Passion and facts

Earl Lackey’s Spectrum (Feb 28) advocates for developing gun ranges without any MSB regulation. I laud him for his passionate and polite views on a topic deeply familiar to him. But there are some facts he didn’t know.

“This whole issue was started by neighbors who can’t get along” he proclaims. That is not true. I know because I live near the range he describes, on a Mat Su dedicated agricultural parcel.

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 located in the middle of his 40 acre parcel—they are at the corner closest to the farms and other dwellings. When this landowner was asked by his nearest neighbors if he would relocate the targets to the center of his land and/or make his 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.”

This situation is exactly what MSB government exists for to sensibly regulate human behavior as we live closer to one another than ever before in this Valley. A shooting range in a neighborhood requires restrictions for firing line location, berms, hours of operation, and more.

All residents of our borough deserve wildfire protection. The repetitious firing, for hours at a stretch, of multiple high-powered weapons creates risk equal to trash burning and fireworks, which already are regulated. Agricultural lands also need extra protection from government to keep safe the food grown for all of us. No one wants lead in their soil or water or food.

I support the Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment. I am exercising my right to free speech right here, hoping that, despite the emotion generated by this top- ic, I am protected. Many of the protesters at the Borough demonstration, and the MSB Assembly meeting, came or spoke on behalf of their Second Amendment right be- cause of their hope that this right will remain protected, even though the subject ordinance concerns shooting ranges, not “gun rights".

There is no Second Amendment right at stake in MSB Ordinance 20-025. The Second Amendment does not provide a right to develop a shooting range. Nor does the Second Amendment address the discharge of a firearm on private property. The Second Amendment allows us to keep and bear arms. Thus we can possess or carry a firearm. MSB 20-025 does not affect this right. Rather the ordinance attempts to de- fine how outdoor shooting ranges should be developed and regulated, including determining what constitutes “danger to the property of others" or “jeopardy to the safety and well being of others.”

There are no good guys and bad guys working against each other here. We are all simply citizens expressing concern on an issue that is important to us. The proper development of more safe gun ranges is a mutual goal. Government never will be perfect but it is us, the citizens, not “evil forces” at work. Some of us will justifiably feel squeezed out, or too broadly included, no matter what definitions MSB comes up with, but try we must. We cannot wait for a gun tragedy to propel us into action.

Beverly W. Cutler lives in Palmer.