TexasCHLforum.com

Chas...I agree with your bill and have no problem with the owners of the range having their rights protected. Developers who build houses downrange from long established rural shooting ranges that have become engulfed by urban sprawl, are most at fault here. That being said...every one of us should be outraged that this range is unprotected and in violation of state law for not having liability insurance. The homeowner, if he can prove somehow that he was shot by a stray round from the range, should be the owner of a new range...one that he can close down at his discretion. The current owner of the range deserves to lose his property. Proper liability protection makes a lot of things disappear...but an innocent citizen with a GSW from an uninsured range results in public outcry and new legislation to protect the innocent.

I was just talking with my buddy about the Garland range today as we drove the new stretch of the Bush turnpike that literally goes right by it...you can see the firing line from the car while going by. I'm surprised that there was not a backstop similar to the one at Dallas Pistol Club that consists of concrete and large quantities of rubber. Seems to me that this should have been part of the plans for constructing that portion of the turnpike- they'll probably try and force the range to build this now too. I think it'd be a heck of an idea to build, as it should quiet those that live or drive "downrange" by physically placing a barrier between them and the range.

I do think the range should get insurance, too...and give members the right to pummel idiots. Once I was there when a guy next to me turned his shiny new AR15 90 degrees in my direction from the downrange targets to inspect his firearm....MAGAZINE STILL SEATED IN THE MAGWELL. I almost soiled myself, then I yelled at him for being an idiot and pointing a rifle at about 15 people, primarily ME. There should be an idiot test there for sure, but then they'd lose about half of their ALL CASH business.

Other than that, I really like having it so close...it's great to have around when sighting in a new toy, testing new loads, or getting ready for deer season.

I saw that the range was back on the news again last night. People claim that their home was hit by acouple of rounds from range. News showed new house was acouple of houses down from the original guy that hit working in yard.
What gets me is that everyone blames range when everyone should blame builders knew about range before building all the homes. Range was there before all thoses houses , but why not blame range....

range back in news tonight. Rowlett trying to close range with court order channel 4 news

Link?

Sorry took them a bit to get todays story on website
http://www.myfoxdfw.com/dpp/news/invest ... nge-012312" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

My kids, grand-kids and I use the Garland range about twice a month. I sure hope they are able to stay open. Why would city officials allow zoning for homes down range. Oh wait, don't tell me, I think I know. This is sad, I would hate to see that gun range go the way so many others have.

I grew up in Dallas (apparently a long time ago). When Dad wanted to take us shooting, we would just hop in the car and drive a mile or two past the last house, get out, set a target some where and blaze away. Now, to take my grand kids to shoot, we have to plan well ahead, allow 1/2 day to include drive time, budget not insignificant $s for range fees, hope we get a lane or two, and hope the knuckle heads are at least 5 or 6 lanes away. Whole different world.

By the time they want to take their kids shooting, they will have to get a government permit, a TSA clearance and Lord knows what else, if they can go at all. Little by little , we loose the freedoms and liberties we once knew. I wish I knew how to stop this erosion.

garcia946 wrote:I saw that the range was back on the news again last night. People claim that their home was hit by acouple of rounds from range. News showed new house was acouple of houses down from the original guy that hit working in yard.
What gets me is that everyone blames range when everyone should blame builders knew about range before building all the homes. Range was there before all thoses houses , but why not blame range....

With two more houses hit in the same neighborhood, I don't think it looks good for the range. I somewhat agree that it wasn't wise to build houses downrange, but I also think the range has a responsibility to make reasonable efforts to contains their bullets. When I look at the other outdoor ranges in the area, Garland is the only one I'm aware of that doesn't haven't something in place to help keep bullets from going over the berm on the rifle range.

I like the range, but I'm afraid they're going to be on the losing end of this one.

Brian

jpfrog wrote:I was just talking with my buddy about the Garland range today as we drove the new stretch of the Bush turnpike that literally goes right by it...you can see the firing line from the car while going by. I'm surprised that there was not a backstop similar to the one at Dallas Pistol Club that consists of concrete and large quantities of rubber. Seems to me that this should have been part of the plans for constructing that portion of the turnpike- they'll probably try and force the range to build this now too. I think it'd be a heck of an idea to build, as it should quiet those that live or drive "downrange" by physically placing a barrier between them and the range.

I do think the range should get insurance, too...and give members the right to pummel idiots. Once I was there when a guy next to me turned his shiny new AR15 90 degrees in my direction from the downrange targets to inspect his firearm....MAGAZINE STILL SEATED IN THE MAGWELL. I almost soiled myself, then I yelled at him for being an idiot and pointing a rifle at about 15 people, primarily ME. There should be an idiot test there for sure, but then they'd lose about half of their ALL CASH business.

Other than that, I really like having it so close...it's great to have around when sighting in a new toy, testing new loads, or getting ready for deer season.

But the Bush is behind the firing line.

jimlongley wrote:

jpfrog wrote:I was just talking with my buddy about the Garland range today as we drove the new stretch of the Bush turnpike that literally goes right by it...you can see the firing line from the car while going by. I'm surprised that there was not a backstop similar to the one at Dallas Pistol Club that consists of concrete and large quantities of rubber. Seems to me that this should have been part of the plans for constructing that portion of the turnpike- they'll probably try and force the range to build this now too. I think it'd be a heck of an idea to build, as it should quiet those that live or drive "downrange" by physically placing a barrier between them and the range.

I do think the range should get insurance, too...and give members the right to pummel idiots. Once I was there when a guy next to me turned his shiny new AR15 90 degrees in my direction from the downrange targets to inspect his firearm....MAGAZINE STILL SEATED IN THE MAGWELL. I almost soiled myself, then I yelled at him for being an idiot and pointing a rifle at about 15 people, primarily ME. There should be an idiot test there for sure, but then they'd lose about half of their ALL CASH business.

Other than that, I really like having it so close...it's great to have around when sighting in a new toy, testing new loads, or getting ready for deer season.

But the Bush is behind the firing line.

Yes, and no. Look on a map. The turnpike is not a straight line, but rather a winding road that crosses in front of the firing line to the southeast and behind the firing line to the northwest. Granted, it's about 3 miles away, but anti-gunners are anti-gunners and 3 miles may as well be 3 feet to them. If an unfired round, casing and all, can end up in a neighborhood because of range neglegance (not possible, I know) then surely someone driving on the turnpike 3 miles away could be hit by a stray as well. Don't laugh- it'll appear in the news eventually.

I've read the petition and the suit blatantly violates the provisions added to the Local Government Code and Civil Practices & Remedies Code by SB766. It looks as if no one read the new laws. The suit was also brought in by the City of Rowlett, not an individual, not that that would make a difference.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I've read the petition and the suit blatantly violates the provisions added to the Local Government Code and Civil Practices & Remedies Code by SB766. It looks as if no one read the new laws. The suit was also brought in by the City of Rowlett, not an individual, not that that would make a difference.

Chas.

Is an apparent lack of the proper Insurance an issue here?

Purplehood wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I've read the petition and the suit blatantly violates the provisions added to the Local Government Code and Civil Practices & Remedies Code by SB766. It looks as if no one read the new laws. The suit was also brought in by the City of Rowlett, not an individual, not that that would make a difference.

Chas.

Is an apparent lack of the proper Insurance an issue here?

Not in a lawsuit on the grounds asserted in the petition. I could see it being an issue under certain circumstances, but not on the issue of negligence/liability. It could come into play in piercing the corporate veil, but this range is operated as a sole proprietorship.

Chas.

jimlongley wrote:

....I had a boss some time back who did just that, and my pointing out his flawed logic was probably part of why he fired me.

Yep, that'll do it more times than not.

I'm sorry, back on track now.

It's not only locally true, but have y'all noticed how people will move into a new city or state from afar and then complain because it's not like where they moved from. People are weird...sometimes.

I have a lifetime membership to that range. I got it in 1979 or 1980...If it is closed down, I wonder if they will pro-rate it and give me a partial refund of my ten bucks? I figure I have at least another thirty years or so to live.