TexasCHLforum.com

Sec. 250.001. RESTRICTION ON REGULATION OF SPORT SHOOTING RANGES. (a) In this section, "sport shooting range" means a business establishment, private club, or association that operates an area for the discharge or other use of firearms for silhouette, skeet, trap, black powder, target, self-defense, or similar recreational shooting.

(b) A governmental official may not seek a civil or criminal penalty against a sport shooting range or its owner or operator based on the violation of a municipal or county ordinance, order, or rule regulating noise:

(1) if the sport shooting range is in compliance with the applicable ordinance, order, or rule; or

(2) if no applicable noise ordinance, order, or rule exists.

(c) A person may not bring a nuisance or similar cause of action against a sport shooting range based on noise:

(1) if the sport shooting range is in compliance with all applicable municipal and county ordinances, orders, and rules regulating noise; or

(2) if no applicable noise ordinance, order, or rule exists.

Added by Acts 1991, 72nd Leg., ch. 145, Sec. 1, eff. Aug. 26, 1991. Amended by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 1050, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2001.

I saw range protection mention in one of Charles' polls. While I'm definitely in favor of range protection, the first bill was passed in 1991, I believe in response to Bill Carter's situation with neighborhoods encroaching on his Treashwig location.

Then, ten years later, it was amended. (Sorry, did not look up text of bills.)

What deficencies remain that would make this a priority in 2011?

Immunity from public nuisance suits.

Around the country, many ranges have closed because owners of adjacent land filed lawsuits, and the range management could not afford to fight them (regardless of whether the range owners might have prevailed in court).

It's not legally possible or even desirable to make ranges immune from all lawsuits. However, they should (IMHO) be immune from lawsuits related to their fundamental operations, that is, the legal discharge of firearms with proper safety measures and related activities such as throwing clay targets, constructing and maintaining berms, etc.

Often these lawsuits involve alleged lead contamination.

If a range is actually maintaining a public nuisance such a piles of trash, abandoned structures, polluted catchments, etc., of course they should be held to the same standards as other property owners.

If I could write laws, I would throw in a grandfather clause for ranges that have been operating significantly longer than new construction on neighboring property.

- Jim

My question was directed more at where the current law must be lacking, if new legislation is needed.

(c) A person may not bring a nuisance or similar cause of action against a sport shooting range based on noise:

(1) if the sport shooting range is in compliance with all applicable municipal and county ordinances, orders, and rules regulating noise; or

(2) if no applicable noise ordinance, order, or rule exists.

I admit this doesn't address lead polution, but I'm not sure any state legislation would avoid EPA's intervention.

The most obvious solution for lead pollution is to ensure that the range continues to operate as a range.

Lack of safety can close a range, but no legislature will give a range a pass on safety.

The current law concerns only noise and zoning violations. IOW, a range is immune from lawsuits regarding noise if it meets local noise ordinances.

This provision, taken by itself, does nothing to prevent a county or municipality from establishing a stringent noise ordinance and then accusing a shooting range of violating it.

The Local Government Code is huge, and I don't know more than a sliver of it. Maybe there is some other provision or case law requiring noise ordinances to be reasonable.

Public nuisance lawsuits can cover many other issues, lead being one. The federal EPA has ruled many times that bullets and shotgun shot used on ranges are not environmental lead hazards. States and private parties have tried and failed to get the federal EPA to change this scientific determination so that they can limit shooting ranges or more often hunting.

Neighbors could also attack a range based on dust raised, traffic, night lighting, or other imagined nuisances.

On my most paranoid day, I could imagine someone suing a shooting range because it "made them feel unsafe," despite conforming to all laws and standards. Such a suit could do serious damage to a range if it was brought by a party backed by enough resources (such as developers wanting to shut down a range).

One other point in this discussion: Many ranges were built years ago on rural property that was at the time ridiculously inexpensive. Now the property may be worth six or eight figures. The range management could sell the property, but there is nowhere left to go.

- Jim

Noise seems to be the primary concern for the range I am a member of. It's no different than airports that were built far, far away from "occupied territory", then someone decides the land next door is ideal for residential development. Then, the first thing the new homeowners want to do is eliminate all the noise. There has to be some consideration of "senior rights" in these cases.


surv

seamusTX wrote:On my most paranoid day, I could imagine someone suing a shooting range because it "made them feel unsafe," despite conforming to all laws and standards. Such a suit could do serious damage to a range if it was brought by a party backed by enough resources (such as developers wanting to shut down a range).
- Jim

Isn't that essentially what lead to the demise of both Collin County gun range and Backwoods Traps?

I literally can't answer that question. I don't know the details.

I have noted only that ranges that are shut down due to lawsuits do not lose the lawsuit—they can't afford the legal defense.

There is also an ever-expanding range of activities and persons that are prohibited within so many feet of a school, church, day-care center, park, playground, etc., "where children may gather." It is not at all difficult to make an entire city off-limits with a big enough exclusive diameter. Some cities have used this technique to become completely off-limits to sex offenders.

(Before anyone starts on "sex offenders deserve it," look into what can get a person declared a sex offender.)

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:
I have noted only that ranges that are shut down due to lawsuits do not lose the lawsuit—they can't afford the legal defense.

The previous location of our range was forced to close because of threats by Home Depot to take us court repeatedly.

They constructed their regional distribution center in Chambers County 1200 yards behind our berm.

wheelgun1958 wrote:

seamusTX wrote:On my most paranoid day, I could imagine someone suing a shooting range because it "made them feel unsafe," despite conforming to all laws and standards. Such a suit could do serious damage to a range if it was brought by a party backed by enough resources (such as developers wanting to shut down a range).
- Jim

Isn't that essentially what lead to the demise of both Collin County gun range and Backwoods Traps?

Collin County Range suffered from the City of McKinney finding a loophole in the range protection act and the land is unused. Backwoods Traps sold out at a profit to a developer.

I have seen this happen to ranges all over the place. Stopped camping at a campground in IL that we heard was complaining about the noise and "threat" from a range nearby, and let them know why we were choosing a different campground for our regular weekend getaways.

jimlongley wrote:

wheelgun1958 wrote:

seamusTX wrote:On my most paranoid day, I could imagine someone suing a shooting range because it "made them feel unsafe," despite conforming to all laws and standards. Such a suit could do serious damage to a range if it was brought by a party backed by enough resources (such as developers wanting to shut down a range).
- Jim

Isn't that essentially what lead to the demise of both Collin County gun range and Backwoods Traps?

Collin County Range suffered from the City of McKinney finding a loophole in the range protection act and the land is unused. Backwoods Traps sold out at a profit to a developer.

I have seen this happen to ranges all over the place. Stopped camping at a campground in IL that we heard was complaining about the noise and "threat" from a range nearby, and let them know why we were choosing a different campground for our regular weekend getaways.

Sold out indeed. And there's a huge power line right through the middle of the (Backwoods) property. I don't see any 'development' in the near future. Both Collin County and Backwoods are nothing but weed (sneezing not smoking) farms. I find it difficult just to travel down 380 in that area.



Stinkin NIMBYS.