JD21 wrote:
I would imagine the basis of a legal civil claim would be aimed at: 1. The person for operating an 'unsafe' private shooting range
It isn't a private shooting range. It is a private residence. Of course, it depends on the city/state, but, in most rural areas, firing a firearm is perfectly legal and not a "shooting range." In WI, folks deer and duck hunt on public and private land all the time. Having multiple people hunting on the same piece of land does not create a "private shooting range."
JD21 wrote:
2. Not providing proper supervision thus allowing an irresponsible shooter causing a bullet to strike my houseJD21 wrote:
3. My family are now afraid to be near a window or walk outside for fear of a stray bullet to the side of the headJD21 wrote:
4. Lay partial blame on the city for allowing an unsafe private shooting rangeJD21 wrote:
5. The usual, "it's not about the money it's about keeping our families safe from bullets" ....but it'll really be about moneyJD21 wrote:
In California, you'd have lawyers lining up to take this case and it would make it's way into a courtroom (in my non-lawyer opinion).Well, fortunately, most of us live in the United States and don't have to worry about that.
JD21 wrote:
Given Sir.Vaylo has already stated he's closing the shooting range and no more shooting on his property, he is ahead of the remedy but you really don't believe any lawyer would/could make a (albeit specious) argument for a bucket of cash?I don't know where people think one can get a "bucket of cash" from lawsuits like this. Lawsuits like this do not exist b/c lawyers recognize there is no money to be had in this case.
If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers
Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR