Epping is too compact for gun use

[SethCohn]

http://www.seacoastonline.com/news/exeter/04292005/news/39738.htm

Backyard shooter muzzled

By Liz Chretien
newsletter@seacoastonline.com

EPPING - An Epping man is at odds with town officials, claiming they are squashing his constitutional rights by not allowing him to target-shoot in his backyard.

Timothy Hannagan of 20 Norris Court said he bought the property specifically because, as he understood it, state law permitted him to shoot there.

According to New Hampshire RSA 644:13, "A person is guilty of a violation if, within the compact part of a town or city, such person fires or discharges any cannon, gun, pistol, or other firearm, except by written permission of the chief of police or governing body."

In this case, a compact body refers to "any contiguous area containing six or more buildings which are used as either part-time or permanent dwellings and the spaces between them where each such building is within 300 feet of at least one of the others, plus a perimeter 300 feet wide around all the buildings in such area."

According to Police Chief Gregory Dodge, Hannagan?s neighborhood fits the definition of a "compact body."

"I?m not reckless, I don?t shoot at night, and neither neighbor has a problem," said Hannagan, who shoots antique rifles as well as modern pistols and rifles. "The two horse farms in town complain about the noise, so the police are constantly down the house harassing me. They don?t complain about the racetrack, or all the building equipment in town."

Dodge said Hannagan is not about to get permission from him. "It?s not proper for him to shoot there. It?s a compact part of town," Dodge said.

Hannagan appeared before the Board of Selectmen to voice his concerns, but the selectmen said they would defer to the police chief.

"They?ve been no help," Hannagan said. "The board won?t go over the chief?s head. He?s abusing his authority. People are just unsettled with guns. They have a prejudice against them."

Hannagan said he?s taken safety precautions on his property. "I put up a backstop on my property, exactly the kind that most target ranges use," he said. "I?m a qualified marksman; I know exactly where my round is going."

Town Administrator Steve Fournier said Hannagan will probably not get the permission he is seeking. "The board can review it, but a lot of safety items need to be worked out," he said. "You?re in a neighborhood."

Hannagan said he is not giving up. "I?ve called the attorney general and every other state agency, and no one can give me (a) straight answer," he said. "If I have to, I?ll sue the town for the right to shoot on my own property. I?m shooting in a safe direction, and it shouldn?t be an issue."

"I?m sorry the laws aren?t conducive to his shooting, if that?s why he bought the house," Dodge said. "But the law is the law. You can?t discharge firearms in a compact area of town without permission from the police chief or the governing body."

"It?s my constitutional right, and I will fight for it," said Hannagan.

This page has been printed from the following URL:
http://www.seacoastonline.com/news/exeter/04292005/news/39738.htm

[mvpel]

Well, is he 300 feet away from buildings or isn't he?   ???

[SethCohn]

Well, is he 300 feet away from buildings or isn't he?   ???

Sounds like they are not over 300 feet away, so the law requires permission.  He's saying that's a constitutional violation.

[KBCraig]

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXII/644/644-13.htm

644:13 Unauthorized Use of Firearms and Firecrackers. ?
    I. A person is guilty of a violation if, within the compact part of a town or city, such person fires or discharges any cannon, gun, pistol, or other firearm, except by written permission of the chief of police or governing body.
    II. For the purposes of this section, "compact part" means the territory within a town or city comprised of the following:
       (a) Any nonresidential, commercial building, including, but not limited to, industrial, educational, or medical buildings, plus a perimeter 300 feet wide around all such buildings without permission of the owner.
       (b) Any park, playground, or other outdoor public gathering place designated by the legislative body of the city or town.
       (c) Any contiguous area containing 6 or more buildings which are used as either part-time or permanent dwellings and the spaces between them where each such building is within 300 feet of at least one of the others, plus a perimeter 300 feet wide around all the buildings in such area.

The way I read that, it applies if each of the six contiguous is within 300 feet of at least one of the other contiguous buildings.

In this fellow's case, the distance might be uncontestable. But I can imagine neighborhoods where it might be quite arguable. Contiguous means sharing a border or boundry; touching. I'm sure the enforcers of the law interpret it to mean the actor's next-door neighbors and the three houses behind them, on the backside of the block. What if I live on such a block, but can show a contiguous string of homes, containing one that is not within 300 feet of any of the others?

I see the chance for trouble-making if the right person lives on the right property. ;-)

Kevin

[SethCohn]

In this fellow's case, the distance might be uncontestable.

It's a circular drive:

Google  Map
Terraserver  photo (no google satellite for NH but this works)

[KBCraig]

In this fellow's case, the distance might be uncontestable.

It's a circular drive:

Google  Map
Terraserver  photo (no google satellite for NH but this works)

Terraservice isn't working for me, but here's another topo:
terraserver topo

By the 1998 map, he should be able to argue the "compact area" part. The topo doesn't show property lines, though.

AT&T directory changed their system so that you can no longer see very listing on a street, or we'd be able to check all the neighbors' addresses. People geekier (or nosier) than I probably know of other ways to do that, though.

Kevin