No argument there.
Brokaw has no rIght to interfere in another's business enterprise on the BUSINESS owners PROPERTY!
Neither do they have a right to interfere with Brokaw's use of HIS PROPERTY. Bullets flying into HIS PROPERTY interferes with his use of the property.
Property rights cut both ways. That's the point.
The logic Brokaw is using could also assume that someone driving an automobile on the same road as Brokaw could also stray over the center line and involve Brokaw in an accident. Could Brokaw request a written guarantee from each driver that MIGHT be on the road that they won't cause an accident with him?
The road is a public commons, not private property. Thus the two instances are not at all analogous. Given that it is a public commons, Brokaw can't insist on anything because State law is the governing authority. Therefore, no, but not for the reasons you are trying to advance. Were that a private road, it might be a different story.
There is no such thing as a material guarantee and asking for such is arrogant.
That's a value judgment on your part. Brokaw can ask for anything he wants. To insist your idea of reasonableness has the force of law is arrogant on your part.
"Bullets flying into HIS PROPERTY interferes with his use of the property."
Brokaw has not proven that bullets have come on to his property from the property in question so isn't it an assumption on his part that a bullet might arrive there?
With the velocity of some rifle,s bullets can travel over a mile unobstructed. So can Brokaw ask for a mile wide buffer zone around his property to protect from his inflated assumption that bullets are going to rain down on his property?
And where is the interferance on his property demonstrated?
Alleging that a bullet may be flying on to his property is assuming danger is imminent. But with the large expanse of area involved, including trees and hills, a microscopic threat with odds in the billions that a 1/4 inch piece of lead is going to travel unobstructed and cause grave injury is.....like a fly speck on a picture window blocking sun light.
Completely irrational. Reinforcing that Brokaw is anti gun, anti hunting, and looking for an excuse to deny lawful citizens their right because he don't believe in the 2nd Amendment. That is the crux of the matter. Brokaw found a sympathetic judge and with a little elitist pressure denies the rights of adjoining property owners.