And
is there anything that should be done?
By
Will Collette
A
few days ago, my colleague Tracey
O’Neill posted an article on a recent South Kingstown Town Council meeting. SK Councilors wanted to know if there were laws to prohibit a repeat of the
incident in Charlestown where a group
of gun enthusiasts fired semi-automatic weapons from a helicopter while
hovering over a quarry off Narrow Lane.
As
you may recall, Charlestown Police responded to calls from terrified neighbors
to discover that, yes indeed, these men were target-shooting at a junk car using
a friend’s helicopter as a firing platform. The CPD officers decided that even
though they greatly disapproved of their actions, they had no legal basis under
state or town law to arrest, or even stop, them from what they were doing.
The
story made national news and, as a Charlestown resident, it didn't make me feel
very proud of our town to once again become a national laughingstock.
But
this question of whether the actions were illegal or not intrigues me.
After all, Charlestown has adopted ordinances to regulate or forbid all manner of conduct. We outlaw wind turbines of all shapes and sizes, parking a vehicle you use for work on or near your property, spitting on the
ground, throwing a snowball at a tree, swimming in a quarry, standing on Creek
Bridge, parking on Town Dock Road, sleeping in an RV in your own yard, and when it comes to zoning, everything is prohibited unless it is
specifically allowed. Click here also. That’s
the Platner Principle.
We're about to pass an ordinance regulating the depth and color of mulch. I'm not making any of this stuff up. Seriously.
We're about to pass an ordinance regulating the depth and color of mulch. I'm not making any of this stuff up. Seriously.
Surely
with everything else that we regulate already, there must be something about
shooting from an aircraft in the town’s airspace.
No one shall carry a firearm, rifle or shotgun in or on a snow vehicle or a
recreational vehicle or on a trailer or sled attached thereto unless such firearm, rifle or shotgun is unloaded
and in an enclosed case, unless he is a law enforcement officer or other person
authorized to carry arms.
That section of the Code seems to express the town’s misgivings toward carrying loaded firearms in unconventional vehicles.
Then there’s Chapter 162 of the Town Ordinances on “Peace and Good Order” with this lead section:
§ 162-1 Actions unlawful.
No person acting
alone or in concert with others shall:
A. Act in an intimidating, violent or
tumultuous manner toward another or others whereby any person is placed in fear
of safety for his life, limb, health or well-being.
I think most reasonable people, regardless of their views on the Second Amendment, would consider strafing the ground from a helicopter to be “intimidating, violent or tumultuous.” From what I heard, there were lots of people living around the quarry site where the shooting occurred who felt “in fear of safety for his [or her] life, limb, health or well-being.”
The
potential flaw in that section may be its vagueness. Courts hate vague laws and
when you toss in a Second Amendment argument, you never can predict how a court
may rule.
Subsection
R seems like it also applies and though it’s vague, at least it specifically
mentions deadly weapons, a category to which assault rifles undoubtedly belong:
R. Display any
deadly weapon or instrument or thing which by its appearance may be considered
a deadly weapon in any public place in a manner calculated or likely to alarm
or frighten another or others.
Firing guns from an aircraft seems as if it would reasonably fall within the prohibitions of town law. Or comes close enough that, in the interest of public safety, it seems worth trying to see whether our town ordinances provide protection from helicopter shootings.
There
are also a couple of potentially applicable sections of the Rhode Island
General Laws that might be stretched to apply. For example, state
law forbids discharging a firearm or an explosive device from a “motor
vehicle” and creating a “substantial risk of
death or serious personal injury to another person.”
The term “motor vehicle”
is not defined in this section of the RIGL. Maybe it’s a stretch to think it
applies to a helicopter, but I think most reasonable people would consider
firing assault rifles from an aircraft in close proximity to a neighborhood
poses a “substantial risk.”
State law also
specifically prohibits drive-by shootings with added penalties. Again, the language is
open to question about its applicable to shooting from aircraft.
 |
| Rep. Teresa Tanzi (D-SK/Narr) |
Teresa’s legislation included a ban
on armed drones. Even in the hands of professionals, even the military,
shooting from aircraft is not safe nor is it precise. The risk of “collateral
damage,” a.k.a. death, on the ground far outweighs any Second Amendment claim.
Further, I reject the idea that the
Second Amendment gives a gun owner the Constitutional right to scare the shit
out of innocent bystanders. I hope that when Teresa re-introduces her drone
legislation, she adds a provision banning any civilian airborne weaponry.
When Charlestown police confronted
the helicopter’s pilot, Dean Scalera, he told police he “knows
of pilots in other areas who have done the same thing” that he and his buddies
did.
Like Texas, he said.
And that’s actually true. A company called Helicoptersniper.com just set up shop in Denton, TX to sell thrill-seekers the
chance to play Apocalypse Now-style air cavalry. Here's the famous movie click - please keep reading after the clip.
But even in Texas, there’s push-back.
The local TV news reports that
“Denton County Commissioner Hugh Coleman is urging nearby homeowners
to file a complaint with the county fire marshal... or even initiate a
lawsuit.”
He
told News 8 "Just the fact that you're
flying around in a helicopter shooting a rifle in a limited amount of space
doesn't seem like it's very safe."
Which is pretty much what Charlestown Police told Scalera
then and all the news media since.
I live near the Bradford Gun Club and hear the shots all day
long. But I haven’t ever worried about a stray bullet. There's a huge difference between target-shooting on the ground and target-shooting from a moving aircraft.
Charlestown has passed, and intends to pass, ordinances that
govern almost every aspect of living in Charlestown. I think it’s a fair
argument, and it is an argument I have made myself, that we overdo it in a
major way.
I propose that we declare a halt on such mundane ordinances as
those regulating the depth and color of mulch at local businesses until we come to grips
with what our Police have identified as a gap in our town ordinances – or until
they get a ruling that the town ordinances I've identified can protect us from
flying yahoos with guns.
I don't think that's too mulch to ask.
I don't think that's too mulch to ask.
