Loudoun County Sheriff's Office seal

Update: Sept. 10, 9:37 a.m.

The Loudoun County Sheriff's Office says a reckless handling of a firearm charge is pending against one of the people involved in the Sunday afternoon shooting in the Gable Farm Lane area.

___

Related: Local leaders react to Hamilton shooting

___

Original report: Sept. 9, 8:35 a.m.

A stray bullet that injured a woman in Loudoun County Sunday is under investigation, according to the Loudoun County Sheriff’s Office. 

The sheriff’s office said Monday it is investigating the incident that occurred in the 39600 block of Gable Farm Lane between Leesburg and Hamilton. Deputies determined the shots came from a private property where people were target shooting nearby.

The sheriff’s office said the victim was treated and did not require further medical treatment.

Suspects reportedly involved were identified, and weapons were recovered, according to the LCSO.

It wasn't clear whether any charges are expected in the incident.

Reports of gunfire and stray bullets being found have escalated in Loudoun County in recent years.

Loudoun's Board of Supervisors has considered and heard recommendations for updating Section 684.03 of the county’s codified ordinance on firearms and requiring backstops to capture gun discharges, but the board turned down specific adjustments in 2018. Supervisors opted instead for more studies.

NRA gun debate

The Loudoun County Board of Supervisors faced several residents opposed to amending the weapons and explosives ordinance in 2018.

_______

Related: Loudoun County supervisors reject proposal to amend gun ordinance

(25) comments

Loudounest

This latest target shooting incident brings the discussion to a warning for Landowners. A few years back I stopped giving out hunting permissions on my property because of the possible risk of civil lawsuits that I could inherit if an accident occurred that involved an activity I permitted. There are plenty of words about VA Laws, ordinances and the second amendment of which none clarify or limit personal civil liabilities by the shooter or the landowner who grants permission for shooting to occur on their property. A paper target or squirrel to me was not worth the liability risk. What a nightmare if by being a nice guy and landowner I could end up as also a defendant of a $10m civil law suit for damages plus legal fees. I am no lawyer but I don't see the definition difference between "grazed" or "malicious" wounding. I don't believe the laws determine the severity between just a band aid versus a 2 week stay in the hospital ICU. Hit with a firearm projectile is shot and wounded period. If I was the shooter or landowner in this case I would be very nervous today.


amerigirl

Very smart.


More Cowbell

I blame past and current BOS for over development. Also, homeowners should inspect the area they buy. I recall many complained about Fairfax county parkway going in because now they lived next to a major road....




WellIsntThatSpecial

The comment section of stories like this really show how other their rockers the left wingers are. They are vile, despicable people.


LoudounClear

Not sure how not wanting to listen to obnoxious neighbors emptying their assault weapons is left wing or right wing. Take your gunplay to a range whether you're a left winger, a right winger or just a wing nut of some other stripe...


Loudounest

Is anyone really surprised and shocked that another friendly fire target shooting incident occurred? It is like we in Loudoun are using the thoughts and prayers solution for safety and doing nothing. The running posts of rural heritage equates to target shooting is ridiculous or perpetuated by people that don't live in western Loudoun or just moved here recently and think 5 acres is Montana. I have lived my entire 56 years in western Loudoun, things have changed drastically. The BOS owes it to the taxpayers to address safety zones based on density, traffic and other activities such as soccer horse riding and hiking. It might be simple? Get a Sharpie and a map and draw some circles as restricted shooting areas. Yes restricted, owners must have an inspection, insurance and permit prior to establishing a firing range. Compared to the past few hunters take to the fields in western Loudoun, God help us if they did with as many as before. But once again the shooter will not be charged for dangerous use of a firearm or malicious wounding. Mark the calendar the next target shooting incident is not far away and no doubt the BOS will continue to study the issue. If and when someone gets seriously injured or worse killed I would assume a large civil suit for damages will be filed against the county for failure to act. A settlement would be paid by the Loudoun taxpayers some who live in western Loudoun in the line of fire! I hope the lady who was wounded in this recent incident takes the next step and obtains legal advise on proceeding with damage claims.


AFF

Oh goodie. Watch how many folk who've never once bothered to comment on LTM articles come out of the woodwork to exercise their gun fetishes. It matters not to any of them that after multiple incidents of stray gunfire someone finally got grazed.







Soon they'll be talking about how dangerous cars and swimming pools are and why don't we regulate them like guns. They'll start arguing about semi autos and clips, all the while telling us about their time traveling abilities that allow them to peer into the minds of the Founders.







Loudoun Board of Supervisors- it's time to restrict the discharge of firearms to shooting ranges. To the future Commonwealth Attorney- if you can't figure out how to charge people who recklessly discharge their toys and endanger their neighbors, you are in the wrong line of work.


MissingOldLoudoun

I'm not a gunowner, nor do I ever plan to be, but I AM realistic and open-minded. From the few facts we have, it hardly seems as though this was reckless handling of a firearm. We don't know how far away the target practice was from the road, but with a property that size, I'd venture to say they were more than 50 yards away, the required distance from a primary or secondary road. The article also makes no mention of where the woman was. Was she walking on the road? Was she in the woods? On the property? Lots of assumptions being made here.







And to restrict the discharge of firearms to shooting ranges is absurd. So you're saying no more hunting? You want people to pay money to go to some swanky shooting range (because that's what's taking over), when they have the right to shoot in their backyard, so long as they're within the restrictions of the law? Not even going to get into all these movements to change our constitution.


amerigirl

But don't you agree that since guns have the capacity to shoot further than they did when the laws were made that the laws need to be adapted to meet the needs of keeping the people safe? People have the right to feel safe in their own environment and not worry if they will be killed or injured in their own back yard. Hunting is a whole different story.


Lawman

Mayor of TTown did you come up with that conspiracy theory yourself or did you call the White House or NRA Headquarters.


Citizen

I challenge local government to ban the discharge of guns in our county. Unless bullets and the sound of gunfire can be contained to your property, you’re violating other people’s rights to live safely, without fear of being shot, and without the menacing threat that the sound of gunfire calls up. It’s especially disturbing as the nation reels from the recent gun rampages.


Mayor of TTown

Count me a skeptic. The report on NBC4 state the bullet traveled several hundred yards and grazed the woman’s shoulder. Presumably a ricochet otherwise all of the projectiles would have been buzzing her property. So a ricochet travels hundreds of yards (not likely) and grazes a shoulder (classic wound from a old western) yet requires no medical attention??







My guess is they were angry because the neighbors were shooting and making too much noise so they came up with the most believable story since Jussie-gate.







I could be wrong so a few more facts from the crack reporting team at LTM would be nice.


amerigirl

No one knows so I won't even try to figure out what happened. But there are facts, lots of facts that people are getting hurt and killed from unintendional







al shootings. Why is Loudoun waiting until it too late.In 2016 there were 161,374 deaths from unintentional injuries, the overall 3rd ranking cause of death that year. In 2014, 2,549 children (age 0-19) died by gunshot and an additional 13,576 were injured. March 15, a 2 year old was shot in the head playing in her back yard. I could care less if someone wants to target shoot, but they need to respect other peoples right to safety and privacy first.


LoudounClear

With Geary Higgins leaving the BOS this year maybe we can get representation for Western Loudoun that considers the rights of *everyone* in the district. Something needs to be done about the gunplay within striking distance of neighbors.


Waterfordresident

How many gun deaths in western Loudoun versus speeding, driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, texting and let’s not forget drug overdose.















Let’s fix the above items first which have a much higher rate of confirmed deaths.




amerigirl

Waterford, just what does speeding, DUI, or texting, they are all people making stupid mistakes,. There is no point in saying that other things should be fixed first, they all should be fixed.


Lawman

This is what happens when you have a Republican controlled Board of Supervisors who are beholden to the Gunnecks and the NRA. What the heck does being able to shoot a gun in a residential area have to do with the Second Amendment? You have no right to do a dangerous act on your property that will harm others. We will see if Mike "I need the gunnecks vote" Chapman will properly investigate this matter this time.


fbiwatchingyou

Trump 2020 Thank you for the support


FLyAgaric421

Typical lies and misinformation from someone of your mindset:







*What the heck does being able to shoot a gun in a residential area have to do with the second amendment?*







-It is already illegal to discharge firearms in a residential area, period. Not only that.. it’s illegal to even discharge a BB or paintball gun in a residential area too! It is illegal to discharge a firearms within 50 yards of a road, and within 100 yards of any occupied building regardless of where you are in the entire state.. codified in the Code of Virginia. You do realize that county supervisors can’t just come up with whatever regulations they want right? Virginia is a Dillon rule state.. maybe you should look that up too since you are obviously not very well informed about what’s going on here. Typical knee jerk emotional reaction from someone with all of their facts of order. Just because there is a house somewhere doesn’t make it a residential area. If you want to relocate to somewhere more conducive to your lifestyle, I suggest you move within the boundaries of this area:







The area within a line following State Route 620 (Braddock Road) from the boundary with Fairfax County west to its intersection with State Route 659, then along State Route 659 north to its terminus at State Route 7, then following State Route 7 west to the corporate limits of the Town of Leesburg, then following the corporate limit line of the Town of Leesburg north and west to the Potomac River, then east along the Potomac River boundary with Maryland to the Fairfax County line, then southwest along the Fairfax County line to its intersection with State Route 620.















-This incident was not in a residential area, but a rural area surrounded by fields. Go ahead.. look for yourself.


amerigirl

The problem being that guns have a longer range than they did when the laws were created so the laws should be adjusted to meet the power of the weapon. They really need a shooting range that is convenient in Loudoun.


FLyAgaric421

Code of Virginia 18.2-279







“..if any person maliciously discharges a firearm within any building when occupied by one or more persons in such a manner as to endanger the life or lives of such person or persons, or maliciously shoots at, or maliciously throws any missile at or against any dwelling house or other building when occupied by one or more persons, whereby the life or lives of any such person or persons may be put in peril, the person so offending is guilty of a Class 4 felony.”







“..if any such act be done unlawfully, but not maliciously, the person so offending is guilty of a Class 6 felony; and, in the event of the death of any person resulting from such unlawful shooting or throwing, the person so offending is guilty of involuntary manslaughter.”







Shocker! It’s already a felony to shoot at a house regardless of whether it was an accident.. and guess what?? Felons can’t own guns. How exactly do more laws prevent things from happening that current laws already prohibit in the first place?





Are you really that simple? Here's how a few new regulations might help. I have a neighbor who shoots all weekend long, disturbing many of his neighbors and posing a risk. If shooting like that were confined to ranges, I could call the sheriff and shut this nonsense down. Second amendment doesn't give you any special rights in this area, by the way.


MissingOldLoudoun

Lawman, this is what happens in a county that's holding onto its rural roots by a thread...hardly "gunnecks". I'm thankful for the republicans on the board trying to maintain what was once a beautiful county. Instead, the county is being overridden with liberals who want to keep building, destroying our farmland, thereby creating more congestion on our roads.







The location of the incident is hardly a residential area. In fact, the property from which the discharge came was on a 72 acre parcel, according to a quick google search. Does the ordinance need to be reviewed again? Possibly. But at least the BoS didn't have a knee jerk reaction to a previous incident and have asked for further information to make an educated decision. And of course there's going to be a rise in number of incidents. Loudoun’s population continues to increase, the number of dwellings continues to increase, and the parcel size continues to decrease just so builders can cram more houses and get more money. It’s just increasing the odds.







And just to be clear, I'm not necessarily a Chapman fan, but who are you to say whether or not his department improperly conducted any investigations? Do you work for him? Have you interviewed him or read the reports? That's the problem with so many people ranting. The majority of people don't have the facts. The post their opinions to be taken as fact. Poisonous to society.


Locojrt

I don't think hunting is the issue. It's recklessless and once again, no ramifications for bad behavior . It is a large farm, but where were they aiming? Were "targets" facing buildings or houses? Obviously the bullet traveled into an area where people were. What if she was out walking.. that's not illegal and you shouldn't have to worry about getting shot while out on a walk! There are too many developments and residential clusters set out in the country environs now and logic determines it's time to adjust boundaries for this type of activity. It's not the Loudoun of 20 years ago so get over it or move. It's a fact of life and 2nd Amendment or not there is an inherent responsibility that comes with this 'right". Common sense is so lackung these days, it's all about rights and political correctness. Ugh! In the 50s and 60s Ibrode with a .22 rifle in my saddlw for varmints. I wouldn't even consider that now in this area...people are everywhere, in the woods, trails, etc. Regulations and laws have to change with the times. A gun owner's rights don't override mine or vice versa...if commin sense can't prevail than regulations and restrictions must. And if there are sufficient ones in olace, then ENFORCE THEM! Grow a set !


amerigirl

What republicans on the board? Names please. There have been many instances of shots hitting buildings in Loudoun, not 1. The laws need to fit the capacity of the guns. If the range is greater than it used to be than change to law to protect the people of Loudoun. Such a simple solution. Doesn't everyone want to feel safe on their own property? Land ain't cheap out here in Loudoun and if you bought it you should have every right to say what safety precautions should be met for you and your property, make the BOS listen.


Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.