Homes hit by stray bullets from shooting range

[majormadmax]

Uh-oh!

http://www.woai.com/news/local/stor...ting-range/23gQ_pf9S0u0HM4xD15pJA.cspx?rss=68

Homes hit by stray bullets from shooting range

GARDEN RIDGE, Texas -- Bullets flying into a subdivision have residents scared to walk outside their front doors.

Police believe the rounds are stray bullets coming from a nearby firing range in Garden Ridge. Residents said since bullets started flying into homes and yards and whizzing past joggers more than a year ago, they've been trying to get the firing range shut down.

The Bracken Rifle & Pistol Range has been on the outskirts of Garden Ridge for 25 years. Then in 2008, developers built the Wild Wind subdivision less than a mile away and right in the line of fire. Wild Wind HOA President Bob Shilliday said he's received 20 complaints of stray bullets littering the neighborhood. Four homes have been struck, including one that has been hit twelve times.

"I'd be appalled if I lived over there," said Garden Ridge Mayor Jay Feibelman. "If I knew I couldn't sit on my patio if there were bullets flying in."

Mayor Feibelman told News 4 WOAI that because the range is outside city limits, his hands are tied.

"And I'd go further and say if it was in the city, they're not doing anything illegal, and We can't prove it, how would I, as the mayor of city council, do anything," Mayor Feibelman added. "We can't shut them down."

But that's exactly what the homeowner's association is asking for. In fact, last year the HOA and the firing range split the cost for an unbiased ballistics study. The expert recommended the range make several changes to keep bullets from leaving the facility. Shilliday says the range hasn't complied with those recommendations.

The range's attorney denies the bullets are coming from the range and said the subdivision was built and residents moved in with full knowledge of a nearby range.

The investigation is now in the hands of the Comal County Sheriff's Office. Investigators told us there are also hunting areas nearby, and they're still trying to determine if the bullets are, in fact, coming from the shooting range.

I've shot at Bracken before, and it's OK but the place doesn't have the best reputation! I've heard several firsthand stories about shooters being harassed by the staff there. Still, considering it's been there for 25 years, and this new development is less than a year old, I tend to side with the range!

The developers of that subdivision should be sued for failing to notify the residents of the range. That should be a law, so the idiots can't react like this when things like this happen.

Plus, I would wager that the "flying bullets" are ricochets...

 

[Fisherman777]

Exactly. It's the same as is happening to a lot of small airports. Airport's been there a long time and some dim bulb decides to build right under the approach and then complains about the noise and tries to get the airport closed. Dipstick!

 

[West Texas]

I saw the Zapruder film, I know that bullets can zig-zag...so they MUST be going over all that dirt piled up at the end of the range...

 

[zembonez]

Typical of people to build in the line of fire... then bitch about the range being there. MORONS.

The range does have a certain duty to effectively control the rounds that are fired within it though. If this sub-division is a mile away, they should not be being hit with strays.

 

[IXLR8]

Sounds like the builder and the homeowners did not do their due diligence before building or buying. If your car is hit by a stray golf ball when you drive past a golf course, under Texas law it is not the fault of the golf course. I wonder if the same applies to a gun range?

 

[zembonez]

If the range is doing what they are supposed to be doing by law to contain their rounds... I say screw the idiots who moved downwind.

 

[MR Redneck]

Uh-oh!



I've shot at Bracken before, and it's OK but the place doesn't have the best reputation! I've heard several firsthand stories about shooters being harassed by the staff there. Still, considering it's been there for 25 years, and this new development is less than a year old, I tend to side with the range!

The developers of that subdivision should be sued for failing to notify the residents of the range. That should be a law, so the idiots can't react like this when things like this happen.

Plus, I would wager that the "flying bullets" are ricochets...

What kind of dumbass would harass customers at a gun range??
We have a douchebag range ninja at my local range that likes to pester people. He bothered me one time and I tore into his ass. The next time I went out there while he was there I just told him if he comes around me im going to knock his ass out.. I cant stand it when those range officers pester people.

 

[jsimmons]

A few weeks ago, I went to Bracken to shoot a new rifle. I like to shoot offhand, but new rules recently in place prohibit it. I asked why, and the lady said they actually caught someone shooting over the berm on the 100-yard rifle line intentionally. On the pistol line, they introduced a low overhang from the roof that blocks the view of the berm behind the targets Tall shooters (6-foot or more) probably can't shoot standing up there due to the overhang, especially on the 7-yard spot.

The only time I've ever personally seen them "harass" anyone was when the person was doing something they considered unsafe or against their rules.

Despite the rules, Bracken is one of the most well-maintained and well-organized ranges in town. As long as you follow the rules, they don't bother you at all.

As far as homeowners complaining, they should have been warned that there was a shooting range nearby, but as noisy as the place is ALL WEEK, I can't see how folks wouldn't ask the housing tract salesmen what all the noise was.

 

[mtaylor]

Wait a second... to me it appears that many of you do not realize there is a state law that prohibits the firing of a firearm of any kind over a property line (without permission.) The homeowners have NO responsibility in this, regardless who was there first. Although the law is being violated by a patron, the range should take reasonable steps to ensure that the firearms allowed to be discharged CANNOT make it beyond the property line, purchase more real estate, or provide some mechanical means of limiting the trajectory. If not for any other reason, to ensure that they can continue to operate in the future. (Although perhaps safety should come first?)

I'm all for gun rights, but saying this situation is anything like saying they knew the airport was there when they purchased is just not right... Sorry to be the devils advocate on this, but after thinking a little more you might convince yourself otherwise.

 

[Texasjack]

I used to work for a company that had an employees recreation facility that included a shooting range. (Ahh, the good old days!!!) Though the range had been there for many years, we started getting complaints from new folks that built in the area. Looking at the trajectories, bullets would have to fly from the backstops towards the shooting benches. In at least one case where a homeowner claimed bullets hit his house, the bullets would have to travel a mile, then go UP to make impacts like he had.

Yeah, some ranges aren't run well, but more likely the folks in the subdivision want rid of it because of noise or hope to make a few bucks off of them.

Human nature sucks.

 

[West Texas]

Wait a second... to me it appears that many of you do not realize there is a state law that prohibits the firing of a firearm of any kind over a property line (without permission.) The homeowners have NO responsibility in this, regardless who was there first. Although the law is being violated by a patron, the range should take reasonable steps to ensure that the firearms allowed to be discharged CANNOT make it beyond the property line, purchase more real estate, or provide some mechanical means of limiting the trajectory. If not for any other reason, to ensure that they can continue to operate in the future. (Although perhaps safety should come first?)

I'm all for gun rights, but saying this situation is anything like saying they knew the airport was there when they purchased is just not right... Sorry to be the devils advocate on this, but after thinking a little more you might convince yourself otherwise.

The key word in this, the word you MISSED, is INTENTIONALLY. The folks at the range have a reasonable expectation that the shots are going to stay within the range, there is no intent, no violation of any law.

 

[navyguy]

If in fact the home owners can proof there are indeed stray rounds hitting their property they will win that battle. If they are making that part up just because they don't like the idea of a range near there house they won't.

It is the range's responsibility to engineer and build the range so that rounds do not leave the property, no matter if there are homes there or not. I think we all know that if you simply depend on shooters (who will range from experts to first timers) to be 100% safe at all times and they are expected to be the only safety measure to keep rounds from straying, then you're looking for trouble. Think back to how many times you've witnessed unsafe gun handling at a public range.

As far as distance.... how far will a .270 travel shot clear at a 30 degree angle travel? Even a ricochet will easily go a mile or better. Pistol rounds not so much. And of course shotgun is a non issue.

You shoot the bullet, you own it, and I think in this case the responsibility flows through to the range.

Again, I'm not sure if the home owners have proved there are bullets landing there, but if there are, you can't blame them, or even the builder. One should be able to legally purchase property zoned for residential housing, and expect it to be free of flying bullets. My sense of this is though, that they are just worried because there is some shooting in the area, and are kicking up a fuss.

 

[majormadmax]

mtaylor

Maybe you missed it, but there are numerous indications that it is near impossible for what the homeowners are claiming to be happening. First, Bracken Range is in an old quarry pit, and the overhangs on the pistol range (the only one facing in the direction of the houses) pretty much prohibits anyone from shooting over them.

Secondly, the management at Bracken is known for strictly enforcing the rules. Had this been The Bullethole on the westside of SA, I would be more inclined to believe it; but my experience at Bracken as well as many of the folks I know who have shot out there is that such buffoonery would be quickly stopped by the range officials.

Thirdly, WOAI, who "reported" the story, is known for its sensationalism (as are most of the local news organizations here). If there were bulletholes in people's houses, you can bet your ass they would have shown them!

Lastly, a friend of mine posted this on another forum in response to the same story. I think the his computations show

I have been there quite a few times as it's my normal range. I also referenced Google Earth to verify distances. You're correct that the rifle range is 90 degrees out from the direction to Garden Ridge. I also agree that the range owners are extremely strict and would not allow any shenanigans.

According to Google Earth the elevation of of range is 775ft above sea level. The height of the hilltop behind the range is 814ft and is 150 yards away. My trig calculations show the angle required to clear the hill as 5 degrees. I would have guessed the height difference to be more though. In any case, with the new addons to the ceiling at the pistol range there's no way anybody could shoot at a higher angle than 5 degrees. I can barely shoot at -5 degrees there to hit the bottom targets when standing and I'm 5'9".

The only range in the correct direction to Garden Ridge is the open pistol range used for classes. That is 508 yards to Wild Wind Park Rd.

I pulled some numbers from my Speer Reloading Manual #14 for .45 ACP 230gr RN. I plugged those numbers into JBM Ballistics's calculator. With a ballistic coefficient of .153, muzzle velocity 850 ft/sec, 80F degree, 80% humidity, and a 32.5 degree angle (more than enough to clear the hilltop), I get a maximum range of 1726.7 yards with a terminal velocity of 264 ft/sec. At 500 yards I get 457 ft/sec and 152 ft/lbs of energy remaining. That's about twice the speed of a paintball gun, though of course a .45 ACP round has a great deal more density.

I realize there are handgun calibers with higher muzzle velocities, but I picked .45 ACP because I know you're such a fan of it. I could have input the date incorrectly or done my trig incorrectly. The rise of the hillside could be greater than I got off Google Earth, which I suspect might be the case. But you'd still need a hill 286 ft higher than the range to block a 32.5 degree angle shot. Of course that also assumes no range master is present to prevent obnoxiously high angle shots like that. It also assumes my measurement of 450 feet from the range to the top of the hill (horizontal range, not slant range). I was guessing of Google Earth, so that of course could throw off my calculations.

I suspect the situation to be that the homeowners built knowing how close the range was, but ignored that fact. Now they aren't happy with the sound of gunfire seven days a week a little more than a quarter mile away from their new abodes. Knowing that complaining about the noise would be fruitless, they've resorted to claiming that there are bullets flying through their neighborhood as they know the public reaction will be in their favor. However, I have yet to see any actual proof of that happening; all we have are the accounts of those living there but no actual evidence. Plus, as mentioned in the news article, there are other possible sources of the alleged bullets; but they are determined it is coming from the range despite the fact that physics pretty much disproves that theory. Yes, it is plausible; but the physical barriers and the strict enforcement of the rules at Bracken pretty much ensures it is not happening.

Oh, and just so we're clear; here is the statute you referenced...

§ 62.0121. DISCHARGE OF FIREARM ACROSS PROPERTY LINE.
(a) In this section, "firearm" has the meaning assigned by Section 62.014(a).
(b) A person commits an offense if:
(1) the person, while hunting or engaging in recreational shooting, knowingly discharges a firearm; and
(2) the projectile from the firearm travels across a property line.

Note the highlighted word. If someone is intentionally doing this, it is a violation of that code; but if it is accidental that is another story, and it would have to be proven that it was intentionally/knowingly done.

And not that the law puts the offense on the individual, not the owners of the location where the shooting is occurring. In this case, it would be the shooter, and not the Bracken management, who would be responsible.

 

[majormadmax]

And, to further my belief that it is the noise that is the actual cause and not the alleged "stray rounds," here is the penal code on noises at shooting ranges, and if Bracken is in compliance (as I suspect they are, given the layout of the range), the neighborhood has no course of action for it...

§ 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, § 1, eff. Aug. 26, 1991. Amended by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 1050, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2001.

If anyone is interested, here are the only other regulations that cover shooting ranges in Texas that I could find (found here):

SUBCHAPTER D. OUTDOOR SHOOTING RANGES

Sec. 756.041. DEFINITION. In this subchapter, "outdoor shooting range" means an outdoor shooting range, outdoor firing range, or other open property on which persons may fire a weapon for a fee or other remuneration but does not include a deer lease or other similar leases of property for the purpose of hunting or an archery range.
Added by Acts 1991, 72nd Leg., ch. 310, Sec. 1, eff. Aug. 26, 1991.

Sec. 756.0411. APPLICABILITY. This subchapter applies only to an outdoor shooting range located in a county with a population of more than 150,000.

Added by Acts 1991, 72nd Leg., ch. 310, Sec. 1, eff. Aug. 26, 1991.

Sec. 756.042. CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS. The owner of an outdoor shooting range shall construct and maintain the range according to standards that are at least as stringent as the standards printed in the National Rifle Association range manual.

Added by Acts 1991, 72nd Leg., ch. 310, Sec. 1, eff. Aug. 26, 1991.

Sec. 756.043. CIVIL PENALTY. (a) The owner of an outdoor shooting range who fails to comply with Section 756.042 is liable within 60 days after a finding of noncompliance for a civil penalty of $50 for each day of noncompliance; the aggregate amount not to exceed $500.
(b) The attorney general or the appropriate district attorney, criminal district attorney, or county attorney shall recover the civil penalty in a suit on behalf of the state. If the attorney general brings the suit, the penalty shall be deposited in the state treasury to the credit of the general revenue fund. If another attorney brings the suit, the penalty shall be deposited in the general fund of the county in which the violation occurred.
Added by Acts 1991, 72nd Leg., ch. 310, Sec. 1, eff. Aug. 26, 1991.

Sec. 756.044. CRIMINAL PENALTIES. (a) The owner of an outdoor shooting range commits an offense if the owner intentionally or recklessly fails to comply with Section 756.042 and that failure results in injury to another person.
(b) An offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor, except that if it is shown on the trial of the defendant that the defendant has previously been convicted of an offense under this section, the offense is a Class A misdemeanor.

Added by Acts 1991, 72nd Leg., ch. 310, Sec. 1, eff. Aug. 26, 1991.

Sec. 756.045. INSURANCE REQUIRED. (a) The owner of an outdoor shooting range shall purchase and maintain an insurance policy that provides coverage of at least $500,000 for bodily injuries or death and another policy that provides that level of coverage for property damage resulting from firing any weapon while on the shooting range.
(b) The owner of an outdoor shooting range shall prominently display a sign at the shooting range stating that the owner has purchased insurance to cover bodily injury, death, or property damage occurring from activities at the shooting range.

Added by Acts 1991, 72nd Leg., ch. 310, Sec. 1, eff. Aug. 26, 1991.

 

[Texas1911]

It's more likely that ricochets are finding their way in the neighborhood. Also, working at a gun range, I also know that people are idiots and will do some stupid stuff with guns. Even if you are right behind them, they can rattle off 3 - 4 rounds before you can even jump on them.

Regardless, it should have been the foresight of the developer to investigate this ... odds are they didn't, or overlooked it, because they saw dollars.

 

[MR Redneck]

At my local range, we sometimes have to shut it down for a pulling unit to pull a well. All kinds of pump Jacks and stuff behind it. About 100 yards to the other side of the range is about 5 or 6 houses. I never heard of any problem with the neighbors.

 

[Texas42]

The strict enforcement at Bracken comes and goes. At the most, I've seen a couple rangemasters at the pistol line. I've found the people generally very nice when your not being an idiot. They told many people to take more time between their shots, but frankly, they need to be told. There is a surplus of new/novice/"need some one-on-one supervision to keep me from doing something incredibly stupid" people that go to just about ever public range I've been to.

I doubt very much that the rifle range is to blame. The berm at the pistol range seems barely adequate to me, a non-engineer. It would be fine for. . . half decent shooters.

Now I haven't looked at the math, but I do find it very possible that pistol bullets could easily fly within a mile to a downrange subdivision. I believe that if bullets were flying into houses, you could find some proof, like bullets being lodged in a house or some such.

Bracken has made changes. I do find it logical for a shooting range to make reasonable effort to keep the fired shots on their property. I think the plywood they have put up is more of a "see there isn't bullets at X angle" than at stopping bullets from flying.

EDIT: These changes are so annoying, I'll pay a bit more to go somewhere else.

 

[navyguy]

If the home owners continue to protest, they need to provide some evidence. Lacking that, there is no case.

I have no knowledge of that range but I will say this and it applies to all ranges... if it is possible for a shooter to fly a round over the berm at a trajectory that would take it into the/a subdivision, simply by not adhering to the rules of the range, then it will happen. It's just a matter of time.

I see this from new shooters all the time... they're shooting their pistol, and between shots, they bring their hands/gun towards their body (similar to half guard) and point the gun up at about a 45 degree angle, with finger on the trigger. I guess they've seen this in the movies, or somehow they mistakenly think this is safe, because they figure... well it's still pointed down range, and it's pointed up so it must be safe.... wrong.

 

[kurt]

At my local range, the roof extends down and out far enough to block the view of the top of dirt berm behind the targets. That lip had a couple of dozen holes in the one station I shot from on Friday. One would have to point a handgun at 45 degree angle to do that. Scary how incompetent some people are.

 

[Pawdog]

Hell, I wish I had a public gun range within one mile from me! The closest to me is about 30 miles, one way.......