The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > General Discussion Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old June 26, 2013, 03:21 PM   #26
FrankenMauser
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 25, 2008
Location: 1B ID
Posts: 6,847
Quote:
Suburban commando this aint and shouldnt be.While "what came first" should not and is not a good argument if rounds start hitting your home
Don't be so certain, Patriot.
Both parties are at fault, here. The idiots that built the range did so on a tiny piece of ground with no natural backstops (other than trees ), and houses down range.
Then, an idiotic developer came in and built more houses as close 280 yards from the firing line (and not just sort of down range, but DIRECTLY in line with the range).


Bullets leave gun ranges. It's a law of the universe.
Building a range where they did.... stupid.
Building a house inline with an improperly placed gun range... even more stupid.
Buying said house... absolutely idiotic.
__________________
"Such is the strange way that man works -- first he virtually destroys a species and then does everything in his power to restore it."
FrankenMauser is offline  
Old June 27, 2013, 08:23 AM   #27
Patriot86
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 23, 2010
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 1,293
Quote:
Buying said house... absolutely idiotic.
With this I agree, you really need to do the research when buying a house. Google maps (as you pointed out) is a great tool to see whats going on around a prospective house so long as the trees are not too thick.

I am surprised that the Developer almost didn't put in his own Berm just to have all of his liabilities covered, then again I am not surprised.

The developer don't care , once he sells all those new homes he walks away with his money into the sunset. A developer is all about making the maximum profit.


Again, I live near a small airport and there has been about one plane crash during landing per year, including one that exploded all over a home about a mile away. But I am not going to go and try to get the village to shut it down over that, its part of living near an airport just as part of living in the country is hearing shots.


What ends up happening is enough of the "new" residents go to the town council, kvetch about noise and perceived or real danger and the ranges are zoned or legislated out of existence.
__________________
"....The swords of others will set you your limits".
Patriot86 is offline  
Old June 27, 2013, 09:14 AM   #28
Nathan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 1, 2001
Posts: 1,977
This is a non-stop issue with ranges. There will always be ricochets. The single best thing a range can do is build smart. I find regular people seem to think you can push up a mound of dirt 10 feet high or shoot into woods and hve that be a bullet trap.

What you need is a good range design. Good methodology is something like:
-30 foot mound of dirt at the maximum range
-~10 foot mounds at each sub range distance with fixed target boards
-elevated firing position
-range bed of sand, pea gravel, mulch or other relatively bullet absorbing material
-strict enforcement of muzzle on the back stop or below rules
-trees on the back stop or leaving tall natural trees behind it for catching stray ricochets

These are ideas for flat landers. Building against a mountain is also a good idea.
Nathan is offline  
Old June 27, 2013, 09:22 AM   #29
David13
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 2, 2012
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 243
The outdoor ranges here and generally in the west back up against a mountain.
That I think is an essential.
I don't think it matters who came first. The shots must remain within the range, and not stray onto neighbors property.
And, next time you are at an indoor range, look at the ceiling. They are usually peppered with bullet holes. That tells me that there are a whole lot of people that are shooting where, if outdoors, the range is up to a mile in all directions.
One answer is that any range needs to 'police' the range. To be sure shooters are not shooting out of the range.
And yet, look at the threads. We constantly see threads on all the forums about a shooter who thinks the ro should not be able to tell them anything.
dc
David13 is offline  
Old June 27, 2013, 10:11 AM   #30
zincwarrior
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 1, 2011
Location: Texas, land of Tex-Mex
Posts: 1,246
EDIT F Ettin said better

Last edited by zincwarrior; June 27, 2013 at 10:19 AM.
zincwarrior is offline  
Old June 27, 2013, 10:14 AM   #31
zincwarrior
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 1, 2011
Location: Texas, land of Tex-Mex
Posts: 1,246
edit (F Ettin said better)
zincwarrior is offline  
Old June 27, 2013, 10:15 AM   #32
zincwarrior
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 1, 2011
Location: Texas, land of Tex-Mex
Posts: 1,246
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Punisher_1
...Why does shooting seem to be a constant battle with one thing or another?
This really isn't about shooting. It's about a basic legal principle of very broad application. It is usually thought to derive from the 1868 ruling by the British House of Lords (which is the British equivalent of our SCOTUS) in the case of Rylands v. Fletcher (BAILII Citation Number: [1868] UKHL 1):
Quote:
... The same result is arrived at on the principles referred to by Mr. Justice Blackburn in his judgment, in the Court of Exchequer Chamber, where he states the opinion of that Court as to the law in these words: "We think that the true rule of law is, that the person who, for his own purposes, brings on his land and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it in at his peril; and if he does not do so, is primâ facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape. ..."...
In other words, in general if you engage in potentially dangerous activities on your property which could harm your neighbors, you are responsible if those activities do harm your neighbors.

Quote:
Originally Posted by deepcreek
....some people ...call in about their house getting shot from "stray bullet" ....

I have never heard of one that turned out to be true, but they keep calling and keep trying to get the range shut down.
Sometimes claims are bogus.

Here there was apparently a trial and the claims were determined to be genuine.
Indeed, well said.

Last edited by Frank Ettin; June 27, 2013 at 10:39 AM. Reason: clarify
zincwarrior is offline  
Old June 27, 2013, 10:21 AM   #33
SgtLumpy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 2, 2013
Posts: 779
The range where I grew up as a kid, San Gabriel Valley Gun Club, is now closed. As I understand it, developers built a subdivision of homes downrange and off to the side of the range. Also as I understand it, no rounds ever hit anything at the subdivision, but the home owners got the range shut down because they were fearful that rounds "might" hit their homes.

I'm not saying that's what happend in the circumstances of the OP story. But I'd imagine that sort of thing happens a lot. People move into the flight paths of airports and then try and get the airport shut down.

Can anyone in SoCal verify that I'm correct in the reason that the range in Azusa had to close?


Sgt Lumpy
SgtLumpy is offline  
Old June 27, 2013, 10:56 AM   #34
TXAZ
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 5, 2010
Location: TEXAS!
Posts: 1,430
As the lawyer/instructor in a CCW class lectured us, in line with Frank's comment,
"There's a lawyer attached to every bullet you fire" ... and "you hope it's your lawyer and not a plaintiff's".
__________________
!أنا لست إرهابي
TXAZ is offline  
Old June 27, 2013, 01:06 PM   #35
James K
Staff
 
Join Date: March 17, 1999
Posts: 19,651
At one time a couple of anti-gun organizations actually gave out instructions to their members on how to file false reports about bullets from ranges doing damage. They were told, for example to say that "a bullet hit my house", not "a bullet from the range hit my house." The first is true, even though (like the above post) the woman "fired" it herself with a slingshot. The second might be proved a lie and result in perjury charges or filing a false report.

In this area, a newspaper columnist once claimed that the "super powerful" bullets from "assault rifles" would penetrate the two mile hill that was a range backstop! Some people probably believed the lie.

But, as others have said, it is better if the range is constructed so bullets cannot leave the property; that way there is no problem. But we also have to be alert to the issue at local council meetings and the like, where sometimes the big liars of the antis can get their version in first and get a range closed before anyone else even finds out there is an issue.

Jim
__________________
Jim K
James K is online now  
Old June 27, 2013, 02:04 PM   #36
thallub
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 2,108
Quote:
Can anyone in SoCal verify that I'm correct in the reason that the range in Azusa had to close?
The city council voted to rezone and close the range. There is now a Burro Canyon shooting range near Azusa.

Quote:
City officials, citing concerns about potential fire, safety and environmental threats, gave the gun club 18 months before closing. But gun club spokesman Xavier Hermosillo says no accidents or infractions have occurred at the range since it opened. He says the club plans to sue to overturn the decision.

The closure would leave 37 shooting ranges in Southern California, down from more than 200 two decades ago.
http://articles.latimes.com/2005/feb.../os-briefs15.1
thallub is offline  
Old June 27, 2013, 02:38 PM   #37
Dixie Gunsmithing
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 27, 2013
Location: Ohio
Posts: 847
Something about this story is fishy to me. One would think that after one shot had hit any home, it would have been reported, and the range be made to do something about it, but 27 times, and they only now are saying something about it? I'm sorry, but to be honest, this sounds to me like somebody opened fire on the home, and the range is convenient to blame it on.
Dixie Gunsmithing is online now  
Old June 27, 2013, 03:45 PM   #38
thallub
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 2,108
If you have never fired on a range that is not closely monitored you would be in for a rude awakening. Some shooters are arrogant to the extreme and refuse to accept advice or criticism of their unsafe actions. i've seen fights over range safety violations.

Nothing here seems fishy to me. Looked at the google earth link: It's a very dangerous range.

The long range berm is not long enough. Lay a straight edge between the right end of the firing line and the trailer. Bullets could hit the trailer in a direct line. This would be especially true if a shooter were engaging a target to the right of his lane. Yep, shooters who are not closely watched sometimes fire at targets outside their lane.

The owners of the range recently stacked piles of tires on the berms.

Military firing ranges always have left and right range limit markers. Good public ranges would have limit markers too.

Some discussion of that range:


http://www.theoutdoorstrader.com/thr...d-bullets-sued



Law enforcement officers familiar with the situation testified at the trial:

Quote:
Stollar said he was called to the Caldwells’ residence in October 2012 in response to the home being accidentally shot.

The investigator said that after retrieving and identifying the bullet, he went to the firing range and talked with a man who had been shooting .308 caliber bullets.

“I took the actual projectile we found and looked at a bullet he took out of his gun, and they appeared to be identical,” Stollar said. “He hand-loads his weapon, and he told me they look like his bullets.”
http://www.times-georgian.com/news/a...9bb30f31a.html

Last edited by thallub; June 27, 2013 at 04:02 PM.
thallub is offline  
Old June 27, 2013, 08:42 PM   #39
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,773
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dixie Gunsmithing
Something about this story is fishy to me...
Too late. That horse has left the barn. The matter has been litigated and liability found. So it's been decided that the story is not fishy.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old June 27, 2013, 11:32 PM   #40
Patriot86
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 23, 2010
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 1,293
I have been to firing ranges with no supervision before and I refuse to again. Even with armored shielding between me and the shooter next door. I stopped going to one local indoor range that has no RSO's because two sessions in a row I had loaded firearms pointed directly at my.

The range I go to now is a bit too gung ho with their safety but I would rather it be that way than the other way. That overbearing RSO system saved someone from serious injury this last weekend, I witnessed a squib one lane over, I think the shooter was newer, using reloads in a 1911 and was trying to get another round to chamber so he could fire after the squib. The watchful RSO saves his butt.

Most outdoor ranges in this area will not let you shoot without an RSO, many trying to avoid this type of situation only let you load 1-5 rounds in a semi automatic rifle at a time.
__________________
"....The swords of others will set you your limits".
Patriot86 is offline  
Old June 28, 2013, 12:03 AM   #41
Ignition Override
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 18, 2008
Posts: 1,777
The small public range at Shelby Farms in Memphis closed over ten years ago, or so.

A friend told me that one stray bullet hit a house on the south side of Humphreys Blvd, roughly a mile away, maybe a bit more.
The range was closed to the public, but is sometimes used for LEO handgun training, in addition to their main LEO range over by the two prisons, in the northwest area.

None of that range business can compare to what happened down in Hernando MS not long ago. Some northern 'city types' moved into the countryside.

A local started shooting at a target nearby. The gunshot sounds frightened the nitwits, who panicked and called 911.
Even a helicopter was dispatched, with the LEOs not realizing that an ignorant northern city type had panicked at something normal.
That's how a friend explained it to me.

Last edited by Ignition Override; June 28, 2013 at 12:10 AM.
Ignition Override is offline  
Old June 28, 2013, 08:24 AM   #42
Gbro
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 20, 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,056
Watch almost any Bullseye pistol practice and you will see muzzle's elevated over the backstop.
Hell, i was watching the last episode of Top Shot Al-stars and most of the shooters in the elimination bracket elevated the volquartsen rifle, and Gunny Zinns elevated that rifle to a 10'clock Sun Shot!!
Is the military changing any of their disciplines to stop elevation of muzzles over back-stops???
__________________
Gbro
CGVS
For the message of the Cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, But to us who are being saved, It Is The Power Of God. 1Corinthians 1-18
Gbro is offline  
Old June 28, 2013, 08:37 AM   #43
buck460XVR
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 28, 2006
Posts: 2,136
The house was hit 27 times by stray bullets and the owner was only awarded $175,000? If there's any miscarriage of justice anywhere in this case, this is it.

Some old ranges were never designed to really keep bullets from leaving. They were built in places where there was nuttin' behind the berm and used the empty space, they did not own or have control over, as their safety net. To ask folks that own that property and pay taxes on it, not to use it or make a profit off it, just for the sake of the range is ridiculous and pretty self serving. We have a small local Sportsman Club range like that close to me. It has a berm about ten feet high and is built parallel to a very busy state hi-way. You can easily see the traffic, less than 100 yards away thru the trees when the leaves are gone and the weeds have died off. 60 years ago when the range was constructed, the highway was not so busy. 60 years ago, the range's primary purpose was for trap shooting with the occasional member shooting 5 rounds the week before deer season to make sure his rifle was still on. These same members were very safety conscientious and their shooting deliberate. Move on to today and the huge increase in interest in the shooting sports. This range is open to the general public with a $20 range pass, that is not actively enforced. Folks will shoot thousands of rounds off in a days shooting. From what I have observed, many times these folks aren't experienced, not are they worried about safety. Two years ago because a coupla guys didn't want to wait for me to finish shooting my handguns, they set cans up on a snow bank and shot towards the highway at them using their brand new handguns that "needed" to be shot. When I said something about shooting towards the highway, their response was that they weren't shooting when they could see cars. Last time I was there a guy was sighting in his new rifle chambered in .50BMG. With every shot the FMJ rounds were throwin' dirt twenty feet into the air. I wondered how many of those rounds made it thru or ricocheted of the short narrow berm. While there is still coula miles of empty swamp land directly behind the berm, there are farms and other residences scattered off to the sides. The angle of the highway diminishes as distance increases also. When asked, neither of the folks in the two scenarios were members or had a range pass, even tho a pass is available at the bar next door. Being a member, I have brought the problems up at monthly meetings. But the club doesn't have the monies to combat the big changes, nor would the majority of the members want to. The majority of the members could care less if the handgun and rifle range get shut down, as long as they still have a place to shoot trap and play cards every Thursday night. But to me.....there is a tragedy waitin' to happen......and it won't take 27 rounds. While I am all for the shooting sports and enjoy them myself immensely, I also am concerned what happens to my rounds and the rounds of other folks, downrange. Blamin' folks for building on a empty lot is not the answer. It's one thing to know there is a range next door and you complain about the noise. But when stray bullets start hittin' your house because of a poorly designed range, it's not your fault.
buck460XVR is offline  
Old June 28, 2013, 10:33 AM   #44
thallub
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 2,108
Quote:
Is the military changing any of their disciplines to stop elevation of muzzles over back-stops???
No. Military troops are well disciplined and well supervised in firing range operations. On most military ranges it matters not if a bullet sometimes goes over the berm because no one is allowed down range to the maximum range of the round being fired.

The vast majority of military outdoor small arms firing ranges are located on large installations where the government owns the land past the maximum range of the weapons being fired there. That is a requirement of new military firing range construction. A few military firing ranges are built on shore
and the bullets impact in water. When the range is hot bouys are set out and MPs patrol the area.


BTW: The maximum range of a M80 7.62mm military ball round is 4,100 meters.

The surface danger zone of a firing range is shaped like a fan. See page 15; figure 3-2 and page 25; figure 4-1.

www.apd.army.mil/pdffiles/p385_63.pdf

Last edited by thallub; June 28, 2013 at 12:50 PM.
thallub is offline  
Old June 28, 2013, 02:52 PM   #45
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague County, Texas
Posts: 10,461
Quote:
While I wholeheartedly agree that fired rounds should never leave the range, from a legal liability perspective, "which came first" can matter very much. If the house was built after the range, the range and insurer could argue that the homeowner assumed the risk of stray bullets by building there with full knowlede of the range's existence.
Well which came first, the house or the bullets? As it is illegal in most states to fire across property lines without consent, that the range came first would not allow for justification of the house being shot. The range is liable because of conducting activities in an unsafe manner.

I would not be surprised if the insurer argued your point, but they obviously lost with the court case.

Quote:
Watch almost any Bullseye pistol practice and you will see muzzle's elevated over the backstop.
Hell, i was watching the last episode of Top Shot Al-stars and most of the shooters in the elimination bracket elevated the volquartsen rifle, and Gunny Zinns elevated that rifle to a 10'clock Sun Shot!!
Is the military changing any of their disciplines to stop elevation of muzzles over back-stops???
Yep, and watch all the guys doing the semi-auto pistol reloads with the pistol (often) cant left by about 45 degrees and upwards at 45 degrees. It makes for an easier reload and they drop the slide before the pistol is lowered to pointing back within the bounds of the range. Any discharges during the period will result in rounds immediately leaving the range.

I have to laugh when instructors talk repeatedly about muzzle discipline and then regularly point their pistols over the berms during numerous activities and have their students follow with the same actions.
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher."
-- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011
Double Naught Spy is offline  
Old June 28, 2013, 05:15 PM   #46
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,126
Quote:
Originally Posted by Double Naught Spy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spats McGee
While I wholeheartedly agree that fired rounds should never leave the range, from a legal liability perspective, "which came first" can matter very much. If the house was built after the range, the range and insurer could argue that the homeowner assumed the risk of stray bullets by building there with full knowlede of the range's existence.
Well which came first, the house or the bullets? As it is illegal in most states to fire across property lines without consent, that the range came first would not allow for justification of the house being shot. The range is liable because of conducting activities in an unsafe manner.
The question of whether the house was there before the bullets isn't relevant to the assumption of risk issue. It's something like building a house near a pig farm and then complaining about the smell.

Unless someone can testify that a range employee actually fired the bullet that hit the house, the range was merely the location where some invitee fired the round. Accordingly, if someone violated a law against firing across property lines, it's the individual shooter, not "the range."
__________________
A gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

If you ever have a real need for more than a couple of magazines, your problem is not a shortage of magazines. It's a shortage of people on your side of the argument. -- Art Eatman
Spats McGee is offline  
Old June 28, 2013, 08:11 PM   #47
Gbro
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 20, 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,056
Quote:
I have to laugh when instructors talk repeatedly about muzzle discipline and then regularly point their pistols over the berms during numerous activities and have their students follow with the same actions.
I get a sick feeling in my stomach when i see a muzzle rise over the berm.
I always stress that we are fully responsible for that bullet that just left our barrel.
I am very very seldom wrong when i point out 50 and older and say I will be on you when your muzzle rise over the berm AND the range (read County Pit) is a 75 ft. bank and we shoot at targets @21 ft with berm/bank 25 yards beyond target. And I call them all and all those that have been military trained still have a wrist flick that will go over this high bank! every single class!!
__________________
Gbro
CGVS
For the message of the Cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, But to us who are being saved, It Is The Power Of God. 1Corinthians 1-18
Gbro is offline  
Old June 29, 2013, 01:37 AM   #48
myusername
Member
 
Join Date: May 11, 2013
Posts: 99
Our range has 20 foot rear berms and I constantly see deflected rounds kick up dirt near the top. We have about 5 miles of BLM land behind us - for now.
myusername is offline  
Old July 1, 2013, 04:18 PM   #49
MattShlock
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 8, 2013
Posts: 239
Actually, bullets leaving a range property are fine -- it is called "safety fan" design. It has been the norm for most of our history. America has (had?) alot of land unless people are trying to get the hell away from cities like NY, Philly, Washington, Detroit, Boston, Chicago, etc. Then encroachment, people moving into previously expected-unlikely-to-be-populated areas where moderate range containment measures existed, has put pressure on ranges where they are being squeezed into expensive modifications and out of business. Especially where the Leftys can leverage it or someone thinks they can sue and get a few bucks or close a 50-yr.-old range right after they build a McMansion and move in...

Here, we arrested one guy for filing a false police report about a .45 ACP bullet from a nearby range slamming into his wheelbarrow as he pushed it, "nearly killing him." It had to be an obvious 50 years old from the weathering...

Last edited by MattShlock; July 1, 2013 at 04:25 PM.
MattShlock is offline  
Old July 1, 2013, 04:42 PM   #50
zincwarrior
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 1, 2011
Location: Texas, land of Tex-Mex
Posts: 1,246
Quote:
Unless someone can testify that a range employee actually fired the bullet that hit the house, the range was merely the location where some invitee fired the round. Accordingly, if someone violated a law against firing across property lines, it's the individual shooter, not "the range."
Is there case law to support this?
zincwarrior is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:44 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.14718 seconds with 7 queries