Garland Gun Range

MainStreet · 08-09-2007, 04:21 PM

What is the deal with this issue? I use the gun range to site-in the deer rifles before hunting season. In high school, I thoroughly enjoyed the skeet/trap part of the range. I don't have a problem with this business! The homeowners who purchased property in the area were certainly aware of its existence. I really don't understand!

Why after so many years, the issue of "potential environmental issues" is now suddenly being raised? Are there more pieces to the puzzle?

Robert

momof2 · 08-09-2007, 05:17 PM

I was wondering the same after reading it on that blitz site. Seems some people moved to the area close by there and did not realize they were SO CLOSE and now are all upset. DUH!!! We lived not far from there for many years and it was no problem but you could hear it a little bit but muffled on clear nights. No big deal to me though. I've been there myself and think it is great we have something close by.

Mike Pentecost · 08-09-2007, 05:29 PM

What was the original complaint? Someone allegedly fired into a tree at a squirrel? (at one time, that's how some folks got their dinner) This is sounding very much like the argument about Love Field: People moving near the airport, then complaining about the airplanes flying over.....

It appears that the value of the land has risen high enough that an attempt to wrest control of the property is imminent. It is not proper to take away someones lively-hood because " I want to". That was the way of the Gang of Five. Please tell me we are not moving backwards, starting that all over again.

John Q. Citizen · 08-09-2007, 06:36 PM

What is the difference between my use of a public gun range and the use of a gun range for police? This smells of gun control thinly veiled. I taught my now grown kids how to shoot safely at this range.

I have zero tolarance for people who fail to inspect their neighborhhood before making a decision to move there.

With that being said, the real issue will include money in someone's pocket.

scott · 08-09-2007, 07:59 PM

This sounds much like the Mequite issue with Devils Bowl Speedway too.

aerod1 · 08-10-2007, 09:37 AM

I think it is horrible that Councilman Athas would bring this subject before the council and endanger the livelyhoods of all that are associated with "Garland Public Shooting Range".
Ft Wolters has been used as a military firing range since 1940 and has had NO problems with lead contamination. All tests have shown no lead contamination. Lead has to be finely ground into talcum like dust in order to leach into the water system. Lead is not water soluble. Lead is in our drinking water systems all the time. Before 1986 lead based solder was used in the drinking water system. This includes almost every building built before 1986 which even includes City Hall, Garland's schools, businesses and residences.
I am a responsilble recreational shooter who shoots a lot. GPSR is one of the safest shooting facilities I have ever seen. Athas said, someone reported to him about people shooting at crows in the trees. I don't believe that happened. If that did happen, the witnesses should have called the police or reported the incident to one of the fine range officers. Doug Athas is NOT the police.
Noise? You don't want to hear gun fire? Don't build a house close to a gun range that has been there for over 35 years. That seems simple enough to me. I know people who have lived in that neighborhood who claim noise is a non issue.
So then, what could be the reason for Doug Athas' crusade? I don't really know, but I have checked his bio on the city webpage, which I find very interesting. As Robert said, I do believe there are underlying pieces to this puzzle.
I hope I am wrong, but I think I smell something really fishy going on here.

I am not on a mission to berate Doug Athas. He has been a decent councilperson until now. I do, however, believe him to be wrong on this issue and I am not comfortable with the "excuses" he has stated.

dracphelan · 08-12-2007, 09:10 AM

I learned of this issue (and web site) this weekend. One of the reasons my wife and I moved to Garland was GPSR.
1. The people who moved there after the range was built (which is probably all of the houses out there) should have paid attention to the fact. I moved into a house a few blocks from train tracks. You don't see me asking the city to shut down the trains or investigate the environmental imact and dangers of the trains.
2. I think the people who are worrying about lead at the range need to investigate the science of soil and lead contamination. Unless they are playing on the range and/or berms, and eating the soil, they have nothing to worry about.
3. I wonder how much this has to do with the expansion of the George Bush Tollway. With next phase of the project coming up, that land has greatly increased in value. Councilman Athas may be responding to comments that he thinks are coming from residents of his district, but they may be coming from real estate speculators who covet that land.

Mike Pentecost · 08-12-2007, 10:27 AM

I would guess that the lead from bullets pales in comparison to the pollution created by the chemical runoff of asphalt. Just a guess.

I wonder if anyone has spoken with the gun range owners to try and purchase the property, and they didn't want to sell? It is, after all, private property that they have the right to own. Would the council members be willing to be forced from their property? What if they had a business, say.... like a car lot, and they were forced to sell "or else"?

If we are not careful, this could be a sneaky " Imminent Domain"

Douglas Athas · 08-14-2007, 12:27 AM

Scenario: You move into a nice house, one you have been dreaming of owning most of your life. The neighborhood seems nice, nothing untoward. Three days pass until the weekend. Your neighbor on the south sounds like he's giving a party. His music is so loud, you can't sleep until the early morning hours on Saturday and Sunday. Whew! The weekend is over and with it the experience from hell. Only it all happens again the next weekend and every weekend.

At least the weekdays are peaceful. Until you notice the guy has changed his oil and is pouring it across the fence into the corner of your backyard. This is getting to be incredible.

You're about to march out the back door and give the guy your opinion of his neighborliness when it suddenly sounds like hail is hitting your car that is parked at the front curb. When you look out the front door, the kids next door are using your car as a target for rock throwing practice.

So what is the right thing to do? According to most of the posts above: Nothing. He lived there before you. He has the right to do anything on his property and from his property he wants and you have no property rights.

I posted my reasons for asking for a review of the gun range on Pleasant Valley more than a month ago here: http://douglasathas.net/blogs/index....7/09/gun_range.

It is interesting to see people claim property rights for one side of the fence and ignore everyone else. It is interesting to see claims of grabbing the property for developers or for the SH 190 extension. It is interesting to see people declare disbelief that there could be anyone that would be irresponsible enough to improperly use a gun.

Read the post to see what is really going on.

I know of no one that wants the property. It's not in the way of the turnpike extension. I don't know of anyone that wants the property for development (it's in the flood plain!).

One poster says that I was a decent Councilman until now. I have listened to complaints from residents, just as all Council members do. I have tried to help where able because almost all complaints (surprisingly) have been pretty reasonable. (There was one about a secret mind control program that I was pretty helpless to address.)

It is easy to ignore all complaints but I don't think that is what a decent Council member does.

A decent Council member addresses concerns when there a number of complaints coming from many different directions. As I mention in my blog post, I don't have a concern about guns or gun ranges. It would be extremely hypocritical for me to do so. However, I can't ignore complaints that describe an intense use that keeps spilling over the property boundaries. I've done what I feel is the responsible thing: I've asked for a review. I have done everything I can to not impune the owners because there has been nothing but reports.

I know of no way that the property can be "taken" and have posted my opinion on Kelo v. New London and other emminent domain issues on threads at this forum and on my blog. I don't support taking any property except for a legitimate public USE, not public benefit. If there was a legitimate public USE for this property, it wouldn't matter if the range was there or not.

Finally, I could have ignored the complaints I've heard because I knew it wouldn't be "politically popular." Unfortunately for me, I didn't run to be politically popular. I ran to help the city move forward. The gun range doesn't fall into my sights for the city. I could easily ignore it. Only then I would be listening only to certain constituents with comments like many of those above and ignoring the others.

Sorry, to me that's not doing the job to which I was elected and it is certainly wouldn't be acting like a "decent councilman."

Mike Pentecost · 08-14-2007, 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Douglas Athas

Scenario: You move into a nice house, one you have been dreaming of owning most of your life. The neighborhood seems nice, nothing untoward. Three days pass until the weekend. Your neighbor on the south sounds like he's giving a party. His music is so loud, you can't sleep until the early morning hours on Saturday and Sunday. Whew! The weekend is over and with it the experience from hell. Only it all happens again the next weekend and every weekend.

At least the weekdays are peaceful. Until you notice the guy has changed his oil and is pouring it across the fence into the corner of your backyard. This is getting to be incredible.

You're about to march out the back door and give the guy your opinion of his neighborliness when it suddenly sounds like hail is hitting your car that is parked at the front curb. When you look out the front door, the kids next door are using your car as a target for rock throwing practice.

So what is the right thing to do? According to most of the posts above: Nothing. He lived there before you. He has the right to do anything on his property and from his property he wants and you have no property rights.

I posted my reasons for asking for a review of the gun range on Pleasant Valley more than a month ago here: http://douglasathas.net/blogs/index....7/09/gun_range.

It is interesting to see people claim property rights for one side of the fence and ignore everyone else. It is interesting to see claims of grabbing the property for developers or for the SH 190 extension. It is interesting to see people declare disbelief that there could be anyone that would be irresponsible enough to improperly use a gun.

Read the post to see what is really going on.

I know of no one that wants the property. It's not in the way of the turnpike extension. I don't know of anyone that wants the property for development (it's in the flood plain!).

One poster says that I was a decent Councilman until now. I have listened to complaints from residents, just as all Council members do. I have tried to help where able because almost all complaints (surprisingly) have been pretty reasonable. (There was one about a secret mind control program that I was pretty helpless to address.)

It is easy to ignore all complaints but I don't think that is what a decent Council member does.

A decent Council member addresses concerns when there a number of complaints coming from many different directions. As I mention in my blog post, I don't have a concern about guns or gun ranges. It would be extremely hypocritical for me to do so. However, I can't ignore complaints that describe an intense use that keeps spilling over the property boundaries. I've done what I feel is the responsible thing: I've asked for a review. I have done everything I can to not impune the owners because there has been nothing but reports.

I know of no way that the property can be "taken" and have posted my opinion on Kelo v. New London and other emminent domain issues on threads at this forum and on my blog. I don't support taking any property except for a legitimate public USE, not public benefit. If there was a legitimate public USE for this property, it wouldn't matter if the range was there or not.

Finally, I could have ignored the complaints I've heard because I knew it wouldn't be "politically popular." Unfortunately for me, I didn't run to be politically popular. I ran to help the city move forward. The gun range doesn't fall into my sights for the city. I could easily ignore it. Only then I would be listening only to certain constituents with comments like many of those above and ignoring the others.

Sorry, to me that's not doing the job to which I was elected and it is certainly wouldn't be acting like a "decent councilman."

more later

08-09-2007, 04:21 PM	#1
MainStreet Administrator Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 732	Garland Gun Range What is the deal with this issue? I use the gun range to site-in the deer rifles before hunting season. In high school, I thoroughly enjoyed the skeet/trap part of the range. I don't have a problem with this business! The homeowners who purchased property in the area were certainly aware of its existence. I really don't understand! Why after so many years, the issue of "potential environmental issues" is now suddenly being raised? Are there more pieces to the puzzle? Robert __________________ I am only one, but I am one. I cannot do everything, but I can do something. And because I cannot do everything, I will not refuse to do the something that I can do. What I can do, I should do. And what I should do, by the grace of God, I will do. — Edward Everett Hale (1822-1909) All your dreams can come true if you have the courage to pursue them. - Walt Disney

08-09-2007, 05:29 PM	#3
Mike Pentecost Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 849	Lookout! It's a Squirrel in a tree with Buckshot in it's tail!! What was the original complaint? Someone allegedly fired into a tree at a squirrel? (at one time, that's how some folks got their dinner) This is sounding very much like the argument about Love Field: People moving near the airport, then complaining about the airplanes flying over..... It appears that the value of the land has risen high enough that an attempt to wrest control of the property is imminent. It is not proper to take away someones lively-hood because " I want to". That was the way of the Gang of Five. Please tell me we are not moving backwards, starting that all over again. __________________ An expert is not someone that gives you the answer, it is someone that asks you the right question.... Elyahu Goldratt

08-09-2007, 06:36 PM	#4
John Q. Citizen Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 54	What is the difference between my use of a public gun range and the use of a gun range for police? This smells of gun control thinly veiled. I taught my now grown kids how to shoot safely at this range. I have zero tolarance for people who fail to inspect their neighborhhood before making a decision to move there. With that being said, the real issue will include money in someone's pocket. __________________ "The road goes on forever and the party never ends."

08-09-2007, 07:59 PM	#5
scott Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 968	This sounds much like the Mequite issue with Devils Bowl Speedway too. __________________ SCOTT If You Always Do What You've Always Done, You'll Always Get What You've Always Gotten.

08-10-2007, 09:37 AM	#6
aerod1 Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 47	I think it is horrible that Councilman Athas would bring this subject before the council and endanger the livelyhoods of all that are associated with "Garland Public Shooting Range". Ft Wolters has been used as a military firing range since 1940 and has had NO problems with lead contamination. All tests have shown no lead contamination. Lead has to be finely ground into talcum like dust in order to leach into the water system. Lead is not water soluble. Lead is in our drinking water systems all the time. Before 1986 lead based solder was used in the drinking water system. This includes almost every building built before 1986 which even includes City Hall, Garland's schools, businesses and residences. I am a responsilble recreational shooter who shoots a lot. GPSR is one of the safest shooting facilities I have ever seen. Athas said, someone reported to him about people shooting at crows in the trees. I don't believe that happened. If that did happen, the witnesses should have called the police or reported the incident to one of the fine range officers. Doug Athas is NOT the police. Noise? You don't want to hear gun fire? Don't build a house close to a gun range that has been there for over 35 years. That seems simple enough to me. I know people who have lived in that neighborhood who claim noise is a non issue. So then, what could be the reason for Doug Athas' crusade? I don't really know, but I have checked his bio on the city webpage, which I find very interesting. As Robert said, I do believe there are underlying pieces to this puzzle. I hope I am wrong, but I think I smell something really fishy going on here. I am not on a mission to berate Doug Athas. He has been a decent councilperson until now. I do, however, believe him to be wrong on this issue and I am not comfortable with the "excuses" he has stated. Last edited by aerod1; 08-10-2007 at 09:50 AM.

08-09-2007, 05:17 PM	#2
momof2 Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 416	I was wondering the same after reading it on that blitz site. Seems some people moved to the area close by there and did not realize they were SO CLOSE and now are all upset. DUH!!! We lived not far from there for many years and it was no problem but you could hear it a little bit but muffled on clear nights. No big deal to me though. I've been there myself and think it is great we have something close by.

08-12-2007, 09:10 AM	#7
dracphelan Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 31	I learned of this issue (and web site) this weekend. One of the reasons my wife and I moved to Garland was GPSR. 1. The people who moved there after the range was built (which is probably all of the houses out there) should have paid attention to the fact. I moved into a house a few blocks from train tracks. You don't see me asking the city to shut down the trains or investigate the environmental imact and dangers of the trains. 2. I think the people who are worrying about lead at the range need to investigate the science of soil and lead contamination. Unless they are playing on the range and/or berms, and eating the soil, they have nothing to worry about. 3. I wonder how much this has to do with the expansion of the George Bush Tollway. With next phase of the project coming up, that land has greatly increased in value. Councilman Athas may be responding to comments that he thinks are coming from residents of his district, but they may be coming from real estate speculators who covet that land.

08-12-2007, 10:27 AM	#8
Mike Pentecost Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 849	I would guess that the lead from bullets pales in comparison to the pollution created by the chemical runoff of asphalt. Just a guess. I wonder if anyone has spoken with the gun range owners to try and purchase the property, and they didn't want to sell? It is, after all, private property that they have the right to own. Would the council members be willing to be forced from their property? What if they had a business, say.... like a car lot, and they were forced to sell "or else"? If we are not careful, this could be a sneaky " Imminent Domain" __________________ An expert is not someone that gives you the answer, it is someone that asks you the right question.... Elyahu Goldratt Last edited by Mike Pentecost; 08-13-2007 at 07:57 AM. Reason: puctuation

08-14-2007, 12:27 AM	#9
Douglas Athas Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 309	Scenario: You move into a nice house, one you have been dreaming of owning most of your life. The neighborhood seems nice, nothing untoward. Three days pass until the weekend. Your neighbor on the south sounds like he's giving a party. His music is so loud, you can't sleep until the early morning hours on Saturday and Sunday. Whew! The weekend is over and with it the experience from hell. Only it all happens again the next weekend and every weekend. At least the weekdays are peaceful. Until you notice the guy has changed his oil and is pouring it across the fence into the corner of your backyard. This is getting to be incredible. You're about to march out the back door and give the guy your opinion of his neighborliness when it suddenly sounds like hail is hitting your car that is parked at the front curb. When you look out the front door, the kids next door are using your car as a target for rock throwing practice. So what is the right thing to do? According to most of the posts above: Nothing. He lived there before you. He has the right to do anything on his property and from his property he wants and you have no property rights. I posted my reasons for asking for a review of the gun range on Pleasant Valley more than a month ago here: http://douglasathas.net/blogs/index....7/09/gun_range. It is interesting to see people claim property rights for one side of the fence and ignore everyone else. It is interesting to see claims of grabbing the property for developers or for the SH 190 extension. It is interesting to see people declare disbelief that there could be anyone that would be irresponsible enough to improperly use a gun. Read the post to see what is really going on. I know of no one that wants the property. It's not in the way of the turnpike extension. I don't know of anyone that wants the property for development (it's in the flood plain!). One poster says that I was a decent Councilman until now. I have listened to complaints from residents, just as all Council members do. I have tried to help where able because almost all complaints (surprisingly) have been pretty reasonable. (There was one about a secret mind control program that I was pretty helpless to address.) It is easy to ignore all complaints but I don't think that is what a decent Council member does. A decent Council member addresses concerns when there a number of complaints coming from many different directions. As I mention in my blog post, I don't have a concern about guns or gun ranges. It would be extremely hypocritical for me to do so. However, I can't ignore complaints that describe an intense use that keeps spilling over the property boundaries. I've done what I feel is the responsible thing: I've asked for a review. I have done everything I can to not impune the owners because there has been nothing but reports. I know of no way that the property can be "taken" and have posted my opinion on Kelo v. New London and other emminent domain issues on threads at this forum and on my blog. I don't support taking any property except for a legitimate public USE, not public benefit. If there was a legitimate public USE for this property, it wouldn't matter if the range was there or not. Finally, I could have ignored the complaints I've heard because I knew it wouldn't be "politically popular." Unfortunately for me, I didn't run to be politically popular. I ran to help the city move forward. The gun range doesn't fall into my sights for the city. I could easily ignore it. Only then I would be listening only to certain constituents with comments like many of those above and ignoring the others. Sorry, to me that's not doing the job to which I was elected and it is certainly wouldn't be acting like a "decent councilman." __________________ www.DouglasAthas.net "Tug on anything at all and you'll find it connected to everything else in the universe." - John Muir