H. 447
The Senate proposed to the House to amend House bill, entitled
An act relating to municipal regulation of firearms and hunting, fishing, and trapping;
By striking all after the enacting clause and inserting in lieu thereof the following:
Sec. 1. 10 V.S.A. § 5227 is amended to read:
§ 5227. SPORT SHOOTING RANGES; MUNICIPAL AND STATE AUTHORITY
(a) "Sport shooting range" or "range" means an area designed and operated for the use of archery, rifles, shotguns, pistols, skeet, trap, black powder, or any other similar sport shooting.
(b) The owner or operator of a sport shooting range, and a person lawfully using the range, who is in substantial compliance with any noise use condition of any issued municipal or state land use permit otherwise required by law shall not be subject to any civil liability for damages or any injunctive relief resulting from noise or noise pollution, notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary.
© If no municipal or state land use permit is otherwise required by law, then the owner or operator of the range and any person lawfully using the range shall not be subject to any civil liability for damages or any injunctive relief relating to noise or noise pollution.
(d) Nothing in this section shall prohibit or limit the authority of a municipality or the state to enforce any condition of a lawfully issued and otherwise required permit.
(e)(1) In the event that the owner, operator, or user of a range is not afforded the protection set forth in subsection (b) or (c) of this section, this subsection shall apply. A nuisance claim against a range may only be brought by an owner of property abutting the range. The range shall have a rebuttable presumption that the range does not constitute any form of nuisance if the range meets the following conditions:
(A) the range was established prior to the acquisition of the property owned by the person bringing the nuisance claim; and
(B) the frequency of the shooting or other alleged nuisance activity at the range has not significantly increased since acquisition of the property owned by the person bringing the nuisance claim.
(2) The presumption that the range does not constitute a nuisance may be rebutted only by an abutting property owner showing that the activity has a noxious and significant interference with the use and enjoyment of the abutting property.
(f) Prior to use of a sport shooting range after dark for purposes of training conducted by a federal, state, county, or municipal law enforcement agency, the sport shooting range shall notify those homeowners and businesses with property abutting the range that have requested such notice from the range.
(g) If any subsection of this section is held invalid, the invalidity does not affect the other subsections of this section that can be given effect without the invalid subsection, and for this purpose, the subsections of this section are severable.
Sec. 2. 10 V.S.A. § 5227a is added to read:
§ 5227a. SPORT SHOOTING RANGE ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION
Upon request of a homeowner or business that owns property abutting a sport shooting range, a range shall, at least once, attempt to resolve through mediation an issue or dispute that the homeowner or business has concerning operation of the range. The parties to such mediation may agree upon the use of a mediator to assist in the resolution of the agreed upon issue or dispute and the parties shall share the cost of the mediator. If the parties to the mediation are unable to resolve the relevant issue or dispute through mediation, the parties may agree to submit the issue or dispute to binding arbitration pursuant to chapter 192 of Title 12 and shall share the cost of the arbitration.
Sec. 3. 24 V.S.A. § 2291 is amended to read:
§ 2291. ENUMERATION OF POWERS
For the purpose of promoting the public health, safety, welfare and convenience, a town, city or incorporated village shall have the following powers:
* * *
(8) To regulate or prohibit the use or discharge, but not possession of, firearms within the municipality or specified portions thereof, provided that an ordinance adopted under this subdivision shall be consistent with section 2295 of this title and shall not prohibit, reduce, or limit discharge at any existing sport shooting range, as that term is defined in section 5227 of Title 10.
Sec. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE
This act takes effect upon passage.
The Committee further recommends that after passage of the bill the title be amended to read as follows:
AN ACT RELATING TO SPORT SHOOTING RANGES
Pending the question, Shall the House concur in the Senate proposal of amendment? Rep. Deen of Westminster moved that the House concur in the Senate proposal of amendment with a further amendment thereto:
First: In Sec. 1, 10 V.S.A. § 5227, by striking the second sentence of subdivision (e)(1) and inserting in lieu thereof the following:
A nuisance claims against a range may only be brought by a person owning or occupying property in the immediate neighborhood of a sport shooting range.
Second: In Sec. 1, 10 V.S.A. § 5227, by striking "an abutting property owner" where it appears in subdivision (e)(2) before "showing that the activity" and after "rebutted by" and by striking "abutting property" where it appears after "enjoyment of the" and inserting in lieu thereof "surrounding neighborhood"
Third: In Sec. 2, by striking "prohibit, reduce, or limit" where it appears in subdivision (8) before "discharge at any existing" and after "and shall not" and inserting in lieu thereof "prohibit or reduce"
Pending the question, Shall the House concur in the Senate proposal of amendment with a further amendment thereto offered by Rep. Deen of Westminster?
Recess
At eleven o'clock and forty minutes in the forenoon, the Speaker declared a recess until fall of the gavel.
At twelve o'clock and thirty minutes in the afternoon, the Speaker called the House to order.
Consideration Resumed;
Senate Proposal of Amendment Concurred in
H. 447
Consideration resumed on House bill, entitled
An act relating to municipal regulation of firearms and hunting, fishing, and trapping;
Pending the question Shall the House concur in the Senate proposal of amendment with a further amendment thereto offered by Rep. Deen of Westminster? Rep. Deen of Westminster asked and was granted leave of the House to withdraw his amendment.
Pending the question, Shall the House concur in the Senate proposal of amendment? Rep. Sunderland of Rutland Town demanded the Yeas and Nays, which demand was sustained by the Constitutional number. The Clerk proceeded to call the roll and the question, Shall the House concur in the Senate proposal of amendment? was decided in the affirmative. Yeas, 126. Nays, 7.
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Acinapura of Brandon
Adams of Hartland
Allaire of Rutland City
Allard of St. Albans Town
Ancel of Calais
Atkins of Winooski
Audette of S. Burlington
Baker of West Rutland
Bartlett of Dover
Bohi of Hartford
Bostic of St. Johnsbury
Botzow of Pownal
Branagan of Georgia
Brennan of Colchester
Canfield of Fair Haven
Clark of St. Johnsbury
Clark of Vergennes
Clarkson of Woodstock
Condon of Colchester
Copeland-Hanzas of Bradford
Corcoran of Bennington
Darrow of Dummerston
Dates of Shelburne
DePoy of Rutland City
Donahue of Northfield
Donovan of Burlington
Dostis of Waterbury
Dowland of Holland
Dunsmore of Georgia
Edwards of Brattleboro
Emmons of Springfield
Errecart of Shelburne
Evans of Essex
Fallar of Tinmouth
Fisher of Lincoln
Flory of Pittsford
Frank of Underhill
French of Randolph
Gervais of Enosburg
Grad of Moretown
Haas of Rochester
Heath of Westford
Helm of Castleton
Hosford of Waitsfield
Houston of Ferrisburgh
Howard of Rutland City
Howrigan of Fairfield
Hube of Londonderry
Hudson of Lyndon
Hunt of Essex
Hutchinson of Randolph
Jewett of Ripton
Johnson of South Hero
Johnson of Canaan
Kainen of Hartford
Kennedy of Chelsea
Keogh of Burlington
Kilmartin of Newport City
Kitzmiller of Montpelier
Klein of East Montpelier
Koch of Barre Town
Komline of Dorset
Krawczyk of Bennington
Kupersmith of S. Burlington
Larocque of Barnet
Larrabee of Danville
Larson of Burlington
LaVoie of Swanton
Lawrence of Lyndon
Leriche of Hardwick
Lippert of Hinesburg
Livingston of Manchester
Lorber of Burlington
Louras of Rutland City
Malcolm of Pawlet
Marcotte of Coventry
Marron of Stowe
Martin of Wolcott
Masland of Thetford
McAllister of Highgate
McCullough of Williston
McFaun of Barre Town
Milkey of Brattleboro
Miller of Shaftsbury
Miller of Elmore
Minter of Waterbury
Molloy of Arlington
Monti of Barre City
Mook of Bennington
Morley of Barton
Morrissey of Bennington
Myers of Essex
Nease of Johnson
Niquette of Colchester
Nitka of Ludlow
Obuchowski of Rockingham
O'Donnell of Vernon
Otterman of Topsham
Parent of St. Albans City
Pearson of Burlington
Peaslee of Guildhall
Perry of Richford
Peterson of Williston
Pillsbury of Brattleboro
Potter of Clarendon
Randall of Troy
Reese of Pomfret
Rodgers of Glover
Rusten of Halifax
Severance of Colchester
Sharpe of Bristol
Shaw of Derby
Smith of New Haven
Smith of Morristown
Sunderland of Rutland Town
Sweaney of Windsor
Tracy of Burlington
Trombley of Grand Isle
Turner of Milton
Valliere of Barre City
Westman of Cambridge
Winters of Swanton
Winters of Williamstown
Wright of Burlington
Young of Orwell
Zuckerman of Burlington
Those who voted in the negative are:
Brooks of Montpelier
Cross of Winooski
Deen of Westminster
Green of Berlin
Pellett of Chester
Seibert of Norwich
Shand of Weathersfield
Those members absent with leave of the House and not voting are:
Aswad of Burlington
Barnard of Richmond
Chen of Mendon
Donaghy of Poultney
Endres of Milton
Head of S. Burlington
Jerman of Essex
Keenan of St. Albans City
Maier of Middlebury
Marek of Newfane
Martin of Springfield
McLaughlin of Royalton
Nuovo of Middlebury
Orr of Charlotte
Partridge of Windham
Pugh of S. Burlington
Rep. Dunsmore of Georgia explained his vote as follows:
"Madam Speaker:
We have done a wonderful thing for the future generations of sportsmen and sportswomen in the state of Vermont."
Rep. Green of Berlin explained his vote as follows:
"Madam Speaker:
I voted no to the Senate rewrite of H. 447 to prevent the future inappropriate siting of new firing ranges, not to close or limit the operations of any existing ranges, and not to prevent the appropriate citing of firing ranges in the future."