Quoted:


You can't be serious.  First, you come here claiming you're involved in the case.  Then you state "we" have decided to go public with the details.  You make wild accusation after wild accusation - providing nothing to substantiate these claims, and typically avoid the follow-up questions.  You tell us not to trust anything written or published about the case - that you're the only one we should trust (in spite of being caught outright fabricating things here in the past).  When asked for anything to substantiate what you're saying, you tell us to "Look it up, it's in the court records."  Nobody has had any luck getting those records, and you've ignored the requests for assistance there.  Then when asked to share the 40 page document you do have that you've stated is the authoritative source (and presumably was official record in the hearings - i.e. public), you tell us we don't have a 'need to know'?  Wow .

Quoted:
So we can claim anything we want and have no obligation to support it?  Awesome!!  



Sold.  

** click **

Quoted:
I don't know if it was the tree huggers, more likely it was an adjoining property owner that knows a county commissioner or judge. If you open a business in Manatee and end up in competition with someone that has friends or relatives in county government you can look forward to harassment by code enforcement, numerous snap inspections by the fire department and so on, other than the rifle range, I avoid doing business in Manatee.

Quoted:

  Florida is so damn corrupt and dirty in government and business.

Quoted:


I hear you, but don't think the standard of safety is 'at least as good as other ranges.'  If my pictures above are correct - the range is at the edge of the 1,400 acre property and pointed directly towards the property of those pushing for the injunction and safety review.  There appears to be just a few hundred feet between the two properties.  The range appears to be on a rise, which is bordered by low lying state-owned wetlands (the are pictures of people on boats in the lower area).  The property owners are directly across this lowlands are also on a rise - putting them directly in the line of fire with minimal substance between them.  

You and I both know there are things you can do to mitigate rounds leaving the range, and many of those are very effective.  With that said - the property owners across the gully have a legit concern.  I can't comment on all the other nonsense and conspiracy theories one person champions about corrupt politicians, payoffs to family members, etc.  If my house was on the back end of that range, though - I'd be concerned too.  If I was building a range on 1,428 acre property - the outside corner pointing out directly at someone else's property would have been the last place I put it.  If you feel so confident in your mitigation strategies - point the darn thing inwards towards your own property and lodge.  

I like shooting, outdoor ranges and fully support them.  I'd actually like to meet the owner of this range and send him some business once this is over with.  I have a 50BMG and a Larue OBR that would love to hit some 4-digit ranges.  With that said, all the drama and nonsense aside - I see both sides on this one, and hope they can work it out.....

Quoted:
I'm not privy to all the court room drama but I have shot on that range. There is no more possibility of a bullet leaving that range than any of the numerous other outdoor ranges I have been on.

Quoted:


Thanks for coming out the ranch!
Can't wait to have you out again.

Do you remember the drive from the lodge to the range ?
If you drive directly twards Mr Barnes property it's a little over twice that distance that distance.

Quoted:


Hey, since you've been on the range, maybe you can help us.  As of right now the only factual or trustworthy information sources we have are google maps and a few newspaper articles.  

Are these the ranges?  Which was do shooters fire?  

http://www.ar15.com/media/viewFile.html?i=68809

Quoted:



It will be but the fact that Barnes walked into a courtroom and lied still remains.
The fact that the ranch is reopening was never in question, I just refuse to let what Barnes and this reckless judge did go unanswered.

Quoted:
You realize that 1.6 miles south of the short range (the one above the pond) puts you almost to the south of the Barnes property and onto property belonging to Pacific Tomato,  right? And, new phase, like the original range, is being done without permits, right? And that you can actually see Barnes' north east fence line in the photos posted and the distance range back stop right beside it, right? And that a significant number of classes were held at the ranch, not for family and friends, but for paying customers, long before any permits were applied for and then only after being sued, right? And that the property upon which the ranges sit is not in any way owned by the trust, but by the corporation, right? And that Baden's own experts testified at the original injunction hearing that they could not guarantee bullets were not and had not left the range, right?

But, why shouldn't people believe you and not public record, aerial imagery and the like?

Quoted:







Those are not the sort of assertions I would be making in a public forum.

Quoted:


And therein lies the rub - leaving aside someone's credibility based on past events, the "don't believe anything you read - just believe me" game doesn't make sense when we can all look at a map:  
[div style='margin-left: 40px;']
Here's the link to the Manatee Property Assessors website: Property Search
Do a search for "Saray" and click on the first result
On the bottom left of the page you'll see a link for "Map" - click on that
If you want to see the property boundaries of anything on the map, click the "Select" icon at the top (an arrow pointing up and to the left with a dot at the end), and then click on adjoining properties
You can click on the Information icon (the "i" with a circle around it) to see who owns any given parcel.

You will have to go back to google maps or another program to see a scale, but in short - even the 'new faze' range is within 400' of the property boundary, and is clearly within 1000' of the Rocking Seven Ranch (which is part of the suit/injunction - not sure who owns it).  Even if we use the best case measurements from 'new faze' - it's within 6,850' (or 1.3 miles) to the furthest part of Rocking Seven Parcel 167200104.  Most distances were closer to 1 mile.  The reality is that the property owners contesting the range are within a very close distance and directly downrange of both ranges.  Even 22lr rounds can go two miles, so I don't really understand the point of 1 to 1.3 miles (or 1.6 miles depending on whose math you use) being some magical buffer.  If a round goes over the berm - it's not going to be stopped by the trees behind it, and can certainly travel the 1/2 mile (if fired at an angle) or 1 to 1.3 miles (if fired directly inline) to reach adjoining properties.  I am a training counselor (master instructor), instructor and range officer, and will tell you - I cannot stop someone from firing over a berm, and certainly can't do it with a class of 20.  I can only react to it when I observe bad behavior (after trying to prevent it beforehand, of course, through proper training and confidence exercises).  Name-dropping fancy instructors doesn't change physics.  I also can't stop someone from committing suicide with a firearm on a range, but some people believe they can.

We were told that the range is NOT near the edge of the property and pointed outwards.  Now we know even the 'new faze' range is still within 250' of the property boundary (or ~500' if you use a straight southerly line), and it is pointed directly towards those filing suit.  I can't tell what kind of trees are planted behind the ranges, but they REALLY don't look like they're 80' tall.  These facts hardly garner confidence.  

Drama and conspiracy theories aside - my challenge remains: if you're so confident about your backstop and mitigation - point it towards your own property/house (not someone else's)!!  Florida ordinances appear to protect you from noise complaints.  You'd certainly take the winds out of the sails of anyone who wanted to cry safety concerns at that point.  The minute you put your range on the outside edge of your property and point it outwards (particularly when sitting higher than the land around you), you lose the moral 'high ground.'  You may overcome (and I hope Mr. Baden does).  Operating a range commercially without permits is a 'patently unwise' move.  Operating lodging and food service without permits is also 'patently unwise.'  Claiming the County knew about your unpermitted operations and didn't do anything about it is hardly an affirmative defense.  Again, I hope the Badens win here.  There are consequences to your choices, though, and the case we're watching today is a great example of that.  




You lost me here Whitetailer1 - the parcel directly to the south of the range is listed as owned by Southwest Florida Water, and is listed as "government owned land."  It appears to be all wetlands, so did you really mean that this was Mr. Barnes' property?  




Promises have been made that proof will be provided.  I, for one, am content to simply sit back and wait.  Further debate will likely resemble the monkey pen at the zoo, and I just took a shower .  

There were a pile of allegations made here in a public forum.  A smart person would have to be VERY confident in their documentation and proof if they hoped to avoid a slander suit - particularly when referring to the owners in the incident as "we", inferring they have some control over or a stake in the ranch, and aligning their business with the ranch.  Any of us that champion Mr. Baden's cause need to be very careful how we portray facts, represent the ranch in a public setting, or attack the opposing party.  While intentions may be solid, the execution is more likely to hurt the Baden's than help.  The last thing the Badens need right now are 'friends' flying off the handle in public settings....

Quoted:


And therein lies the rub - leaving aside someone's credibility based on past events, the "don't believe anything you read - just believe me" game doesn't make sense when we can all look at a map:  
[div style='margin-left: 40px;']
Here's the link to the Manatee Property Assessors website: Property Search
Do a search for "Saray" and click on the first result
On the bottom left of the page you'll see a link for "Map" - click on that
If you want to see the property boundaries of anything on the map, click the "Select" icon at the top (an arrow pointing up and to the left with a dot at the end), and then click on adjoining properties
You can click on the Information icon (the "i" with a circle around it) to see who owns any given parcel.

You will have to go back to google maps or another program to see a scale, but in short - even the 'new faze' range is within 400' of the property boundary, and is clearly within 1000' of the Rocking Seven Ranch (which is part of the suit/injunction - not sure who owns it).  Even if we use the best case measurements from 'new faze' - it's within 6,850' (or 1.3 miles) to the furthest part of Rocking Seven Parcel 167200104.  Most distances were closer to 1 mile.  The reality is that the property owners contesting the range are within a very close distance and directly downrange of both ranges.  Even 22lr rounds can go two miles, so I don't really understand the point of 1 to 1.3 miles (or 1.6 miles depending on whose math you use) being some magical buffer.  If a round goes over the berm - it's not going to be stopped by the trees behind it, and can certainly travel the 1/2 mile (if fired at an angle) or 1 to 1.3 miles (if fired directly inline) to reach adjoining properties.  I am a training counselor (master instructor), instructor and range officer, and will tell you - I cannot stop someone from firing over a berm, and certainly can't do it with a class of 20.  I can only react to it when I observe bad behavior (after trying to prevent it beforehand, of course, through proper training and confidence exercises).  Name-dropping fancy instructors doesn't change physics.  I also can't stop someone from committing suicide with a firearm on a range, but some people believe they can.

We were told that the range is NOT near the edge of the property and pointed outwards.  Now we know even the 'new faze' range is still within 250' of the property boundary (or ~500' if you use a straight southerly line), and it is pointed directly towards those filing suit.  I can't tell what kind of trees are planted behind the ranges, but they REALLY don't look like they're 80' tall.  These facts hardly garner confidence.  

Drama and conspiracy theories aside - my challenge remains: if you're so confident about your backstop and mitigation - point it towards your own property/house (not someone else's)!!  Florida ordinances appear to protect you from noise complaints.  You'd certainly take the winds out of the sails of anyone who wanted to cry safety concerns at that point.  The minute you put your range on the outside edge of your property and point it outwards (particularly when sitting higher than the land around you), you lose the moral 'high ground.'  You may overcome (and I hope Mr. Baden does).  Operating a range commercially without permits is a 'patently unwise' move.  Operating lodging and food service without permits is also 'patently unwise.'  Claiming the County knew about your unpermitted operations and didn't do anything about it is hardly an affirmative defense.  Again, I hope the Badens win here.  There are consequences to your choices, though, and the case we're watching today is a great example of that.  




You lost me here Whitetailer1 - the parcel directly to the south of the range is listed as owned by Southwest Florida Water, and is listed as "government owned land."  It appears to be all wetlands, so did you really mean that this was Mr. Barnes' property?  




Promises have been made that proof will be provided.  I, for one, am content to simply sit back and wait.  Further debate will likely resemble the monkey pen at the zoo, and I just took a shower .  

There were a pile of allegations made here in a public forum.  A smart person would have to be VERY confident in their documentation and proof if they hoped to avoid a slander suit - particularly when referring to the owners in the incident as "we", inferring they have some control over or a stake in the ranch, and aligning their business with the ranch.  Any of us that champion Mr. Baden's cause need to be very careful how we portray facts, represent the ranch in a public setting, or attack the opposing party.  While intentions may be solid, the execution is more likely to hurt the Baden's than help.  The last thing the Badens need right now are 'friends' flying off the handle in public settings....

Quoted:
I haven't promised you anything.
In fact to be clear I'll change that now..
I promise you that you will  not set foot on the property or participate in any way in RCR events.
You are either connected to  the plaintiffs or a troll who needs another hobby.

If you had an impact on this case you'd already have all the facts and proof you need.

Quoted:
This was the first time I had heard that private shooting was banned, and that non-family members were allowed on the property.  I have a feeling (and hope) that Mr. Baden is going to get that tossed out very quickly.  I hope there are repercussions for them issuing that order.

Quoted:


LOL this does not begin or end on this website....or with you.
For all you know I'm just here to flush out.....well, nevermind

Quoted:


And there's the irony you don't seem to get - you're making an enemy where there isn't one.  You're threatening people for no reason.  I literally have no stake in this debate.  I know nobody involved in this.  I very rarely leave the island I live on.  This isn't about me or the ar15.com website, and I have no illusions (or desires) otherwise.  I might go shoot at Rocky Creek some day.  I might not.  I hadn't even heard of the ranch until this thread.  

The only reason I'm posting at all here is because I'm aggravated at seeing soap opera drama (from grown men) surround something that should be factual and emotion-free.  Is the range near the outer edge of the property or not?  If it is, don't say it's not.  If the trees are 40' - don't say they're 80'.  Don't tell people here to ignore what's published from reputable sources.  Give us your own (and no, 'trust me guys - they got it all wrong!' is not adequate).  You should have been the one to provide the aerial shots, distances, property owners and proximity, etc.  You should have been the one providing permit dates and numbers.  You should have been the one linking to the court transcripts or sharing relevant documentation.  But you did none of that.  In fact, you attack anyone who does.  Links to a YouTube video of people shooting on the range is the closest to 'facts' you've offered in the entire conversation - and even that doesn't demonstrate anything.  The class the next day could have been drunken rednecks shooting straight into the sky.  So what?  

So here are my two very simple and straightforward questions for you Mr. Brooks:

(1) Do you issue the statements above on behalf of Mr. Baden and the property owners at Rocky Creek Ranch?  

(2) You've used the words "we" and "I" in relation to RCR.  Do you have a stake in or control of the business or operations of Rocky Creek Ranch?  

Quoted:


Here is the final word for you,because you've butted it and proven to be a troll from the beginning.

This is the final 3rd of this event, not the beginning.
There are MANY things you don't know, that you could have asked, but you choose to draw a conclusion from newspapers and hearsay.
I am authorized to speak for RCR but I'm acting here on my own because Mr. Barnes is failing to stop the ranch, but I refuse to forget how he used his access to the legal system to twist the truth ans sometimes lie, with effect!
He, his friends and the judge and anti gun and have an ulterior motives that need to be exposed and widely known by the community.
Mr. Bares  has even gone so far as to pit family members against each other.
I haven't been given permission to talk about the personal toll on Mr. Baden Sr. his sick wife or the rest of the family.
You really have no idea how much of a "soap opera" it is.

The reason this story in on ARFCOM in the first place is that Mr. Barnes is a common villain that the gun community is faced with.
Next time ask questions, don't make assumptions or mind your own business.
But whatever you do, never pit what you see in the newspaper against someone who's  involved.

Quoted:




I seem to remember ridiculous, highly dramatic, tall tales and absurdly false, negative assertions made by somebody who claimed to be an important range safety person at a chain of gunstore/ranges who was later outed as a guy who stood behind the range desk signing people in, when he wasn't sweeping up the range brass, and who was discharged for poor performance at those tasks.

Indeed; people do get flushed out on the internet all the time.