids" and approval from zoning/ordinance departments? Has anyone considered the long term effects of lead contamination into local ground water?
All these considerations, or lack there of, only points to the "above the law" attitudes of local law enforcement in the manner in which they have acquired and used this private property. They have not considered safety, zoning, ground water contamination, breach of peace of local residential neighborhoods. I praise Mr. Marvin for investigating and bringing this to light. Not many people exercise their rights to manage our government in this manner. I hope the city/county governments turn these concerns into their retained attorneys for risk assessment. All these issues, if ignored, will increase these agencies exposure to tort liability.
The SouthComm Set
The City Paper |
LEO Weekly |
Medical News Papers
All contents © 1995-2013
City Press LLC, 210 12th Ave. S., Ste. 100, Nashville, TN 37203. (615) 244-7989.
All rights reserved. No part of this service may be reproduced in any form without the express written permission of City Press LLC,
except that an individual may download and/or forward articles via email to a reasonable number of recipients for personal, non-commercial purposes.
Powered by Foundation