Well, it's really none of my business since i don't live anywhere near Virginia and don't have any right to tell these people what to do. But...
I frequented a range in Socal that gave in to every one of these demands, including a separate "Only Ones" range for full-auto and all sorts of things the proles would get busted instantly for just having in their hands. That place became a nightmare. Cops in "tactical" gear used to get their jollies strutting up and down the firing line, picking somebody with an "Ugly Gun" (and in California you can never be completely sure the cop behind you will agree that it hasn't morphed into an illegal Evil Assault Weapon overnight) and just standing behind him while he's trying to shoot.
After a few times when I found myself mentally chanting "Must Not Demonstrate All Rifle Bullets Are Armor Piercing", I just went away and never came back.
That range is closed now. Except for the police annex - that was still going strong last time I was in the area.
I was having a hard time identifying the smell of this. Now, I know why it smells funny and I don't believe it.
VCDL says the owner asked for these things in his permit process. I believe that is what the owner told them. I don't believe he told them the truth. I think I detect coercion here.
Here's why. All those things he says he wants to do, and the restrictions he says he wants to place on some and not on others are well within his rights as the property owner. In other words, he had a free hand to do all those things, just with an ordinary business permit, and the freedom to adjust any policies that didn't work or were counterproductive. So it makes no sense that he would voluntarily ask that that freedom of decision be taken from him in a manner that would make him vulnerable to prosecution or revocation of permit just for exercising his rights of autonomy as an owner.
I smell the heavy hand of police coercion in this. I would bet he has been told unless he complies with all the police freebies and special considerations he won't get the permit. I would further bet that he has been told that if he tells anyone he was coerced, he won't get the permit.
As for the lashing out on this thread at the VCDL leadership, I would put our group's accomplishments at advancing the rights of firearm owners against any other's.
Considering that negotiations were occurring between the actual property owner, the county and the VCDL, this seems to have been arbitrated quite successfully.
Having an ORGANIZED support system of volunteers in attendance seems to have availed more than a few people getting red in the face over property that was not even their own in the first place.
I would recommend studying each of these efforts and analyzing the strategies behind them before making wide sweeping accusations of "pragmatism" (is that the new "liberal?")
Or one could continue flinging poo in a self-righteous, albeit, ignorant manner. It gives one a "holier" feeling, I imagine.
Clint, I didn't do any lashing out at VCDL, I stated that I thought you had not been told the truth. I still maintain that.
You can only act on the information you get, but you have to admit that it would seem suspicious that any business owner would request fetters on his operation. I still think he was coerced.
I am glad that all has turned out well. Further, I am sure it would not have done so, but for your intervention and interest in the issue.
Are you perhaps a little too sensitive? Or did I miss something someone said derogitorially about your organization?
i smell pragmatism.
ReplyDeleteYes,yes. Let's get it built,regardless...
ReplyDeleteTHEN we'll fight for our "rights" later.
Nothing like trying to break through a "wall" after it's built. Especially when you can help build it how you want it from the get-go.
Geesh!
CIII
Well, it's really none of my business since i don't live anywhere near Virginia and don't have any right to tell these people what to do. But...
ReplyDeleteI frequented a range in Socal that gave in to every one of these demands, including a separate "Only Ones" range for full-auto and all sorts of things the proles would get busted instantly for just having in their hands. That place became a nightmare. Cops in "tactical" gear used to get their jollies strutting up and down the firing line, picking somebody with an "Ugly Gun" (and in California you can never be completely sure the cop behind you will agree that it hasn't morphed into an illegal Evil Assault Weapon overnight) and just standing behind him while he's trying to shoot.
After a few times when I found myself mentally chanting "Must Not Demonstrate All Rifle Bullets Are Armor Piercing", I just went away and never came back.
That range is closed now. Except for the police annex - that was still going strong last time I was in the area.
I was having a hard time identifying the smell of this. Now, I know why it smells funny and I don't believe it.
ReplyDeleteVCDL says the owner asked for these things in his permit process. I believe that is what the owner told them. I don't believe he told them the truth. I think I detect coercion here.
Here's why. All those things he says he wants to do, and the restrictions he says he wants to place on some and not on others are well within his rights as the property owner. In other words, he had a free hand to do all those things, just with an ordinary business permit, and the freedom to adjust any policies that didn't work or were counterproductive. So it makes no sense that he would voluntarily ask that that freedom of decision be taken from him in a manner that would make him vulnerable to prosecution or revocation of permit just for exercising his rights of autonomy as an owner.
I smell the heavy hand of police coercion in this. I would bet he has been told unless he complies with all the police freebies and special considerations he won't get the permit. I would further bet that he has been told that if he tells anyone he was coerced, he won't get the permit.
It just doesn't pass the smell test.
An update came out today saying that the county has dropped all of its provisions on the range.
ReplyDeletehttp://blog.vcdl.org/index.php?/archives/369-VA-ALERT-Woodbridge-Range-major-issues-resolved.html
As for the lashing out on this thread at the VCDL leadership, I would put our group's accomplishments at advancing the rights of firearm owners against any other's.
Considering that negotiations were occurring between the actual property owner, the county and the VCDL, this seems to have been arbitrated quite successfully.
Having an ORGANIZED support system of volunteers in attendance seems to have availed more than a few people getting red in the face over property that was not even their own in the first place.
I would recommend studying each of these efforts and analyzing the strategies behind them before making wide sweeping accusations of "pragmatism" (is that the new "liberal?")
Or one could continue flinging poo in a self-righteous, albeit, ignorant manner. It gives one a "holier" feeling, I imagine.
Clint, I didn't do any lashing out at VCDL, I stated that I thought you had not been told the truth. I still maintain that.
ReplyDeleteYou can only act on the information you get, but you have to admit that it would seem suspicious that any business owner would request fetters on his operation. I still think he was coerced.
I am glad that all has turned out well. Further, I am sure it would not have done so, but for your intervention and interest in the issue.
Are you perhaps a little too sensitive? Or did I miss something someone said derogitorially about your organization?