AZ:No Shooting Unless Zoned for it? Rancher Prevails Against Zoning Department

Gun Watch ^ | 13 December, 2013 | Dean Weingarten

[marktwain]

Shooting in the Arizona Desert has a long history

An interesting case from Arizona, where a rancher was dragged into court on the unfounded pretext that he was illegally building a shooting range on his large acreage near Prescott. From the Daily Courier:

PRESCOTT - In what has become an issue pitting gun rights against land use codes, a Williamson Valley landowner had his Second Amendment rights upheld in a Tuesday hearing in Prescott.

Brad DeSaye, owner of Headhunter Ranch LLC, said he never intended to build gun ranges on his properety. (sic)

"The wild rumors that brought us to this point hopefully were dispelled a little bit," DeSaye said. "I feel vindicated that they dismissed it, but at the same time I feel frustrated and I expect the county to come back at me in a different way. This is a private property right; a Second Amendment issue."

DeSaye and his attorney must have been persuasive, because the the County ruled in his favor:

After more than three hours of testimony on Tuesday, Yavapai County Hearing Officer Peter Van Harin ruled in DeSaye's favor, allowing him to shoot firearms on his property, overriding the objections of his neighbors and Yavapai County land use officials.

The ruling was in his favor, because the property is zoned agricultural, which is excepted from most of the intricate, detailed, incredibly controlling and confining zoning laws.   If Yavapai County has the same base code as Yuma, County (which I am familiar with), then for most areas, the code says, anything that is not allowed in the code, is forbidden.   This is directly in conflict with the basic American philosophy of the law, which is "Anything that is not forbidden, is allowed".   That difference was noted by one of the commenters later:

A quote from a Yavapai County bureaucrat who testified at the hearing:—

Lynn Chaplin

If a County Ordinance doesn’t permit the activity, the activity is disallowed. No shooting allowed under Ordinance 400, so “no shooting as a matter of right” Simply stated, “you are not allowed to shoot cans on your property.”

This is absurd. If it's not expressly allowed it's prohibited??

Yet, that is precisely how most zoning codes work.  Some further information from the comments tells us much more about the situation.   This is not a 1.25 acre "horse ranch" in the suburbs:

I was at the hearing. I went there thinking it Desaye was trying to pull a fast one. After hearing the evidence there was no other possible outcome. Not only did he spend about a million dollars for the ranch, he has spent several hundered thousand since then on drilling wells, water pumps, ponds to irrigate his property. He has a several generation family history in flood irrigation and clearly (after all the rumors were squelched) is interested in having a self sustaining ranch. He also likes to shoot. None if this is against the law. The country wrote the rules, he has abided by them. Why is he guilty of anything? Just becuase the nieghbors dont like it doesnt mean it is illegal. P.S. After driving to the property I discovered this "neighborhood" is in the middle of nowhere, its pretty flat and you can see forever. Gues what. No houses can be seen in any direction. Good Greif people. I thought there was something sinister going on but when I look at it I cant belive anyone has the nerve to cry victim out there. Where are all these neighbors living- its not close- thats for sure. The neighbors whining the loudest in the hearing were several miles from Desays ranch. Bullets whizzing over your head? Yeah right. Not possible.

Some good may come of this case.  One commenter promises:

To say that the 2nd Am does not protect shooting is like saying that the first amendment does not protect typing. Its' an absurd position to take.

This is CLEARLY A 2A ISSUE.

This case a spurred a movement to pass statewide legislation to prevent counties from trying this nonsense again. I predict it will pass.

I will be watching the Arizona Citizens Defense League (AZCDL) to see if and when a bill is put forward.


©2013 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch

[cloudmountain]

We moved to AZ from San Diego this past summer. Along the way, we hit Yuma at around 12:30am. It was 102 degrees... in the middle of the night.
It was quite a “Welcome to Arizona!” moment.

I always thought that San Diego had almost perfect weather. I loved it there.

Yes, 102 degrees at midnight. I can only suppose that you LOVE the heat.

My husband and I lived in Saudi Arabia. I remember one day when I was in the gulf. It was 117 degrees, the water was 95 degrees and the humidity was 95%. I wondered WHAT THE HELL I WAS DOING THERE. Making LOTS of $$$$, that's what. We could afford a home in the Bay Area after two years there, came home after five years abroad and we had the house PAID off in nine years...

There was a GOOD reason to go to that oven of a country. But to CHOOSE to move to 102 degrees? I can only imagine your A.C. bill. Wow, almost as bad as the heating cost for the Midwest winters. :o)

Good luck. Wear a hat, with a bill, out of door always; always wear GOOD sunglasses; drink LOTS of water and stay thin.

[cloudmountain]

I like the way you write your recollections.

Thanks.
I always did like to write.

[cloudmountain]

1. Lived in Yuma for a few years in the mid sixties. I had a significant out of warranty problem with my Kombi wagon. The dealership there also had that strong German presence, and volunteered to do the two day repair job free because “our cars should not have that problem”.
2. Prescott has been impacted by significant numbers of California libs moving in and bringing their “sensitivities” with them.

1. Hooray for the Krauts!

2. Boo!! I sympathize with you but....better THERE with you all than here in California. Damn their sensitivities. Tell'em that if they don't like your plain speaking they can "get outta Dodge!!" Send them to ObamaTown!! :o)

[cloudmountain]

“My mother was from Phoenix,” ....and all else you wrote
***********************************
Very good posting of memories, CM! Prompted me to think of some of mine.

Thanks. Those were such nice memories for me, as you can tell.
I miss them as they have all passed.

I'm glad to have prompted you to think of your good memories. They are instant warm fuzzies!

[cloudmountain]

“OH NO! Not Yuma! Over 100,000 people there?”
1. That is permanent residents. Our winter population swells 3X and traffic is annoying in the middle of the day.
2. I looked at Alaska, but it was so rainy and cold...

1. THREE times larger? Wow. I imagine the traffic would be horrible since the town wasn't originally built to handle all the cars. Sigh. That's what you get for living in such a nice place.

2. Alaska IS beautiful, they say. All the travel shows produce all those WONDERFUL scenes. But, it IS in the Arctic Circle. Seals, polar bears, caribou and wolves...that is THEIR home, not ours.

[cloudmountain]

Alaska: forgot one other critter: MOSQUITOES. Yikes.

I think I'll pass.

[WhistlingPastTheGraveyard]

Oh no, we were only passing through Yuma on our way to the Desert Hills area north of Scottsdale. It’s still hot in the summer months, but not triple-digits-at-midnight hot.

San Diego was the most ideal climate I’ve ever experienced. Unfortunately, it’s still in California.

[cloudmountain]

Oh no, we were only passing through Yuma on our way to the Desert Hills area north of Scottsdale. It’s still hot in the summer months, but not triple-digits-at-midnight hot.
San Diego was the most ideal climate I’ve ever experienced. Unfortunately, it’s still in California.

Desert Hills: (from Wikipedia)
As of the census of 2000, there were 2,183 people, 997 households, and 677 families residing in the CDP. The population density was 463.8 people per square mile (179.0/km²). There were 1,463 housing units at an average density of 310.8/sq mi (119.9/km²). The racial makeup of the CDP was 93.08% White, 0.14% Black or African American, 0.55% Native American, 0.37% Asian, 4.44% from other races, and 1.42% from two or more races. 9.30% of the population were Hispanic or Latino of any race.

Well, I wish you luck in Arizona. My mother was born there and there wasn't much going on. Still isn't. If it's the quiet life you want, you picked a good stop.
You will also learn about THEIR problems. You might even admit to yourself one day, in the quiet of your own space, that California wasn't as bad as you thought.

Remember:
1. You get what you pay for.
2. There's no such thing as a free lunch.

Indians run the place. Each county is named after a tribe. They rule the roost and you will have to learn that in Arizona YOU are the second class citizen. The Indians, ANY Indians are the first class citizens.
Remember also, Indians have the worst alcohol problem in this country--hales back to their Asia-Siberia roots.

[Cyber Liberty]

An interesting perspective about the Indians ruling the roost.

[cloudmountain]

An interesting perspective about the Indians ruling the roost.

When I saw it with my own eyes, I was very interested. These same Indians have horrific alcohol abuse problems so they are NOT to be envied.

I saw many working Indians. They ran the reservations, of course, but they also ran many of the tourist industries...Grand Canyon for one. It's good for them and I really hope they slowly wean themselves out of their INSISTENT Indian focus. If they don't, they will continue to be marginalized in their own country.

I see their dilemma: they want the money and justification from the inequities of their past. BUT they can't mope and whine forever. Doing so will keep them whining and moping and NOT becoming part of working middle class America.