I believe that this something everyone can agree to. It is simply a way to allow folks to enjoy the use of their firearms in a manner that does not put others at risk, especially our kids. I agree that this is unrelated to the current debate on gun control and should not be viewed as part of it. Sudbury can address the issue at hand and make our town safer now. Thanks, Adam Friedman.

Ridiculous, because you can hear it, doesn't mean it isn't safe. This is because someone is shooting behind Codman Drive, legally, and this resident doesn't like it. Couldn't get a certain greenhouse to cave in so let's make a law. Typical. Its funny, no one ever complained when people hunting on Blue Goose land off Lincoln Road, and look at the proximity to LSRHS.

I agree this is ridiculous. If some one want to do harm to other people they are going to do it no matter what the laws state. It is wrong to set up this kind of law towards the people who do follow the law. What about all the times the LS students had to leave the school because there might have been a bomb in it. What are people going to do about that issue. The sound of a gun being shot outside will echo no matter what.

Frankly, it horrifies me that people can feel free to fire off their guns in our neighborhoods around town for any reason. It horrifies me that there is sometimes hunting that occurs in the conservation lands. Someone could definitely get wounded, maimed or killed.

Yet more government overreach in the name of .... I am not really sure?

We have a citizen proposing that government limit the rights of an other citizen when even he admits that this will not make children or anyone else any safer. In addition, the story states that Mr. Cavanaugh heard that children could here automatic gunfire. This is highly unlikely as it is nearly impossible to get licensed for an automatic weapon in Massachusetts.

We do not need an other law. If people are using weapons illegally they should be prosecuted. If they are shooting weapons legally then they should be left alone.

I will keep this short.
First - The word Temple should no be in there. Separation of church and state and the word temple only applies to certain religions, and is therefore discriminatory.
Second - If the goal here is to alleviate the SOUND of a firearm, then this will fail to fix that. A firearm shot outside is loud and echos a great distance.
Finally - more of my point of view than a fact. I think someone twisting this story to try to take care of a problem with a neighbor is horrific. You are wasting the time of the town on a personal vendetta, shame on you.

One little note, if it is sound from codman drive, then Noyes school is over 3000ft away from the dead end as the bird flies. (according to bing distance calculator). That would rather prove that the noise exceeds a half mile and no noise would be reduced by this imitative as it is proposed. It would be nice to see the actual contents of the warrant.

Boys and girls, recall that Cavanuagh only brought the schools into the discussion AFTER Newtown. Prior to that this was strictly a NIMBY issue.

What he is really hoping to create is a buffer zone around his Codman estate. Nothing whatever having to do with school safety.

Look, I was born at night, but not last night.

Nixon Elementary is only 1800 feet from the end of Codman.

If this is more about changing the neighborhood for more of a homeowners desire then I think this is over the top.

It reminds me of people buying property near a highway then complaining about the noise. Ever notice all the sound barrier walls constructed in the past several years on our local highways? Guess who’s paying for that!

For clarification, there have been a number of incidents where weapons have been discharged within a few hundred yards of where dozens of children live and play, and within a few hundred yards of 2 elementary schools (Noyes and Nixon) and 3 churches. Some of the incidents have included semi-automatic firing of hundreds of rounds. Given that bullets from even common handguns can travel well over a mile, it's irresponsible to fire weapons so close to homes, schools, churches and children. The above reference to "temples" was mistakenly reported by SudburyPatch and should have instead referenced "churches and temples." The overall concern is for the safety of the children, not the fear of children hearing gunfire (although the sound of semi-automatic gunfire is pretty unsettling, as evidenced by all of the calls to the Sudbury police).

Some of the shooting incidents were not much more than 500 feet from homes on both Codman Dr. and Concord Rd., and the location of the shooting is much closer to the schools than the 3,000 feet cited above. The safety of children has always been the point, and efforts to create the proposed article were raised to the Town of Sudbury and Sudbury Selectman before, and unrelated to, other gun-related incidents. I am not at all anti-gun, have enjoyed shooting at a gun range myself, and I support the 2nd Amendment. That said, I don't believe it's responsible or necessary to fire guns so close to homes and schools. I've talked with many residents, gun owners, and U.S. military veterans, and their overall sentiment was that there's no need to shoot deadly weapons so close to children in homes and schools.

So when did you become the expert on what people can do with thier property or not? Why add "Deadly" other than to make this over dramatic? You're not out for anyones agenda but your own. You're trying to use the Sandy Hook shooting to push through these restrictions. So what about other towns? You going to tell them they can't shoot within 1/2 mile from Sudbury schools, churches and temples? What if it's a legal gun range? What if they aren't breaking the law? So no more hunting in or around the Sudbury area because they are too close to schools, churches and temples? And about these people you talked to, did they all feel the same way? Everyone of them? Or did you get the "overall sentiment" or how you interpreted it a.k.a your opinion? The "overall setiment" of an unknown number of residents, gun owners and U.S. millitary veterans (if they even exist) isn't going to cut it. Bring your facts and stop trying to force your opinion on other people.

This will not stop crazy people who have it in their mind set that this is what they are going to do. I would also like to see some other people that agree with you. If you plan to do this then why don't you push the issue that there should be metal decetors at the high school or at any of the schools. Why is the issue only about guns? What about knives? Knives kill people too.

I think some of the concern is that if this is not an approved gun range, it may not have the appropriate safety measures to prevent stray bullets. It's not meant to stop any violence anywhere. Would you like to be hit by a stray bullet while you walk along Concord Rd with your family?

If you can find a knife that can travel a mile if thrown inaccurately, then I think we can discuss that. For now, I'm pretty sure a thrown knife doesn't travel very far.

What about where the police shoot? That is not an approved gun range and it is near route 20 and then town dump. Why is there no fuss about that? No a knife might not travel as fas as a bullet but don't bring up schools and making them safe if you are not going to deal with other issues. The law states that you can fire a gun 500 feet away from homes.

So you are saying that the police are shooting at an illegal gun range? Pretty sure that's not the case.

I think you are being intentionally obtuse.

Is the warrant to improve his neighborhood? Probably. Is it to control the chance of a wayward bullet? Probably.

Can anyone make the schools 100% safe? No. I don't think this warrant is meant to make schools 100% safe. I don't know the sponsor, so I don't know his intent.

Are you saying if I am 500 feet from a house, I can shoot in any direction and it's legal? That should make for a fun society...

The law actually states:
Discharge of any firearm within 500 feet of a building in use is prohibited, except with the consent of the owner or legal occupant, in defense of life and property, or at licensed shooting galleries, target, test, trap or skeet ranges with the permission of the owner or legal occupant.

I have a simple solution to the sound problem that people seem to have around here. Allow the use of suppressors in Massachusetts.

Has there been an incident where a round strayed into a neighborhood or landed near a school? Why bubble wrap our town further with unnecessary regulations when the laws we have in place now are serving their purpose?

Ooohhh it's for the children's safety , sorry if this sounds sarcastic but it is ! You control freaks always try and sound like our children are in danger to spread your propaganda . Do you think they have the guns pointed in the direction of schools or houses anyway, are you that uninformed ? Before you all get hysterical and pass a bylaw that affects people's rights and INFRINGES ON THERE Contitutional rights ! Slow down and take a breath.

Reread the end of the article:

"To assure himself .. . Cavanaugh said he asked a friend who is a recreational shooter what he thought about the article.

"He shoots locally here and said he never shot within half mile of a school, <knowing how far a bullet can travel>," Cavanaugh said. "I asked him if he thought it infringed his right, and he supported it."

Cavanaugh said this effort is to support responsible gun use in town and protect children."

Why would we ever allow guns to be fired near neighborhoods, public trails, schools, etc.? Why would any thinking human being have a problem with that!!!

Too long or not what you want politicaly ?

My point: government should protect the safety of its citizens. Your right to shoot off your gun should not infringe upon the safety of citizens, "knowing how far a bullet can travel".

Yes, but people do occasionally miss, or stumble and mis- aim. Therefore - unless one has a big field that could contain the bullet travel distance on their own property, I think that observing the above boundaries is appropriate for the safety of others.

Why? Why would someone think something "had to be done about that"?

"When Jim Cavanaugh heard Sudbury children could hear automatic gunfire while playing at Nixon and Noyes elementary schools, he knew something had to be done about that."

Who exactly does this Jim Cavanaugh think he is, anyhow?

My concern about the sound of gunfire was misrepresented. I don't mind kids hearing gunfire, but when there are a couple hundred rounds fired from a semi-automatic handgun within a few hundred yards of homes, schools and playgrounds, I can assure you that it's a bit unsettling. Let's be clear, we're not talking about firing shotguns here.

That said, based on ideas and feedback from a lot of people in town, including gun owners, local business owners and historic organizations, we've made some significant changes to the proposed gun bylaw article (Article 39, to be voted on at next week's town meeting). Note that overall the proposed changes to the current bylaw are fairly minimal, and it is now very different from what was in the town warrant.

As it stands, the only real change from the current gun bylaw would be that people can’t shoot “rifles and pistols” within ½ mile of schools, playgrounds, churches with daycare, etc. NOTHING changes relative to the use of all other weapons (e.g. shotguns, BB guns, air rifles, cannons). Here is a link to the current bylaw - see SECTION 8. on page 19 - http://sudbury.ma.us/departments/Archives/doc5087/GeneralBylaws2011.pdf.

That's the CURRENT law.

Sure, I'll include them both. Here is the CURRENT/EXISTING bylaw:
SECTION 8.
No person shall fire or discharge any machine gun, cannon, pistol or revolver, rifle, air rifle or BB gun, shot gun or explosives of any kind on private property except with the written consent of the owner or legal occupant thereof or within the limits of any Town-owned public property except that, in accordance with recommended wildlife management practices, the Conservation commission, subject to any conditions it may impose, may grant permission to hunt on specific public property over which said conservation Commission has jurisdiction. Nothing in this bylaw shall be construed in such a way as to prohibit the lawful use of any of the above named guns in the defense of life or property or on any range as defined in Section 9 or in an any other manner in accordance with the General Laws of the Commonwealth. Violation of this section shall be subject to a penalty of $50.

Below is the proposed bylaw - note that much of the added language was added by the town attorney to make it clear that things like revolutionary reenactments (including muskets and cannons) are still fine to use, as always. The only real change from the current gun bylaw would be that people can’t shoot “rifles and pistols” within ½ mile of schools, playgrounds, churches with daycare, etc. NOTHING changes relative to the use of all other weapons (e.g. shotguns, BB guns, air rifles, cannons).

SECTION 8.
No person shall fire or discharge any machine gun, pistol or revolver, rifle, air rifle or BB gun, shot gun or explosives of any kind on private property except with the written consent of the owner or legal occupant thereof or within the limits of any Town-owned public property except that, in accordance with recommended wildlife management practices, the Conservation commission, subject to any conditions it may impose, may grant permission to hunt on specific public property over which said conservation Commission has jurisdiction. Notwithstanding the foregoing, no pistol or rifle shall be fired or discharged within one-half (1/2) mile of any school, daycare center, church, temple, or any public building, playground or field which children use for sports or other activities.

(cont.)
Nothing in this bylaw shall be construed in such a way as to prohibit the lawful use of any of the above named guns weapons in the defense of life or property, including but not limited to removal of a rabid animal, or on any range as defined in Section 9 or in any other manner in accordance with the General Laws of the Commonwealth limited by the discharge limits set forth herein concerning discharge of a weapon near a residence. This section shall not apply to the discharge of historic or reproduction muskets and other weapons, including cannons, fired by organizations or partnerships for theatrical, athletic, educational, ceremonial or other purposes as licensed or authorized by the General Laws. . Violation of this section shall be subject to a penalty of $300.

Again, the only real change from the current bylaw would be that people can’t shoot “rifles and pistols” within ½ mile of schools, playgrounds, churches with daycare, etc. NOTHING changes relative to the use of all other weapons (e.g. shotguns, BB guns, air rifles, cannons).

So, you would take away the CIVIL RIGHTS of ALL of the citizens of town, so one or two people won't get all nervous because of some noise? Are you banning loud cars and motorcycles as well? Has Sudbury fallen THIS FAR?

Delete
R. Dubey
9:31 am on Monday, May 6, 2013
Pathetic that a place that has a zipcode of 01776 because at one time it had a huge standing of minutemen who were there to defent the rights of people who were getting their rights trampled on is now a bastion of libtard knee jerk fear over tools the don't like or understand.
Oh and Jim: No you didn't.
"I've talked with many residents, gun owners, and U.S. military veterans, and their overall sentiment was that there's no need to shoot deadly weapons so close to children in homes and schools."
What you did talk to, if those were veterans and gun owners, and they did indeed say that, are the equveleant of Jews that helped the Nazis to save their own asses. Any veteran or gun owner that would spout such a rediculous statement is a traitor of the highest caliber (no pun intended). I find your justification, or the attempted justification invoking the words of supposed veterans and gun owners kind of repugnant.
This is simply people who don't like guns, and have no use for guns, (essentially the kind of idiot that thinks putting up a "Gun Free Zone" sign keeps ANYONE safe) to take them away from those who have done nothing wrong with them; using a tragety as fuel for their foolishness.

Reply

This idea is pure horse-hockey. I think this is basically Jim C. and a few others trying to force their ideas and project their fears onto others. I think the Town of Sudbury is smarter than that, and will reject this idea soundly.

Robert Fucci, if you're trying to be a journalist, your article is a failure.

First, it reeks of a bias: "...he knew something needed to be done." That's a big assumption!

Second, you have one source: one guy's opinion. There's no mention of his obvious ulterior motives or any dissenting perspectives. The support this bylaw based on 1) JCs opinion, & 2) JCs claim that someone agreed with him. Are you kidding me?!

Lazy journalism is a tragedy. For your sake, I hope you're just tragic. I really hope Cavenaugh isn't a political hack, because then you'd be a bootlicker.

Jim Cavanaugh, your crusade to "save the children" is insulting. The loose connection between a person's right to shoot on their property and proximity to schools/etc. reeks of assault weapons ban scare tactics.

You know that kids are *not* hearing "automatic weapons".

You also know that nobody's shooting rounds wildly or with a clear shot toward people.

This bylaw is an attempt to solve a petty neighborhood dispute. Basically, you don't like the sounds of guns going off near your McMansion.

You're inciting dramatic people with scare tactics. You only care about your property value, a quiet back yard, and attracting more people like you to Sudbury.

I recognize the names of some of the posters here as Sudbury townies - these people disagree with you. They've been here for generations. They're not political hacks or rich-boys. Who the heck are you?

- Former Sudbury resident

Wow... as a resident of neighboring Lincoln I can't believe what I'm reading about here.

This area is supposed to be one of the most educated in the country and yet these days it seems that it's full of nothing but activists with diminished IQs and an undying quest to destroy the rights and quality of life of their own neighborhoods and communities.

Please leave the phony politics in D.C. and keep them out of our local towns ok?

This has nothing to do with high-IQ or Washington politics.

Let me get on your level and explain this...

What you see are normal people getting pissed when one guy (Jim) evokes fear from an unrelated tragedy to push his personal agenda.

Jim and his neighbors want to protect their $1M property values. This is not about "protecting the children" or anti-gun action.

He and a few neighbors complained of noise back in Dec '12. They said they were scared about people shooting irresponsibly near their houses/kids. A previous Patch article covered this (irresponsibly). It was clearly explained and verified as responsible and legal use.

Let's assume Jim works from home & got a gaudy McMansion at the peak of the real estate boom. Like many, he probably did this to get his kid into Sudbury's schools.

These ostentatious homes are wedged between a set of railroad tracks and two of the busiest roads in Sudbury. I used to party on those tracks as a kid. There's a massively busy park ("Featherland") across from his house and a church in his backyard.

He and his neighbors don't like to hear loud noises. Fine. They're ignorant about guns too. Okay.

The real problem is they are too arrogant and fearful to have a real, diplomatic conversation with the owners directly about the noise of their lawful use of land.

He did the same thing when a church did a renovation in 2004...straight to the zoning board meetings to whine and posture.

A church! within 1/2 mile of a home? Do you know how much noise those church bells make. Then there is all the traffic that gets generate. We really need to do something about that. Its for the safety of our children.

Slightly more serious note. I noticed that the article needs just a majority to pass. Why is the default a 2/3's majority and this one is just greater than 1/2?

If residents want help fighting this I would suggest you contact myself on facebook. I formed Westford Pro 2A and we got the gun ban proposal removed from the town warrant and we were able to replace the selectman who proposed the ban in town elections last week.

Wow, I'm shocked that so many people are opposed to this. A legal gun range is one thing, but shooting rifles in your backyard when you live in a populated area is a totally different story. Kudos to you, Jim for taking this on. I hope you don't let these vocal few dissuade you. I'll be there to support your cause when this comes for a vote.

Well be shocked stupid. Its called a right, not a need for a reason. You are the kind of dimwit that will applaud what you dont understand. If you set up a safe place to shoot on your own property there is no issue as long as it conforms to existing laws that were put into effect for a reason. Please shut up about the kids the kids, that gets old after a while. You are just a bunch of ignorant anti gun people and nothing can be said to change your minds. Even though no one has ever even almost been injured in that town. We arent a vocal few you dolt. Unless you believe that 90% drivel that even the FBI say isnt true.

Actually, I think I have a pretty good understanding of the issue. I grew up in rural upstate NY, in an area where pretty much everyone was a member of a gun club. We always knew when hunting season started (gotta love that 6am gunfire wake-up). BUT, we had common sense laws on the books regarding where you could fire weapons, and where you couldn't. In fact, our bylaws were very similar to those that Jim is proposing. Specifically, there was a minimum distance to populated areas required.

You're entitled to your opinion, Dubey. You can rant and rave and use your thesaurus to come up with all sorts of ways to insult my intelligence. But I pay taxes in this town and therefore I have the right to vote in support of this when the time comes. And, assuming you are a Sudbury resident, you can vote against it.

I don't need a thesaurus to talk down to you because you're a fool.

Jen--

If a safe and effective backstop can be designed, created, and maintained--HOW is your position in any way "reasonable"? You are depriving someone else of their rightful liberty without cause.

Is there any reason you feel you are (somehow) entitled to do this? Because you "pay taxes"? What? You don't just get to make up laws which infringe (does that word sound familiar to you--infringe?) on other people's Constitutional RIGHTS.

Are you NOT aware of that?

I recall when "liberalism" was about freedom. But something changed in the late 1980's--I think it was the ironic lack of tolerance and innate Stalinist bent of "Political Correctness"--but classic liberalism began a descent into condescending, deluded, and self-righteous totalitarianism.

You need ot take hard look at yourselves and consider carefully whether you are in fact Americans. The Founding Fathers would have suggested you catch a boat to somewhere else--because the notion of freedom was foreign to your souls.

Liberals today seem to think it is an appropriate function of government to keep us "safe" from sugar and salt by passing laws about what size sodas we can drink, and that their fellow citizens are all functional incompetents who need to be protected from themselves by the wise and benevolent hand of a trustworthy and benevolent State Authority.

Horsesh*t.