Sarah Brady and Joan Peterson think the folks that live on West Crooked Lake are entitled to peace and quiet from duck hunters, who supposedly are newly enabled to blast away at ducks during season, thanks to the state giving teeth to preemption. I haven’t looked into Florida law yet to see whether this is the case, but in most cases, in many states including Pennsylvania, local communities have been preempted from interfering with lawful hunting for some time.
I have to say, I’m sympathetic to the residents. I’d be really peeved if I was awoken from sleep by the sound of shotgun blasts, and quick look over the lake shows it to be a pretty heavily residential area. Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should. But for all I know hunting has gone on here for a long time, and these folks have just found a new vehicle by which to complain about it. You never really can expect to be told the full truth by the media with these local issues. Nonetheless, I’m sympathetic to the residents.
But you know what would fix this problem? Legalizing suppressors. I suspect Sarah Brady and Japete aren’t going to go for that one. That would take care of the noise problem, and the lake is certainly big enough to safely hunt on provided all the standard precautions are taken. Bird shot doesn’t stay lethal for all that great a distance, despite the woman in the article worried about “someone’s child accidentally catch[ing] a stray bullet.” You don’t hunt ducks with bullets lady, you hunt them with shot.
How well do suppressors work on shotguns? I’d be worried about baffle strikes….
My understanding is that shotguns are difficult to suppress, but with a good suppressor, and the right ammo, you can suppress a shotgun enough to not need hearing protection. Though, my understanding is you have to use subsonic ammo to get a lot of suppression, and that the supersonic crack of shot is enough to require hearing protection.
But the question is can you reduce it to a level where neighbors aren’t annoyed, even if it still makes a bit of noise.
Bolt and pump action shotguns are not difficult to suppress, provided you don’t use wipes or baffles. The older holes + can + packing method work fine for them.
There is just a lack of market for them due to legal crap.
A couple of things. They likely always had the right to shoot over the water. I suspect the old ordinance didn’t cover that. But even if it had the article isn’t very clear they were in violation. To whit
Except that . . . .
1) I assume her house ins’t right smack dab on the water and in fact was some distance back (looking at the other homes in the picture, it sure appears the homes are 50 or more feet back)
and
2) 300 to 400 hundred feet. Well, which is it? Cause 300 feet, last I checked was 100 yards.and 400 feet, of course is 133.33 yards. And if the house is back a mere 17 yards from the beack (ie: 51 feet) then well, they are beyond the 150 yards.
Also, I suspect – as is usually the case – these were transplants from Jersey. Damn Yankees as my wife’s family refers to them (cause a regular Yankee will eventually move back) or even worse, Roaches cause like cockroaches their nasty and rude and you can’t get ride of them.
Mayhap I’m a bit skittish, but I would not be at all comfortable firing even target shot (say 71/2 or 8) towards a house even 200 yards away. Even if I knew on one level that the shot would hit water long before the house, on another level I just would not be comfortable shooting in that location.
I’m not suggesting the hunters were wrong, or unsafe, just pointing out that I’d have a bit of a pucker factor shooting there.
I seriously doubt they were shooting at the house. The ordinance usually prevents you from shooting within a set distance OF A house, even if its behind you (or, in this case I suspect to the left of them)
Well save for one thing the lakes shortest dimension is far more than 200yds more like 500! The long dimension is measured in miles.
Reminder the antis lies are strong, but, they are still lies.
Eck!
Actually, as I do some more research it appears her house (according to Google Maps – didn’t take more than 30 seconds to find her address) is 51.6 yards from their dock. 51.6 yards, of course, is 154 feet. So, by the terms of the article itself in the worst case scenario – shooting from 300 feet away – the hunters were still 151.6 yards from her home and therefore legal.
These people lie. What’s the name of that book – Lying Liars and the Lying Lies They Lie??
Don’t believe a single thing a gun banning bigot ever tells you.
By the way – Sarah Brady signs her tweets Bradytwitt????
Well, she’s a Brady. And a world class Twit. Kudos to her for telling the truth!
She also is self identifying as an Obama supporter and a Proud Liberal. So much for the that lie that she was a Republican.
I think we pay entirely too much attention to Joan Peterson. I am trying to resist myself, difficult though that may be.
I live and work in this county, and have been around these lakes for years. Despite what Google Maps looks like, this has always been a rural area up until a handful of years ago. During the housing boom, several housing developments sprang up in the area, and the friction between the people who have lived there for decades and the new transplants can’t be understated. People move down here and think that it should be just like where they come from, only warmer. I was at one of the sales offices for a new development once when a police officer showed up responding to a report of “blowing dust” from a construction site. Yes, people actually complained about the fact that dust was being stirred up from the wind.
But back to the lake itself… It’s in an area that used to be the boonies, and has probably been used for duck hunting for years, and these are new people who don’t understand that if they moved to the country, sometimes people will be shooting around them.
“When Eustis police confronted the duck hunters, one of them turned out to be an officer of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Along with his gun, he was toting a copy of House Bill 45, which detailed his right to shoot.”
Good luck with that one. FWC cop is going to win this argument over a local yokel every time.
As usual, the habitual whinners, and the perpetualy offended are excersied about something of which they know not. I am tired of these types of persons, but the social experiment types of the last 50 years have given us regular folk, a new breed of self absorbed do gooder commies. I say, let them eat cake !
Right to shoot and right to hunt protection should be right up there with right to farm legislation. This story reminds me of the stories of people who buy a quaint country home and then try to ban their neighbor from continuing to use his manure spreader.
What really bugs me about things like this is that Common Law Tradition specifically protects “First to Settle” claims. If you move in next to a pig farm or a rifle range or a factory, then you (ought to) have no claims on trying to stop the “noxious fumes” or noise or vibrations coming from those activities: they were there first, and you could have figured that out before you moved there.
Similarly, if you move in a nice, clean neighborhood, and someone tries to build a factory, you have every right to complain about, and to sue over, the resulting noise and pollution.
It bugs me greatly when someone moves next to an airport, or a gun range, or some other activity, and then is suddenly aware of all the noise. Gee, who would have thought that loud noises come from such things?!?
My biggest regret is that I didn’t change parties years ago…what an embarrassment the GOP is today. I didn’t lie – just hadn’t seen the light. And Mr. Countertop, I’m not afraid to use my real name,
Well, at least we agree on something. Now that our local democrats are getting on-board with gun rights, I can finally
kickkiss the GOP goodbye.Props for being mostly respectful on an opponent’s blog.
Sure sucks for you that the “non-embarrassing” Democrats find YOU to be an embarrassment, doesn’t it? Maybe the fact that the NRA is more popular than either party has something to do with that. What a tired old has-been you are.
aaaand respectful just went out the window… I’m out. The atmosphere in the comments helped make this blog great, but it’s been getting pretty nasty recently.
Since we’re not bothering with the politeness thing anymore: Ken, your lack of social skills is an embarrassment and a detriment to the cause of gun rights.
I don’t exercise social skills with people who are trying to kill me. All I did, anyway, was point out, with evidence, that she is an embarrassment to the very party she now supports.
Being polite to your opponent isn’t for their sake. It’s for your self-respect, for your friends, and most importantly for the people who don’t know they’re on your side yet.
What will my post do? Drop support for the 2nd Amendment from 85% to 84%?
By gloating, I show that I’m not your typical frightened Republican wimp who’s scared of his own shadow. You lose more people by acting like a coward than by acting like a jerk.
There’s a difference between standing up to them, and vigorously opposing their position, and just being nasty.
I would ask that everyone keep things respectful. I don’t agree with Sarah Brady on politics, but she is not a mouth foamer. She has not, to my knowledge, engaged in the nasty rhetoric of some on her side. So please keep it civil.
I am not condoning the idea of being rude, but that entire organization is based on the idea that we are all potential murderers, and I find that to be highly insulting.
And that is disregarding the multiple cases of using deadly government force to impose their twisted unconstitutional idea on the whole of the people.
I’m not criticizing your politics. Your free to believe and support whatever and whoever you want, however the Brady Campaign for many years has seemed to routinely use your supposed political affiliation as a Republican to show that it wasn’t simply a liberal Democrat organization.
What your saying now, that you should have changed your affiliation years ago only further proves our point about the Brady Campaign’s inherent dishonesty at a very core level.
As far as using my real name, well, I’m neither a public figure nor do I earn a living debating gun control (been waiting an awful long time for the NRA to deliver my wheel barrel full of cash). You do and you are.
Funny, I dont think that most of us that advocate for our rights get paid in any form of cash… In fact, I think we use most of our own blood sweat and tears to get it done, at the risk of catching the public / media eye.
Careful Countertop-you make the the Queen Bees angry and ol Laff Everitt will pen a scathing facebook note about you that he’ll probably have to take down for violating TOS.
Sarah-I hope you enjoyed seeing what grass roots actually look like.
If that really is Sarah Brady I consider it a hoot that the former head of the major gun-banning organization in the country has fallen to posting hit and run comments on gun blogs. How the mighty have fallen.
I agree totally with Ken. I think “respect” for someone who has spent the last 30 years trying to deprive me and mine of our fundamental rights is asking a bit much.
I think you can maintain vigorous opposition to them and still be respectful.
As best we can tell, the commenter appears to be who she says she is.
Sebastian,
There is a difference between being polite and respect. I will be polite if I am treated politely as well. I will be polite because that is just what decent human beings do.
But respect: that has to be earned. Maybe if Mrs. Brady would apologize for the last 30 years she has spent trying to deprive law-abiding Americans of their constitutionally guaranteed rights then she might possibly earn my respect. Until then not so much.
Politeness is really what I’m asking for, in that case.
Right to live quietly, eh? I love how they invent rights to justify infringing on other rights they don’t like. What’s next, a right to not be lied to? I mean, who supports liars? How about a right to french toast and OJ in the morning? A good breakfast is a great way to start the day. Oh, wait they already have that – you just have to go to the government indoctrination camps for children.
There is a principle at common law called “quiet enjoyment”
Actually, the right to “quiet enjoyment” is a convenant that generally only has bearing on the physical piece of property described in the deed and access and use of that property. In effect, it is a promise that your landlord isn’t going to harass you or cause a situation on the property to ruin your occupation of it (ie: fire alarm in an apartment building ringing for days on end). It has nothing to do with what transpires on a neighboring piece of property (unless of course, the landloard or the grantor has control over the activities on that property and has included it in the conveyance)