PNTC Range Noise Lawsuit vs PII privacy rights

[HCM]

Two individuals are suing The Peacekeeper range in WV over noise complaints.

Their attorney has convinced a judge to let the lawsuit move forward and ordered PNTC to release the names and personally identifiable information of basically anyone who has ever shot at PNTC or done business with them.

I'm not local but I believe this sets a horrible precedent.

My questions are:

1) Do the plaintiffs have any restrictions on what they do with this PII data? Is it under seal ?

2) The request for customer PII info makes it plain this lawsuit is not about noise. So who are the plaintiffs? What is their true agenda? What political and anti gun groups are they fronting for ?

3) Can we, as a community reverse this and use it as a talking point in support of the hearing protection act ?

http://peacemakernational.com/sites/...03.17.2017.pdf

We would like to thank each of you for being members and customers of PNTC and we look forward to your continued support and use of the complex. We cannot stress enough how much we appreciate and need your continued support.

We feel compelled inform our members and customers regarding a recent court ruling related to PNTC’s private customer information. Specifically, a resident of Virginia has filed a nuisance complaint against PNTC alleging that noise from operation of the shooting range is a nuisance, and therefore interferes with his property rights. This complaint was filed in Berkeley County Circuit Court and is before Circuit Court Judge Grey Silver, styled Ben and Diane Goldstein v. Peacemaker Properties, LLC and Peacemaker National Training Center, LLC, Civil Action No. 15-C-520. Court documents filed in the case are public record and may be reviewed through the Circuit Clerk’s office.

Although our legal team pointed out that Berkeley County, WV specifically exempts shooting ranges from their noise ordinance and prevents nuisance claims against shooting ranges, the complaint was filed and not dismissed by the court. You may also access the Berkeley County Noise Ordinance at this link:
http://www.berkeleycountycomm.org/…/...iseord0409.pdf

Despite numerous motions and requests to reconsider, and numerous mediation efforts with the plaintiff, the court has ordered PNTC to produce the below documents and other private records under a “Protective Order.” Under this order, the plaintiffs and their counsel are legally permitted to access the following information:

- All member files
- All waivers from any person who has accessed PNTC, to include all law enforcement, federal agency personnel, military personnel and foreign military personnel names
- All shooting competition files and lists
- All training information and lists
- All customer waivers
- Identities of all persons who have used PNTC ranges
- All ATF & NFA records (to include Forms 4473 and ATF bound book information)

Unfortunately, PNTC is unable to answer additional questions or comment on this matter at this time. Please know that we have done everything in our power to protect your private information, but we must comply with the court order.

Again, we look forward to seeing you soon and thank you for your support and understanding.

Thank You,
Cole McCulloch – President
Peacemaker National Training Center

[joshs]

I'm one of the people whose private information is about to be released, so I'm as pissed about this as anyone, but I don't think the plaintiffs are a front for an anti-gun group. I assume they want the information to show that the range has increased operations in the time that they've lived at their address, however, what they do with the information outside of the case is certainly a good question. I haven't looked at the case documents, but this would be a good case where a discovery protective order is issued with the information to prevent misuse.

[HCM]

The range has been there at least 7 years. I would like to know when the plaintiffs moved in - before the range was there or after ?

The timing is also suspect as there is apparently a bill pending in the WV legislature shielding ranges from noise lawsuits.

[Matt O]

I'm one of the people whose private information is about to be released, so I'm as pissed about this as anyone, but I don't think the plaintiffs are a front for an anti-gun group. I assume they want the information to show that the range has increased operations in the time that they've lived at their address, however, what they do with the information outside of the case is certainly a good question. I haven't looked at the case documents, but this would be a good case where a discovery protective order is issued with the information to prevent misuse.

I'm in the same boat as I used to be a member there for a couple years. Do you think it's possible they also want the info of all individuals to determine if any prohibited persons have accessed the range and shot there at any point in time to try to discredit PNTC?

[olstyn]

Do you think it's possible they also want the info of all individuals to determine if any prohibited persons have accessed the range and shot there at any point in time to try to discredit PNTC?

That seems unlikely to be a tactic that would bear fruit for them. After all, how would the range know if someone is a prohibited person if they're not involved in a firearm purchase? It's not like ranges have any reason to conduct NICS checks or other background checks before they let you shoot.

[HCM]

I'm in the same boat as I used to be a member there for a couple years. Do you think it's possible they also want the info of all individuals to determine if any prohibited persons have accessed the range and shot there at any point in time to try to discredit PNTC?

No but anti gunners in places like NY have filed lawsuits to get the names and addresses of pistol license holders and published them in the paper. Given the area and the customer base PNTC serves there are many people who are sensitive about that sort of information being released.

[scjbash]

I have no idea if it's true but I heard the plaintiff bought property near the range and wants to develop it. Apartments or condos or something of the sort.

[HCM]

I have no idea if it's true but I heard the plaintiff bought property near the range and wants to develop it. Apartments or condos or something of the sort.

As in bought the property after the range was already there and in operation ?

[scjbash]

As in bought the property after the range was already there and in operation ?

Yep

[Duces Tecum]

Doesn't the NRA have people to help with noise suits?