Updated July 3, 2023.
I posted an article a few days ago about someone who just built a new home in Ivins with an indoor shooting range in their basement. But they can’t use it because the city has an ordinance prohibiting the discharge of firearms.
So, the city council is considering changing our ordinance about discharging firearms so they can use it and anyone else can build a below-ground shooting range in residential neighborhoods.
I was originally against the ordinance change for a number of reasons, including an objection that someone would build something they were not allowed and then ask for permission to use it. I apologize. I was wrong to describe the situation that way.
I talked to the homeowner and it’s clear the city council did not have all the facts because it appears the city didn’t know them. That’s because the building inspector who reviewed and approved the building plans no longer works for Ivins. I also reached out to that building official to get the actual story and he confirmed the homeowner’s explanation.
The homeowner was up front with the city from the beginning. In fact, the city’s building inspector connected the homeowner to a shooting range consultant so the range would be built safely, with a lot more concrete in the walls, ceiling, and floors, along with heavy duty ventilation, sound barriers, etc.
So, now here we are dealing with two related but very different issues: (1) An individual homeowner who can’t use part of his home even though the city approved it, and (2) a potential workaround that would open up the ability to build and use below-ground shooting ranges anywhere in the city.
I was wrong to voice my objections to the homeowner’s actions. He did what he was allowed to do and used professional advice to do it properly. But I am still opposed to adding this exception to our firearms discharge ordinance.
I believe that this use does not belong in any residential neighborhood. That is not because I am opposed to guns. I am not opposed to guns. I own guns. Gun ranges exist in Washington County. They are not in residential neighborhoods. I also oppose changing any ordinance unless the changes clearly support the needs of the community.
But it looks like a majority of the council disagrees with me. I believe that mostly stems from the position that property owners should have the freedom to use their homes as they see fit. I get that. If we were proposing to take away a freedom that property owners have been enjoying for years, I’d have trouble with that. But we’re not taking away anything by leaving the restrictions as is. They have been in place for years.
But this situation creates a dilemma. It is now clear the homeowner did nothing wrong in building the shooting range in his home. That doesn’t violate any building codes and it was known by and approved by the city. And it sounds like he built it to the safety standards of a professional range at significant additional cost.
But someone should have known about the city code that prohibits discharging firearms. Is that a situation of “buyer beware” and incumbent on the homeowner to know? Or should the city have told the homeowner about it, especially since it is buried in 257 pages of city regulations?
Or, is it now just a matter of what’s done is done and we need to figure out a solution? If it’s the latter, then let’s solve the problem for this situation, not open up the opportunity to build shooting ranges in any residential neighborhood in the city.
UPDATE: On July 20, 2023 the City Council approved allowing below ground shooting ranges anywhere in Ivins. Lance and Adel voted in favor, Jenny and I voted against. Dennis was absent (but indicated he was in favor at prior meetings) so the mayor broke the tie by voting in favor.
Well articulated article with accountability on your part Mike; nicely done. After reading the article and the comments I wanted to voice a different view to the situation. Guns and their risks already exist in many homes, several may be not be in safes or locks and may possibly not be used with gun safety principles. Anyone with a gun range would be savvy enough to practice safe firearms principles. My understanding is that this is the only private range in all of Southern Utah, I’m not sure we would see an increase in private ranges. If this range is underground, stray bullets and noise are not a concern. If the criteria and cost for building a private range are cumbersome and prohibitive, this may not be much of an issue.
I agree with you for all reasons you list that shooting ranges in residences are not appropriate. It should be an easy “no” for the council for the reasons you list.
We don’t always agree, but I totally appreciate your sensible explanations and outreach. I think having gun ranges in houses is a horrible idea, but as you said it seems like the council is going to allow it anyway.
I didn’t see any regulations regarding indoor gun ranges for commercial gun ranges in Ivins, but what I would suggest is to have the same kind of regulations for residential. Yes, some of them are specified in the ordinance as proposed. I don’t think the regulation of the indoor shooting range should be specified in 7.12.102. That section deals with when it is appropriate to discharge firearms. I think it should list the exception with the condition that it has to meet the same minimum requirements of a commercial gun range (plus some). And then define those requirements as applicable in code specifically set up to regulate commercial guns ranges (maybe in the business section of the code?)
I am not an expert in deciding what the requirements for a commercial gun range should be, and neither should the guy who built one in his home, so I would suggest getting in contact with an expert or maybe look at code developed in other cities that regulate theirs. We shouldn’t be guessing on what *might* prevent a stray bullet.
I think there should be something restricting hours of use (because you know it won’t be silent despite that being in the code) and require sobriety and possibly even appropriate age ranges of who can be present. Just throwing things out there that I think could be considered.
It might be expensive to comply, but you can’t be too safe when it comes to protecting the lives of those around. Houses on their own do not prevent stray bullets from killing someone.
In terms of the issue with the shooting range in the basement of a home, it is incomprehensible to me that anyone representing the City could have approved the building of that range in spite of the ordinance prohibiting the discharge of a firearm in a residential area. Whomever did so should bear the consequences of making this right for both the homeowner and the other residents of Ivins.
I am strongly opposed to changing that ordinance. In my opinion, to do so would be reckless and would set a precedent that would lead us down a very dangerous path. I believe whomever approved the plan for the homeowner to build that range in his basement should be held liable to reimburse the homeowner for all of the incremental expenses he incurred in building it, and we should keep the ordinance as is.
This is a very difficult situation, but eliminating an ordinance that is on the books for a very good reason, simply to get out of a situation that never should have happened in the first place, to me is simply not justified.
Wow. Does the City have E&O insurance? Without changing the Ordinance, which I don’t believe the City should do, the City would have to reimburse the homeowner for the money spent to make the gun range. Or is there a possibility of granting a conditional use permit? I see the big picture being 1) public safety and 2) the noise issue. Therefore, if both of these are properly addressed that may be the appropriate solution.
I appreciate this update Mike. It sounds like the homeowner and the city were sort of in the pickle. If the building inspector approved the underground indoor shooting range but it was against the city ordinances, I can see how the city council might be in a bind and feel obligated to vote in favor of it. There is perhaps details you might have omitted, but if the home owner is litigious, I can see the threat of litigation here. It’s an unfortunate situation all around because I truly don’t think that an underground shooting range is appropriate for a residential zone. While it’s good that there was extra precautions taken with regards to the construction, the fact that this is a private dwelling means it very likely won’t be subject to the same scrutiny and inspection as a commercial shooting range. Also, I feel concerned for the surrounding residents, especially children. The existence of a private shooting range probably increases the likelihood of guests/visitors coming to use the range, which means a higher frequency of guns in the area. I floated this scenario at our 4th of July barbecue with many of my friends and family and asked for their take on this. All of them (many gun owners) universally panned the idea. At the very least, I would think that the homeowner should have been required to get buy-in from many of the surrounding neighbors. This seems like the type of decision that should be a yes/no vote on a a city-wide referendum. In any event, I think your vote is correct. I hope this home is far away from us.
Good job, Mike! Thanks for the clarification. There is no need for an exception to this ordinance. Does it serve the common good? This ordinance has been in place for years. It is up to the Planning Commission, the City Council, and the Building Inspector to be vigilant on our behalf and adhere to established law. It seems inappropriate to start changing established wise ordinances for one individual at a time.
I agree with Mike that ordinances, especially ones so clearly involving public safety, should not be changed unless in response to a community need.
No such need exists in regards to discharging firearms within the city limits, and the ignorance a a city employee(s), and the financial burden placed on the homeowner because of their ignorance is absolutely no justification for an ordinance change.
Thanks for the update, Mike. I appreciate your effort to get to the facts. However, making this an allowable or even a conditional use in a residential zone is still unwise. If we are using the excuse that this is an effort to protect everyone’s freedom, then let’s eliminate many planning and zoning regulations. I am being facetious… We need to know that granting certain unregulated freedoms can rob a neighbor of their freedom. Where does this stop?