Originally Posted By pcsutton:
Several places on their website it relates that the case is still in court and they aren't open yet....or they haven't upgraded their website in many months.

Does anyone know the status of the legal issues and if they are open or not?

Originally Posted By RenegadeX:
Not a Donation thread.

0) Reference this locked thread - http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_8_8/487401_North_East_Texas_Tactical_Range_Trying_to_be_Shut_Down_Before_they_Open.html

1) This range has been open for a while. Original Title is misleading. I think it first opened in July 2011.

2) It was designed to be compliant with SB766, Gun Range Potection Act, but ALL Gun Range Protection Laws so far have not protected a SINGLE gun Range yet. It would be comical except it is a serious problem.

3) Suburban Sprawl and Northern invasion are a serious threat to gun ranges all over Texas.

4) More details on Snipers Hide. get active or lose another range.

5) Owner is correct, if bad Case Law comes down on this, it will affect every gun range in Texas.

Originally Posted By Will:


If the ranges haven't been protected they don't know what the fuck they are doing. Understand though that ANY range can be sued by anyone- the legislation could not ban suit against ranges (Open Courts Provision of the Texas Constitution) however, the suit can be fairly quickly (and inexpensively) dealt with IF people know what the fuck they are doing and take care of their business.

The other issue may be that the range had to be operating PRIOR to September 1 of last year in order for the legislation to cover it- if they weren't open, they aren't covered.

ETA: It appears after looking at the case a little more that the suit was filed BEFORE the new range protection law took effect, therefore the Range Protection Law would not offer any protection in this case- it's called Ex Post Facto. The range caught a tough break, they are up against someone who apparently is fairly sophisticated (filed his suit BEFORE the new law took effect etc...). They don't even have berms up at this point according to their Facebook page, so basically what they had was a "plan" to build a range before the law went into effect so I don't know that it would be covered even IF the guy had waited to file suit........ This is the kind of thing though that will be pretty much stamped out since the new law went into effect.

Originally Posted By Will:

If the ranges haven't been protected they don't know what the fuck they are doing.

Originally Posted By mojo:


Thanks for the insight, Will.

Originally Posted By Will:
The Range in Garland is open only because of the Range Protection law.

Sec. 128.052.  LIMITATION ON CIVIL ACTION AND RECOVERY OF DAMAGES.  (a)  Except as provided by Subsection (b), a civil action may
 not be brought against a sport shooting range, the owner or operator of a sport shooting range, or the owner of the real property
 on which a sport shooting range is operated for recovery of damages resulting from, or injunctive relief or abatement of a nuisance
 relating to, the discharge of firearms.
(b)  Nothing in this section prohibits a civil action against a sport shooting range, the owner or operator of a sport shooting range,
 or the owner of the real property on which a sport shooting range is operated for recovery of damages for:
(1)  breach of contract for use of the real property on which a sport shooting range is located;

(2)  damage or harm to private property caused by the discharge of firearms on a sport shooting range;


(3)  personal injury or death caused by the discharge of a firearm on a sport shooting range; or
(4)  injunctive relief to enforce a valid ordinance, statute, or regulation.

Originally Posted By RenegadeX:


It does not matter if "you know what the fuck you are doing" if you do not have the funds to fucking do it. That is most often the problem. The Cities have near unlimited funds, and the range owner has near zero, in fact in most cases he is debt saddled as he is still paying off the land, buildings, improvements. These laws do not protect anybody, as even if you win you are probably near bankrupt. Your only real hope is they are not really trying to shut you down, but actually want to work with you to make your range compliant. The law basically allows them to litigate you to bankruptcy.

Here is the short list of ranges lost in DFW for one reason or another in recent years:

Backwoods Traps
Collin County Gun Range
Ralphs
Preston Road Trap & Skeet

Under Attack:

Garland
NorthEast Tactical

Originally Posted By RenegadeX:


SB766 does not protect Garland, as their primary problem is bullets leaving the range, and SB766 provides no protection for ranges like that:

Sec. 128.052.  LIMITATION ON CIVIL ACTION AND RECOVERY OF DAMAGES.  (a)  Except as provided by Subsection (b), a civil action may not be brought against a sport shooting range, the owner or operator of a sport shooting range, or the owner of the real property on which a sport shooting range is operated for recovery of damages resulting from, or injunctive relief or abatement of a nuisance relating to, the discharge of firearms.
(b)  Nothing in this section prohibits a civil action against a sport shooting range, the owner or operator of a sport shooting range, or the owner of the real property on which a sport shooting range is operated for recovery of damages for:(1)  breach of contract for use of the real property on which a sport shooting range is located;(2)  damage or harm to private property caused by the discharge of firearms on a sport shooting range;
(3)  personal injury or death caused by the discharge of a firearm on a sport shooting range; or
(4)  injunctive relief to enforce a valid ordinance, statute, or regulation.

If they do not fix that problem, or prove they did not cause it, they are gone. Meanwhile their cash reserves are being bled dry, while the city just raises tax to fund the lawsuit.

Originally Posted By Will:


Absolute bullshit and hogwash. The law specifically provides that the plaintiff must provide expert reports within 90 days of filing suit that detail what problems there are with the range. If they do not do so the judge should toss the suit on motion by the defendant. If they do provide them then the defendant should pursue summary judgement against the evidence presented in the affidavit and if they are successful the suit is dismissed WITH PREJUDICE, meaning that it can NEVER be brought again by that plaintiff etc...Oh and the plaintiff has to PAY ALL YOUR COSTS if you win. BUT that means that they have to have a competent attorney who understands the law and does his job and not "Joe Bob thats my sisters cousin who probated pappys will". It's going to cost a couple grand probably but that's not a lot of money in the grand scheme of things when your talking about operating a range. The gun ranges you list as closed, I don't know the specifics of every one of them but if they were closed BEFORE the new law took effect in September of last year then it's a non issue as far as the SB 766 is concerned.

Cities are very limited in what they can do. If the range is over 50 acres they essentially cannot ban the firing of guns on the range. See Government Code 229.001. Counties in Texas CANNOT REGULATE RANGES AT ALL under the new rules.

The reason the range in Garland was NOT closed was because of the new law and the idiots there should have known better anyway. A goddamn 11' berm on a rifle range is sorry as hell and just asking for fucking trouble. It's nowhere near close to spec. As far as NE Tactical, again the suit was brought BEFORE the law went into effect- a tough break but not the laws fault. Further, as I pointed out I don't know if it would have qualified anyway as all they had was an "idea" about building a range and not a real range. Again, a range is a serious undertaking and if you are underfunded etc....well, that's not a good idea.

Originally Posted By Will:


Absolute bullshit and hogwash. The law specifically provides that the plaintiff must provide expert reports within 90 days of filing suit that detail what problems there are with the range.

Originally Posted By Will:

As far as NE Tactical, again the suit was brought BEFORE the law went into effect-

Originally Posted By Will:


Like I said, the law was intended to protect PROPERLY OPERATED RANGES. When you have an 11' berm on a rifle range....that's not right and we all know it. They have an obligation to keep rounds on their range, period, end of story. If they can't do that they deserve to be shut down.

Originally Posted By RenegadeX:


So above in BLUE, you claim SB766 protects Garland, now here in RED you claim Garland is NOT a PROPERLY OPERATED RANGE and Garland deserves to be shut down.

Do not spin too fast, you will fall and get hurt.

Originally Posted By mm38:
Why is the City of Rowlett involved in civil litigation between 2 private parties? Have any of the Rowlett residents brought this to the attention of their City Council?


mm

Originally Posted By Will:


He gets it. The City was Never a proper party and a competent lawyer should have gotten that bounced before it ever hit the newspaper practically.

Originally Posted By RenegadeX:




And the cities do exactly that.

Even with the Old Law, they brought in experts to testify against CCGR. So now he is confronted with expert testimony his range is unsafe ,too loud, etc, what now? He has to spend more money to hire his own experts? Risk everything financially and continue? Like I said, these laws allow cities to bleed ranges dry.

This is the 3rd Gun Range Protection Law in 10 years, and none solve the problem of litigating someone to death.

Not really. The Range doesn't spend a damn dime to defend themselves. They have insurance that pays these costs. If they don't have insurance they are not operating legally in the State of Texas. Again, PROPERLY OPERATED RANGES ARE PROTECTED....good ole boys with a wheel barrow full of dirt and a cow pasture...not so much..Further, there is NO cause of action for nuisance against a range by any party any longer. The only thing ranges can be liable for are essentially "ACTUAL DAMAGES"- if you shoot people or houses expect to be sued. I don't think that's a terrible thing. The only thing cities can do is enforce valid ordinances and they can require that a range comply with safety standards that were applicable at the TIME THE RANGE WAS BUILT. Basically they can't require an upgrade to "state of the art" but they can require that a range operate at a level of safety consistent with when it was opened. Their power is pretty limited actually.


Do you have a source for this? First mention of lawsuit was a few months ago, and details on their website are vague.

Originally Posted By mm38:
Why is the City of Rowlett involved in civil litigation between 2 private parties? Have any of the Rowlett residents brought this to the attention of their City Council?


mm

Originally Posted By mm38:


It's my understanding that the litigation is between 2 private parties. I could be wrong, I probably am.

I really don't know the how's or why's the City of Rowlett is somehow involved. If it was a matter of public safety (which it is) wouldn't Rowlett have to take action on its own? By "on its own", I mean wouldn't any legal action have to be separate from the civil action(s)?

mm

Originally Posted By Will:

Here-http://www.terrelltribune.com/news/article_a884bea0-a1a3-11e1-b401-0019bb2963f4.html

My bad on that. I misread this article thinking that the suit was set for last August- it's set for THIS August. However, the new range law wouldn't be applicable anyway because they were not open prior to the laws taking effect as I noted above. The article says the range is "planned" and of course their own Facebook page shows that they don't have berms up. Unfortunately for them they aren't "grandfathered".

Originally Posted By RenegadeX:


Thanks for info on that.

They intentionally had a public opening in July of last year, 6 weeks before the law took effect.

Originally Posted By mm38:


It's my understanding that the litigation is between 2 private parties. I could be wrong, I probably am.

I really don't know the how's or why's the City of Rowlett is somehow involved. If it was a matter of public safety (which it is) wouldn't Rowlett have to take action on its own? By "on its own", I mean wouldn't any legal action have to be separate from the civil action(s)?

mm

Originally Posted By Dillon45:
Hey Guys, Owner here for NETT. There are several issues I can clear up for you guys who are not sure what is going on.

We did open in July of last year, the suit was not brought until this month. We are "grandfathered" into the range protection law SB-766. My attorney wrote the law from the ground up so I can tell you that we are definitely covered by it. We have around 50 members who have shot out there so far but since I work overseas I was not able to be open every weekend.

You do not need to be open every day to be a gun range nor do you need to have dirt pushed. I do not know of a UKD/KD steel range in Texas that has berms behind every target. Although I will always be making improvements, they are not required by law. I keep adding safety measures because I want to, not because I have to. Texas requires that 20 people shoot in a calendar year for it to be considered a range, there is not a fixed firing line or dirt requirement. We have insurance and are completely compliant with the what the law requires.

The current restraining order prevents me from even working on the range. Being that everything I do is to make it safer, they are preventing me from building safety measures and then citing that the range is not safe. You see the catch there? If I try to make my range safer I go to jail.

All of the "planned" talk on Facebook is for people who are not already members. We are not taking any more members at the moment so just to keep things simple we worded it like that. We will not take more members than the facility can handle safely so that is also a factor. As we finish up some improvements we will be able to facilitate more members.

The website is purposely vague because the trial is set for August and the DA is looking on these forums and my website hard to try and twist some facts to use against us. Like I said in the snipershide thread, I posted it to raise awareness and get some people spun up about what is happening, not to get money from you. That same email went out to thousands of shooters all over Texas and they have really helped with the donations. We are going to kick this thing in the teeth.. Thanks for the support and I will try to update you guys when I have something good.

Originally Posted By Bartholomew_Roberts:


Based on what I have read online and in previous threads here, the City of Rowlett was prohibited from bringing suit by the Range Protection Law because they could not prove that the rounds that impacted in the city came from the range, although that was apparently the opinion of the police investigators. So the city council voted to fund a lawyer for the private party whose house was struck so they could bring suit.

As for THIS particular range battle, like I said, I would be happy to help; but I would like to know more about what is going on before I start sending money to random strangers I met on the Internet. For all I know the website and every member I see vouching for them on this website are all one guy who is running a scam. I don't really think that is what is happening but "We have a major important case and if we lose no ranges will be safe, send money now!' doesn't really explain the details much better than your average "I am a Nigerian prince..." email.

Originally Posted By Tboy:


Renegade started this thread and appears to know more of the facts to this case so I would not consider this any type of scam due to his endorcement. Then again, this thread is not about raising funds, more about getting information out so please don't get this locked.

Originally Posted By Dillon45:
Hey Guys, Owner here for NETT. There are several issues I can clear up for you guys who are not sure what is going on.

We did open in July of last year, the suit was not brought until this month. We are "grandfathered" into the range protection law SB-766. My attorney wrote the law from the ground up so I can tell you that we are definitely covered by it. We have around 50 members who have shot out there so far but since I work overseas I was not able to be open every weekend.

You do not need to be open every day to be a gun range nor do you need to have dirt pushed. I do not know of a UKD/KD steel range in Texas that has berms behind every target. Although I will always be making improvements, they are not required by law. I keep adding safety measures because I want to, not because I have to. Texas requires that 20 people shoot in a calendar year for it to be considered a range, there is not a fixed firing line or dirt requirement. We have insurance and are completely compliant with the what the law requires.

The current restraining order prevents me from even working on the range. Being that everything I do is to make it safer, they are preventing me from building safety measures and then citing that the range is not safe. You see the catch there? If I try to make my range safer I go to jail.

All of the "planned" talk on Facebook is for people who are not already members. We are not taking any more members at the moment so just to keep things simple we worded it like that. We will not take more members than the facility can handle safely so that is also a factor. As we finish up some improvements we will be able to facilitate more members.

The website is purposely vague because the trial is set for August and the DA is looking on these forums and my website hard to try and twist some facts to use against us. Like I said in the snipershide thread, I posted it to raise awareness and get some people spun up about what is happening, not to get money from you. That same email went out to thousands of shooters all over Texas and they have really helped with the donations. We are going to kick this thing in the teeth.. Thanks for the support and I will try to update you guys when I have something good.

Originally Posted By RenegadeX:
What specifically are they complaining about?

Bullets leaving range?

Noise?

Traffic?

Eyesore?

Originally Posted By Dillon45:
Hey Guys, Owner here for NETT. There are several issues I can clear up for you guys who are not sure what is going on.

We did open in July of last year, the suit was not brought until this month. We are "grandfathered" into the range protection law SB-766. My attorney wrote the law from the ground up so I can tell you that we are definitely covered by it. We have around 50 members who have shot out there so far but since I work overseas I was not able to be open every weekend.

You do not need to be open every day to be a gun range nor do you need to have dirt pushed. I do not know of a UKD/KD steel range in Texas that has berms behind every target. Although I will always be making improvements, they are not required by law. I keep adding safety measures because I want to, not because I have to. Texas requires that 20 people shoot in a calendar year for it to be considered a range, there is not a fixed firing line or dirt requirement. We have insurance and are completely compliant with the what the law requires.

The current restraining order prevents me from even working on the range. Being that everything I do is to make it safer, they are preventing me from building safety measures and then citing that the range is not safe. You see the catch there? If I try to make my range safer I go to jail.

All of the "planned" talk on Facebook is for people who are not already members. We are not taking any more members at the moment so just to keep things simple we worded it like that. We will not take more members than the facility can handle safely so that is also a factor. As we finish up some improvements we will be able to facilitate more members.

The website is purposely vague because the trial is set for August and the DA is looking on these forums and my website hard to try and twist some facts to use against us. Like I said in the snipershide thread, I posted it to raise awareness and get some people spun up about what is happening, not to get money from you. That same email went out to thousands of shooters all over Texas and they have really helped with the donations. We are going to kick this thing in the teeth.. Thanks for the support and I will try to update you guys when I have something good.

Originally Posted By wyle_e_kyote:
Please post the case number and which court its filed in .. this should be public information and you can save me (and others) a bunch of pacer money tracking it down.

Thanks!

Originally Posted By RenegadeX:
What specifically are they complaining about?

Bullets leaving range?

Noise?

Traffic?

Eyesore?

Originally Posted By RenegadeX:


Answering my own question:

They simply do not want a Sport Shooting Range in their neck of the woods. It seems local landowners have been there for years and just do not want the noise and potential risk "next door". They claim it is a "clear & present danger" and "immediate risk". There were no claims of bullets leaving property.

They seem to be claiming since it was not 100% fully operational, and open every day prior to SB766, it does not qualify. This is EXACTLY why I started this thread, to refute the other thread claim it was not open. It seems they are scouring BBS for info, and used this incorrect info in their filings.

It is unfortunate SB766 only protects ranges prior to 9/1/11. Not sure why it was written like that. Why not protect all ranges whenever they open? I mean you could be in West Texas with no one around for hundreds of miles but you are not protected if you opened on 9/2/11? Do not understand the logic in that.

Originally Posted By Will:

Now it is.....so potential range developers have been fairly warned- Don't build a range where it's going to be overrun.

Originally Posted By RenegadeX:


Almost sounds like it was written by anti-gun forces trying to "Freeze" the number of Ranges in Texas to what we currently have.

Can't see many folks looking to build new ranges now. Nobody can predict suburban sprawl 5 years from now, and then you get closed down.

Stupid law is stupid.

Originally Posted By Tboy:


Any chance to get the date struck down? What keeps you from building a range tomorrow and then have an anti-gunner move in nearby and insist you close?

Originally Posted By Will:


The issue has been ranges that were in a location for a long time that are over time surrounded by new development. If you build a NEW range....you better not build it in an area that is likely to become built up. I think the Leg. saw it as a "fairness" issue....if you have been someplace a long time people moving in shouldn't be able to force you out- this kind of thing never used to be an issue. Now it is.....so potential range developers have been fairly warned- Don't build a range where it's going to be overrun.

Originally Posted By Tboy:


Any chance to get the date struck down? What keeps you from building a range tomorrow and then have an anti-gunner move in nearby and insist you close?

Originally Posted By Will:



No. This is the best law that could be passed. It is the best range protection law in the nation. Hell, even the U.S. Government can be sued when they kill people wrongly or break their shit. Does anyone but a moron think that private ranges are somehow going to be completely immune from suit? Jesus Christ the unrealistic expectations of people are unreal......

Originally Posted By Tboy:


Not unrealistic at all but a realistic concern for any future range. Why do you keep getting twisted over legitimate questions?

Originally Posted By 2tired2run:
The grandfather clause:

Nothing in this section shall prohibit a governmental
unit from bringing an action against a sport shooting range, the
owners or operators of a sport shooting range, or the owners of real
property on which a sport shooting range is operating if the sport
shooting range began operation after September 1, 2011, and
operates exclusively within the governmental unit's geographical
limits, exclusive of the governmental unit's extraterritorial
jurisdiction:
(1) for injunctive relief to enforce a valid
ordinance, statute, or regulation; or
(2) to require the sport shooting range to comply with
generally accepted standards followed in the sport shooting range
industry in this state at the time of the sport shooting range's
construction.


In other words if you're building a new range know the laws on the books. I don't know all of Kaufman County's laws but unless they have something on the books prohibiting ranges or applying to ranges, once the range is open there's not shit they can do. That doesn't mean they can't try and twist a noise pollution ordinance or some other obscure county law/ordinance/regulation to try and shut them down. This means new ranges will have to be very selective where they open and I anticipate a lot or pre-emptive legislation to stop new ranges such as onerous permitting/insurance etc.

My understanding is that NETT's case was allowed to go to trial and they're appealing that decision.

For the record I don't know of any kind of insurance that pays legal fees for suits not related to negligence or direct actions or damages. For example I doubt a hog farmer could buy insurance to pay legal fees when his neighbor said your place stinks I'm going to sue you for nuisance or a county files for an injunction because they've passed a new anti-hog farm ordinace. He could buy insurance to pay damages when his hogs get out and do damage to his neighbors. There is a difference.

With a lawyer billing out at 175-250 an hour I doubt this is cheap.