New Homeowner Brings Lawsuit Against Lewistown Pistol Club

New Homeowner Brings Lawsuit Against Lewistown Pistol Club
If claims are successful, could affect many clubs across the USA!

Update: Lewistown Pistol Club reports, we are gong forward 100% with our events, our planning, and most of all our friendships of not only continuing our proud heritage but our constitutional rights as fellow shooters and gun owners.

Lewistown Pistol Club
Lewistown Pistol Club

The Lewistown Pistol Club had been making preparations to celebrate its proud history and 50th anniversary of serving law enforcement, competitive pistol shooters, and the training of local men and women in the safe handling of various firearms.

The club has been a loyal supporter of the second amendment rights and an NRA member club that was originally founded by employees of the Avisco Corporation, a company which is a historic cornerstone employer here in Mifflin County.

Since it’s inception as a not for profit organization, the Lewistown Pistol Club has had hundreds of members who have served our local communities by supporting our civilian and law enforcement communities as a training source, as well as producing a proud history of shooters who have consistently excelled at the Camp Perry National Competitions. In 2009, members of the club were part of the National Champion Service Pistol Team from Pennsylvania. The club is a current member and supports most of the major competitive pistol discipline organizations.

Now, as the result of a neighboring property being sold, the efforts of the new homeowner could close the club down. To date, the actions of our new neighbor have caused a short cancellation of a scheduled and prepaid match for over 100 shooters from 6 states and having PA DCNR to cease training at the club facilities- producing a significant loss of ongoing revenue.

Now, the neighbor has filed a lawsuit seeking an injunction barring the clubs use of their constructed shooting ranges using the argument that such use violates the safety zone laws of PA.

The case references Pacurariu vs. Com, 744 A.2d 389- claiming that the 34 P.S. 2505 grants protection to ANY HOMEOWNER WITH A DWELLING WITHIN 150 YARDS and makes it ILLEGAL to discharge ANY FIREARM within that safety zone for ANY REASON.

If successful, this case and the “Safety Zone” issue would not only end the use of firearms at the Lewistown Pistol Club, but could set a dangerous legal precedent that would have far reaching implications for many of our sister clubs throughout the commonwealth.

The Lewistown Pistol Club will continue to support a full schedule of events for the 2011 season. Please visit our website and watch for our upcoming NRA, Bullseye, IDPA, and USPSA events. The club has secured legal counsel, and anticipates significant legal expenses to prevail in this case. We have established and would welcome any and all help for our legal defense fund! Contributions can be made via PayPal on our website at www.lewistownpistolclub.com, or sent to Bruce Smith, club Vice-President and PRPA Director at 11898 Arrowhead Way, Mount Union PA 17066. Feel free to contact me directly with any questions you may have at [email protected] or 814-599-3700

  • 5
    Leave a Reply

    Please Login to comment
    1 Comment threads
    4 Thread replies
    0 Followers
     
    Most reacted comment
    Hottest comment thread
    2 Comment authors
    MR. CHARLESWild Bill Recent comment authors
      Subscribe  
    Notify of
    MR. CHARLES
    Guest
    MR. CHARLES

    To me the question comes down to WHO WAS THERE FIRST AND CONTRACTOR KNOWING THAT RANGE WAS THERE WHEN BUYING THE PROPERTY. MAKE THE CONTRACTOR MOVE THEIR PROPERTY LINE SO AS NOT TO INTERFERE WITH THE RANGE. DONE DEAL.

    Wild Bill
    Guest
    Wild Bill

    @Mr Charles, If it were only that simple. Along with the land that you buy comes the right to quiet enjoyment of that land. If the neighbors make noise that interferes with that right of quiet enjoyment, then an nuisance action might lay. If the loud noise nuisance were allowed to continue, then all of the adjoining properties would lose the right of quiet enjoyment, and thus diminish the value of the land. It would hardly be fair for one property to have all its ownership rights at the expense of everyone else. One would have to check Pa state… Read more »

    MR. CHARLES
    Guest
    MR. CHARLES

    WILD BILL, I agree just because the Range was there first does not mean much, however the new land owner(s) had to know that it was there and if the Range adheres to provisions of noise provisions then the new land owners should not mind if the Range is next to them. The provisions of: “The case references Pacurariu vs. Com, 744 A.2d 389- claiming that the 34 P.S. 2505 grants protection to ANY HOMEOWNER WITH A DWELLING WITHIN 150 YARDS and makes it ILLEGAL to discharge ANY FIREARM within that safety zone for ANY REASON”. This could shut down… Read more »

    Wild Bill
    Guest
    Wild Bill

    @Mr Charles, I can not argue with that. Good research, too.

    MR. CHARLES
    Guest
    MR. CHARLES

    Thank you Wild Bill. Like I said I’m going to wait and see how this comes out of the court system.