It’s All About Going After Gun Owners

From the sounds of this article about a Virginia gun club that needed approval to take on some construction projects, it appears as though anti-gun advocates were actually trying to end all gun owner activities rather than having any concern for actual firearms use on the range.

In July, they report that 13 people came out to oppose the club’s plans. Now, that might be expected if the club was looking to vastly expand the number and size of ranges or do something else that would greatly increase quality-of-life factors for residents around the club. But, no. They were opposing a new clubhouse, a picnic pavilion, and a driveway expansion. Opposition to those kinds of improvements is a direct opposition to gun owners meeting and organizing. That’s not about noise from a gun range or concerns over stray rounds. That’s just opposition to gun owners.

In September, the anti opposition had dropped to just one woman who appears to have made up concerns like a new clubhouse might mean that there’s a new sudden interest in trespassing, along with concerns about noises from non-gun activities.

I’m continually amazed at how so many anti-gun groups really want us to believe that they aren’t proposing going after gun owners when we see repeated assaults like this on even allowing gun owners to gather. At the national level, it’s been legislation that would effectively shut down gun shows. Here, it’s silly opposition to a freakin’ picnic pavilion.

h/t to VSSA, a great resource for Virginia gun owners

Related posts (automatically generated):

  1. On Organized Ranges
  2. Open Carry Issue in Pennsylvania
  3. Insurance Companies Suck

9 thoughts on “It’s All About Going After Gun Owners”

  1. When I lived in Newport News, VA this is pretty much the same story. A developer built homes right on the fence & of course people complained about the noise – go figure!!! I guess they didn’t think too far ahead when they bought.

    Merle

    1. This isn’t quite the same thing because these people weren’t opposing anything to do with shooting on the ranges. They wanted to oppose anything at all related to the range’s existence, even if it was purely social in nature and wouldn’t contribute to the sound of gunfire. In fact, the article reads as though the only people debating the best course of action for keeping noise down are the club members.

      1. Actually it was the same. Those people wanted to close down the range, even though the range bent over backwards to be a “good neighbor”. Nothing was good enough.

        1. Merle’s right — I grew up there. Antis have been using ANY excuse they can to hamper the Lafayette Gun Club’s operations for over twenty years. Locals are pretty tired of the antigun bigot’s BS by now, as evidenced that even though the county Board of Supervisors has traditionally been antigun, they stopped trying to hamstring the club a while ago.

    2. A developer built a few houses on the same street as our range. After a few years, a few house owners tried to sue the club sbout the noise. The judge noted that the range has been in existence since 1958, and the house’s were built in 2008. We won. P.s. we were awarded all legal costs.

  2. Of course they’re coming after us. Always have been. It’s a 100% unadulterated war on the culture because they know they can’t beat us until they kill the culture…

  4. And note that they’re also against the very devices that would greatly reduce the noise of a gun-range.

Comments are closed.