TexasCHLforum.com

Does anyone have any update of what's current status of things with the Garland Range? I heard there were continuing legal battles?

I know nothing about the lawsuit, but it was business-as-usual when I was there a few weeks ago.

this is the case, last time I was there they were collecting donations in box for legal fund.

Well, hope they make it, we don't want to loose shooting ranges and the times I've been there, been treated fairly well, unless too busy, but here's hoping that things will work out

Might I inquire as to the legal situation?

I've enjoyed my times there & talking to the fellas running the place. All have been helpful, informative, and pleasant.

LAYGO wrote:Might I inquire as to the legal situation?

I've enjoyed my times there & talking to the fellas running the place. All have been helpful, informative, and pleasant.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent ... 6e141.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Crossfire wrote:

LAYGO wrote:Might I inquire as to the legal situation?

I've enjoyed my times there & talking to the fellas running the place. All have been helpful, informative, and pleasant.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent ... 6e141.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thanks, but wow.

That's pretty sad. The Garland gun range is one of the best ones I know of - one of the few positives - and the only good one in reasonable driving distance.

My thoughts are:
1 What moron builds houses just a mile down range from a gun range
2. What moron buys said house
3. The gun range will loose and be closed - within a relatively short time period.

Very sad.

rthillusa wrote:That's pretty sad. The Garland gun range is one of the best ones I know of - one of the few positives - and the only good one in reasonable driving distance.

My thoughts are:
1 What moron builds houses just a mile down range from a gun range
2. What moron buys said house
3. The gun range will loose and be closed - within a relatively short time period.

Very sad.

Sad, yes, but by your logic, all land within several miles of a gun range should be left fallow? Or perhaps, the range should be forced to purchase all that land as a buffer? What's your solution to #1 and #2?

sjfcontrol wrote:

rthillusa wrote:That's pretty sad. The Garland gun range is one of the best ones I know of - one of the few positives - and the only good one in reasonable driving distance.

My thoughts are:
1 What moron builds houses just a mile down range from a gun range
2. What moron buys said house
3. The gun range will loose and be closed - within a relatively short time period.

Very sad.

Sad, yes, but by your logic, all land within several miles of a gun range should be left fallow? Or perhaps, the range should be forced to purchase all that land as a buffer? What's your solution to #1 and #2?

No, it doesn't need to be left "fallow", but morons buying within earshot of a known active range shouldn't complain. Duh. And I don't think it's been proven that the bullet came from the Garland range. Just like they immediate claim a few years back about a .50 cal bullet hitting someone in the trailer area of Texas Motor Speedway, it was assumed to come from the range way up by FM1171. A guy came in and said he was shooting a .50 but ballistics showed it wasn't his gun. I don't know if they ever solved it.

Morons will always be morons but that doesn't mean we have to cater to them.

It almost sounds like your solution is to let them close down the range w/o a fight?

I should learn to choose my words more carefully - and select words that are less inflammatory. To rephrase it: to some It would seem perhaps a questionable decision to purchase a home just a mile down range from a shooting range. However, the force of economics being what they are, and land usually going to its best and highest use, it is inevitable that gun ranges, once miles from any homes, will be crowded out as urban development sprawls out around them. I have watched it happen in Allen and McKinney and have no doubt it will happen in Garland too. It is sad to me that a good gun range will be lost, but its probably inevitable.

One possible solution would be for the city of Garland to buy the range and continue to operate it as a city park - or purchase it, then license it out to an operator. Bond money could be used to make the improvements needed, and then paid back from usage fees. Since I don't live in Garland, that's probably going to have to be someone else's fight.

ske1eter wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:

rthillusa wrote:That's pretty sad. The Garland gun range is one of the best ones I know of - one of the few positives - and the only good one in reasonable driving distance.

My thoughts are:
1 What moron builds houses just a mile down range from a gun range
2. What moron buys said house
3. The gun range will loose and be closed - within a relatively short time period.

Very sad.

Sad, yes, but by your logic, all land within several miles of a gun range should be left fallow? Or perhaps, the range should be forced to purchase all that land as a buffer? What's your solution to #1 and #2?

No, it doesn't need to be left "fallow", but morons buying within earshot of a known active range shouldn't complain. Duh. And I don't think it's been proven that the bullet came from the Garland range. Just like they immediate claim a few years back about a .50 cal bullet hitting someone in the trailer area of Texas Motor Speedway, it was assumed to come from the range way up by FM1171. A guy came in and said he was shooting a .50 but ballistics showed it wasn't his gun. I don't know if they ever solved it.

Morons will always be morons but that doesn't mean we have to cater to them.

It almost sounds like your solution is to let them close down the range w/o a fight?

This wasn't a complaint about noise. And (as far as I know) there is no evidence of where the round(s) came from.

No, it shouldn't be necessary for them to give up without a fight. BUT there is a governmental solution to all this. Presumably the land around the range was farmland, which was eventually re-zoned to residential for the developers to build houses. Maybe the developer didn't know about the range, or didn't care. Probably the home buyers didn't know about it. But the CITY SHOULD HAVE KNOWN about it. And the range should have been notified about the proposed change in zoning. At this point, the DEVELOPER should have been tasked (by the city) with coming up with the proper safety upgrades necessary for the range (with the cooperation of the range owners), and the cost of the modifications negotiated between the city and the developer (and maybe the range). Ultimately, if the city/developer/range could not be made safe for the projected use of the area, then the city/developer would need to buy out the range owner. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of local government to assure that the land is being used for non-conflicting purposes. Also, the city has a financial stake in the residential development, too (increased property taxes, fees, charges, etc.), so they can bear some of the financial burden to upgrade the range as well.

That's my solution to these kind of issues.

Didn't hear a solution from you other than to go down fighting.

They way things are these days, they"ll most likely find cause to "condemn" the facility for some reason or other and take over under the premise of "eminent domain". If I recall correctly, rather than being limited to usage for reasons of infrastructure development and the common good of the people, its now possible to use it for economic reasons, such as a high roller company wanting the land for a new business or some such. Wasn't that sort of logic in place when houses were condemned under eminent domain to make way for the new Cowboys Stadium?

Its truly unfortunate, but the little guy rarely wins these things.

Are there any updates? Garland is the best range in the area.

I haven't heard any, but I did leave some money in the legal fund jar.

The last few times out, I've heard a lot more in depth explanations/pleas for some common sense stuff. Reasons for NO ONE to handle any gear during a cease fire, not to put the muzzle break of a rifle right on the sandbags THEY provide, etc.