Thought I'd pass this along for the benefit of any fellow Cavalier members that may not (or not yet) have received this morning's email as well as an FYI for our supporters in the area... ESPECIALLY those living in Hanover County.
Entire text of email copied below:
Please do not reply to this message. Address comments to CAVP Board Members.
URGENT- Thursday March 2 Meeting - 7 p.m. Hanover County Complex
The Hanover County Planning Department has scheduled a public meeting this coming Thursday, March 2 at 7:00 p.m. at the Hanover Administration Building in the back of the Courthouse Complex on Route 301.
The purpose of this meeting is public comment on the conditions that Hanover County wishes to impose on the continued use of the property pursuant to Cavalier's request for a Conditional Use Permit.
Those in attendance at last year's meeting at the school may have received copies of the Special Use Permit and Special Exception Permit documents produced by Hanover County and dated February 23, 2006.
The conditions that The Planning Department wishes to impose on Cavalier R&P are unacceptable at this time. Your attendance and participation at this meeting is crucial to the survival of Cavalier' activities as we know them. Please don't let the wishes of a few "come here's" and land grabbers have a negative impact on our legal and safe activities.
Your attendance at this meeting is not optional if you wish to continue use of club facilities as usual.
Here's an appeal from the former IDPA match director at Cavalier. If you've gone to any of our matches, we'd really like to see you at this meeting. Addresses of the appropriate politcos are also indicated, should you care to voice your support en-abstentia.
The county planning-staff recommendations just came out, and their intent is clearly to eliminate all competition at Cavalier. Any future matches WILL depend on the outcome of soon-to-come events.
To all members, guests and friends of Cavalier Rifle and Pistol Club,
This is the info on a meeting that we must attend this Thursday concerning
the ongoing fight between CAVRPC and hanover county. Please if you can, show
up for this meeting. We intend to show the county how much support CAVRPC and
the shooters in this area can muster. Also please contact Mr Gordon and Mrs
Binns and let them know you support CAVRPC.
Even if you do not live in the district, if you are a member or enjoy
CAVRPC events or even if you are a shooter and enjoy your shooting rights, you
do have a dog in this fight.
Janet S. Binns, South Anna District Planning Commision Member
16380 Mile Branch Road
Rockville, VA 23146
(804) 749-3131 (h)
John E. Gordon, Jr., South Anna District Supervisor
(804) 798-3879 (h)
(804) 752-2040 (h-fax)
This meeting tonight will affect many Richmond area shooters. Hanover's proposed restrictions will likely be forced on Black Creek as well.
One of the proposals is to limit the frequency and size of matches and limit the number of nonmember participants. If you have ever enjoyed shooting a match at Cavalier or Black Creek, please try to attend this meeting.
Another proposal is no Sunday operations. How many Black Creek shooters want to lose Sunday completely?
Also proposed is a ban on full auto fire. Cavalier is the only local range that allows unrestricted full auto fire. If this ban goes through, full auto fire would not be allowed at a range, but would be allowed on private property next door. Cavalier has several neighbors who shoot full autos on their private land. Look for a ban on full auto fire in the county to be next.
If full auto is given up, look for complaints about anything that sounds like full auto such as rapid fire or matches. The opposition is incrementally chipping away at shooting at private ranges. Full auto seems like an easy target. What reasonable person would want to own one of those things anyway? (according to the opposition) The opposition will not be happy until all shooting ceases. Will your interest be next on their list?
Please try to make it the meeting tonight to show support for local shooters. The range you save may ultimately be your own.
So you support FA fire?
Very well put, plus a jillion! Hope to see you there.
Sort of - and Sam and others will chime in I'm sure - but the matter has been deferred to the April 20 Planning Commission meeting on Cavalier's request. Last night was a VERY long +/- 5 hours at the County.
Honestly, it would take too much time to list all of the planning department staff's proposed restrictions here, and I've got a deadline to meet at the office. I'll tell you this - it's a long and quite perverted list. While I'm in no way convinced that we're at the end of the road with the negotiations, I will say that things are not looking good for the new permits. If the conditions don't change significantly, we'll be severely restricted as a club in what we can do, when we can do it, how often we can do it, and who can attend.
Since I did not understand the entire issue when I got there but I do now then I would have liked to have said a few things but they ran out of time. The arguments for the range were good ones and the ones against it were what seemed outright lies. You could see her video and hear the crickets and bairly hear the gun shots in the distance.
Slowly the sound of the crickets get louder and then you can hear the shooting. Anyone that knows anything about cameras will know that they compinsate for low noise and make things louder. By normallizing the sound of the crickets they are very sensative to spikes from noises. Gun shots would not be constant enough to reajust the automatic setting. Did a little research and this is called automatic gain control
One of my sources
The video also makes another good point. IF they were so affraid of getting "shelled" by bullets coming through hundreds of trees why was the person that was on the camera not franticly running over to grab the kid and take him inside or under cover when the shots started.
Also it was quite interesting to see the fight that almost started when apparently someone mumbles "b****" and some dude went off in the crowd.
Also, I would like to see the NRA's reaction when they find out she rigistered her dog to use as an anti-gun tactic.
Totally agree on the DVD audio - sure, you could hear the gunfire, but crickets would be absolutely deafening creatures if the audio were to reflect the reality of the situation.
A point that I wish I had made last night, but with the time constraints I decided to let others use the time:
Dee Papit - the oppostion's ringleader - is a marketing professional by trade. I wish I believed that the Board and planning staff understood that... she does spin for a living.
I just sent an email to the planning commission explaining in detail how the audio system works.
Does anyone know how to contact the NRA? I would love for them to know about their membership issue.
Am I the only other sick individual that when seeing her say "watch the child" was expecting to see him get struck down by a .50 round or something. What did that have to do with anything. He wasnt running for cover, he wasnt crawling around on the ground, and he wasnt holding his ears. WTF
I am not a member of that club, but I used to enjoy GSSF & IDPA events there; I have got to believe that these neighbors had some influence in the decision not to hold a GSSF there this year and that is a true loss to gunowners.
SO, I re-posted this info & the addresses above w/ an appeal for all gun-owners to join the fight to save Cavalier.
Here is the link to my post over on GlockTalk.com in the Gun Control section of that forum.
I live inside the DC beltway & probably can't make a weeknight meeting near Richmond, but I want to help fight these de-facto anti-gunners.
I can also re-post it in the GSSF section as well as the VA section if anyone thinks it might help.
BTW, I run the USPSA at Shooters Paradise in Woodbridge & I support our IDPA club as well. www.shootersparadise.com
Here are some of the thoughts (below the dashes) that I shared with a friend who did not make the meeting. He's got an ex-delegate from another part of the state that is pro gun as ex family (ya follow? heh) that he's going to try and get involved.
I'd also propose that we find a camcorder that will allow the auto gain to be disabled. Or, pick a spot, put up a camcorder, start a normal conversation and let the bullets fly!
Anybody else notice that the Doctors logic was flawed. Also, he never referenced any peer reviewed research on the "startle reflex" altho he thinks that many there are suffering from the damage that firing the startle reflex causes. Give me a break, folks get nervous in front of a mic.
The Staff's lame attempt to justify all of the restrictions by siting the organizations which they came from was lame (done very late in the meeting). They obvioiusly exercised judgement, and it always swung against the club. For instance, while it might be technically true that lead should be measured yearly, we have the benefit of hindsite here. 40 years. No lead problems. Hmmm start a yearly measure? BTW, what causes lead to migrate in the soil? Acid rain. we don't have that here, no wonder no lead contamination. But, Noooo, start measuring yearly?
If you find posted transcripts, I'd be happy to summarize it for you and Watkins. I'd also be happy to put my commentary in the notes. i.e.
One opp. Said that he glassed in his porch for sound easement, and that it made no difference at all. That's not possible. Maybe it didn't have the desired affect, or that he felt like for 10K $ he should have gotten better results, but to say it had "NO EFFECT". That's and exaggeration at best, a bold faced lie at worse.
A description of the tape should be given, or a copy. It's impossible to tell how loud the "problem" is. I sense but couldn't prove that it was grossly overstated.
All opp's could not agree on the timing that the increase occurred (99, 2000, 2001, 2002 I think were all quoted).
Several said they were worried about safety. Doesn't that make them bad parents, to continue living there (IF it were unsafe).
One proponent pointed out the use of the words "when the club closes" instead of "if the club closes". That screw up was never explained, but shows the state of mind of the "staff" imo.
Also to note is the suggestions would effectively kill training programs (scouts, 4H, etc) and the board seemed openly against that.
I could go on and on. The notes would help me structure and remember all the comments I have.
Um what startle reflex are they talking about? Did he say that loud noises were causing these people to have health problems or something from causing them to be startled?
If that were true why are there NO documented incidents coming out of iraq where the bangs actually mean something . What is his problem, he needs to lose his license to practice medicine if he is petalling that crap as an expert opinion.
My email to Hanover re. Cavalier.
Dear Mr. Gordon and Ms. Binns,
I am a member of the Cavalier Rifle and Pistol Club (CAVP), and am as well a long-standing resident and citizen of the South Ann District.
I am shocked and outraged by the County planning staff’s recommended conditions to be imposed on CAVP for permit approval. The scope and extent of these requirements are wholly unwarranted to the point of egregious unfairness. Staff cannot but be aware that CAVP could never in any practical sense meet these conditions, which have been blatantly calculated to end any viable operation of the range.
The technical evaluations upon which staff recommendations are reportedly based are seriously flawed. The consultant’s reports are sloppy and cheaply produced, and contain many omissions of information needed to thoroughly document the work performed. Key points of the environmental and safety investigations are poorly documented or wholly absent, including many details of study methods such as soil and water sample-collection and noise-measurement techniques, sampling and measurement dates, relevant weather conditions (very important for noise monitoring), or even a basic site map indicating the locations of sampling and noise measurement. The scope of these investigations would not meet any professional standards considered acceptable for such work, and fall far short of providing staff any viable means for a technically sound evaluation of CAVP. Staff having accepted these reports as being sufficient in-turn must call into question their own level of competency.
Given the context above, the staff recommendations are a thinly veiled attempt at getting CAVP shut down, and are clearly influenced by a strong bias from some source or sources aligned against CAVP. The County has been effectively hijacked into the current process by a very small but vocal minority of newcomers (in stark contrast to the much larger number of people whom CAVP has served for many years), and who wish to impose their will and outsider values upon our preexisting culture. Furthermore, allegations have surfaced of one of the chief complainers against CAVP being a government official acting as an agency insider to pursue a personal anti-shooting-sports agenda. I respectfully submit it being your responsibility, as holding a position of authority, to insure that these matters are settled with regard to the best interests of all the community and with complete impartiality, including that all manner of evaluation be undertaken without influence from any personal interests.
CAVP has always operated safely and responsibly, and with the support and participation of a large sector of the residents of Hanover County and beyond. Moreover, the club membership has always maintained a concerted effort of outreach to the community, and has contributed through many means to extend a helping hand as good neighbors. In that spirit, CAVP has to-date worked in good faith with the County to accommodate any REASONABLE conditions that may be deemed necessary. It is frankly painful to see generosity and willingness returned with such apparent favoritism to an elite minority, and with such scornful disregard for the long-standing contribution that CAVP has made to our County at-large.
My take on the meeting, from the VAIDPA web site.
The pro-Cavalier turnout was impressive. I hope everybody had one of
those big round "pro" shirt stickers on that the commissioners could
all see clearly.
I wish we had been more organized though. The pro speakers were
numerous, but also were at random and not centered around a common
effort. Many simply repeated the same general comments. Certain
individuals certainly stood out, such as the pro neighbors along
Boondock Lane, the scoutmaster, the Ladies Day lady, and the shooter-
girlscout from next door. We had a lot of good material, but could
have been made better use of.
The antis, although fewer, had clearly organized among themselves to
pool each of their speaches toward making up an overall program,
which had a sequence that developed toward a common message. They
had also obviously coordinated with the County planning staff to
organize their visual aids.
Cavalier should have done likewise by lining up a planned sequence
of speakers on the background and history of the range, and current
programs and activities, with a special emphasis on the many
community-outreach efforts (scouts, etc.). Each of the match
directors of the various competitions could/should have spoke to
explain their particular sport and argue for its value. Sporting
clays' Henry Baskerville, along with the "frontier rifles" guy, were
the only ones to do this.
Also with a little more planning, we could have done a lot to
counter the many illogical aspects of the antis arguments, such as:
(1)supposedly being pro-gun but at the same time anti-shooting
(shooting creates noise, and they are assertedely anti-noise),
(2)also supposedly not wanting to "shut down" Cavalier, but at the
same time pressing for a cessation of 90 percent of the activity
there (you can have your range, just not use it).
There seems to be an overall lack of organization to our effort. I
am hearing different things from different individuals among the
Cavalier leadership, with some asserting that the antis want "a
bunch of nonesense that we're just not going to put up with", versus
others maintaining "we're committed to reaching an agreement,
whatever it takes". We need to decide among ourselves on a single,
unified position that can be consistently pressed upon the County.
I'm pretty sure that's what the antis are doing, and to their
advantage. From the meeting, they seemed to have established a
rapport with the planning staff that I don't see happening from our
side, which seems to have a more "let the County come to us" policy.
We need to either take control of this situation, or it will take
control of us.
My forecast is that the County will conclude:
problem = noise = matches,
and that Cavalier will end up members only.
Well...any limit on membership other than what we Cavalier members self-impose?
How about offering Associate Memberships that only allow for weekend shooting or something of that nature?
The county proposal included a total membership of no more than 400 (essentially tranforming our current self-imposed cap into a PERMANENT condition of any new permit).
Cockroaches fear the light.
I'd suggest never pandering to these petty bureaucrats' desires at anonymity, but rather, name them so that they can be held accountable for their actions. Arlington County is famous for its efforts to sell "staff" as the entity that bears responsibility for all manner of ills.
It's a crock of $hit.
Staff doesn't do anything. People do things. And people have names, with which their actions should be associated.
Just a thought.
Hmmm, here is my thought. Cav should revert back to the original property covered under the original permit, remove the range house and condense range 4 back onto it. Then it would once again be grandfathered by the original zoning permit. Next they should hold a nationwide free machinegun shoot. They should offer free range time and even arange for ammo to be shipped in at costs for those that preregister. ALL machine guns and DDs would be allowed and shooting startes at sun up and goed till sun down. Then we will see how that encroches on the F*^&ing neighbors.
First, I wholly agree with the cockroach analogy.
Second though, the email was posted to John Gordon, supervisor of Hanover County's South Anna District in which Cavalier is located, and Janet Binns, also of the South Anna District and chairman of the County Planning Commission, both of whom know full well that "staff" refers to Michael Crescenzo and David Maloney, Director and Deputy Director of the County Planning Department, and their array of subordinate staff. There was no pandering, nor any anonimity for that matter, affected by the wording of the email.
The only reason I didn't name the alleged government-insider complainer is because I don't know it. The source I read on this did not give a name. At first I had inferred it was Dee Papit, the antis spokeswoman, but later learned that she works in the private sector.
With further thought, I've actually come to the belief that these events are in-fact being guided by another, entirely unseen entity that is not part of any government office or group of neighbors, and that will remain anonimous throughout. It's name is Money. Any issue of this kind is influenced by wealthy and powerful interests that have close ties to the decision makers. The area concerned is quickly tranforming into McMansion-bearing "mini estates" sold to an increasing influx of high-income corporate ladder climbers. Just think of the fortune that could be made if Cavalier's 430 acres were forced into sale, then carved up into a multitude of yuppie homesites, which would then pour their high-assessment taxes into the County coffers in perpetuity. It is the land speculators and developers, well-known and good buds with everyone in the County offices, that are having the ultimate say over Cavalier's fate.
Gulp . Sorry for the poor choice in words in my original post, which should've reflected my convictions in the form of an aphorism or homily, instead of as an accusation. Please accept my apologies. When I read bowhntr09's comments, and noticed I had not not even intimated my belief that your measured response was effective and meaningful ... and right on the mark, I nearly posted a +1. I should've critically reviewed my entire submission, and corrected/enhanced it throughout.
But "County Staff" is one of those things that irks me ...
Here in Arlington the term "County Staff" is wielded as if it means something akin to inviolable or holy. From the carefully written comments that you sent in, I was concerned that you didn't know the actual agents of these machinations within the County bureacracy. This is obviously not the case. If I know the participants involved, I name them as I joust at my own windmills here in Arlington. In this way, my contribution to the record identifies the real named persons I believe to be involved.
I agree with your supposition. We're also in the throes of 'redevelopment.' I'm amazed at my neighbors who rail against increased traffic, higher property values (with concomitant tax increases), and the loss of long-time friends who depart for greener climes ... yet welcome the redevelopment process.
Keep fighting the good fight. Every inch y'all give now, will never be gotten back in my belief.
No problem, man. I am painfully familiar with the nature of local politics, including Hanover's.
Thanks for the vote of support. We'll continue the struggle to survive, which I'm hopeful we will in some form, but likely won't come out in the same shape we went in.