Let your voice be heard

Mat-Su’s Planning Commission is hard at work on regulations for the development of outdoor shooting ranges.

Earl Lackey’s polite and passionate Spectrum (Feb 28) argues there is no need for a borough ordinance. I’d like to share some facts he didn’t know.

“This whole issue was started by neighbors who can’t get along.” Not so. I live near the range he describes.

What occurred recently? An individual purchased 40 acres of raw land next to several homes, including Ag parcels from the 70s. He built no dwelling but developed a shooting range with multiple targets and no side berms. The targets are not on the remote side or even the middle of his 40 acre parcel but at the corner closest to farms and other dwellings. When this landowner was asked by his neighbors if he would relocate the targets, or at least make the firing lines face the opposite direction from our homes, he said no, he didn’t care to.

This particular range was created in part as an enhancement to the landowner’s gun shop, for private shooting contests and to allow patrons to try before they buy.

Despite Mr. Lackey’s claim that the Borough is working on a “problem that doesn’t exist” there were similar issues with outdoor shooting ranges in the last five years in both Sutton and Big Lake.

There is justification for concern that regulations could result in unreasonable burdens on individuals and organizations. But a shooting range in a neighborhood calls out for control— on firing line location, berms, hours of operation, and more. Sensibly regulating human behavior is the purpose of government, particularly as our Valley population continues to grow.

The Planning Commission needs your input as it considers what proposals to forward to the Borough Assembly for restrictions, including whether new ranges should be governed by an Administrative Permit or a Conditional Use Permit.

An Administrative Permit means there is no public comment period, and the ultimate decision is made by a single Planning and Land Use Director. A CUP requires that the public in the affected area first be notified and invited to comment, with the decision then made by the seven Planning Commissioners.

If the administrative approach is accepted it will be very important that the rules be definite and unbendable. But if public comment is allowed, and a group makes the decision, there may be greater flexibility for proper exceptions, with citizens more confident of impartial approvals or rejections.

The form of permit is only one of many reasons we should speak up to the Planning Commission.

All residents of our borough need wildfire protection. Repetitious firing creates risk equal to trash burning and fireworks. Lead containment and reclamation would protect agricultural lands that grow our food. No one wants toxins in their water or food.

MSB Ordinance 20-025 concerns shooting ranges only— not gun rights. Many may speak up for their perceived Constitutional rights. At the recent Borough parking lot rally, and the MSB Assembly meeting, protesters spoke in defense of their gun rights.

MSB 20-025 does not infringe on Second Amendment rights. Nor does it impinge rights guaranteed by the Alaska Constitution. The Second Amendment lets us keep and bear arms. The Alaska Constitution allows us to bear arms in defense of self or others. The Planning Commission’s upcoming work does not touch on either of these rights but rather addresses the location and design of certain described places where firearms will be repeatedly discharged.

A stated goal of the MSB Comprehensive Development Plan is to protect and enhance the public safety, health, and welfare of MSB residents. The Commission’s work will guide the MSB on “when, where and how” outdoor shooting ranges should be set up. Local government control is permitted by state law if there is reasonable likelihood that people, domestic animals, or property will be jeopardized.

Current NRA reports declare the popular 9 mm handgun will travel up to 2,130 yards or 1.2 miles. A Colt .45 is said to travel 1,850 yards or one mile. Ammunition from an assault rifle can travel further.

MSB’s proposed ordinance, as sent to the Planning Commission, could use improvement, but there are no good guys or bad guys speaking out here. We are merely citizens expressing concern on an issue that is important to us. The proper development of more safe gun ranges is our mutual goal.

Government never will be perfect. Some of us will justifiably feel squeezed out, or too broadly included, no matter what definitions MSB comes up with. But try we must.

Let your voice be heard. Do so before a gun tragedy propels us into action.

Beverly W. Cutler lives in Palmer