Garland Gun Range - Page 2

aerod1 · 08-14-2007, 02:50 PM

Well, eveidently, the only part of my previous post that was read by Councilman Athas was the part about him being a decent Councilman.....up until now.
I gave some very sound reasons why this legally operating business should be left alone but he chose to ignore that part. Instead he proceeded to compare apples with oranges such as a neighbor dumping oil across your fence and kids throwing rocks at your car. Doug, surely you can do better than that!!
Back in the 1960's, when Jim Day was thinking of opening a range, he went to the city of Garland and ask them to review the property he was considering. He did this even though he was OUTSIDE the city limits. The city officials told him his location was a "perfect place for a range" because it was all worthless bottom land. So he built a shooting range at that location.
Then in the 1980's he wanted to move across Rowlett creek to the property he also owns and offered to "GIVE" the land presently occupied by GPSR to the city if they would allow him to move. This would have actually put him farther away from the encroaching neighborhood. This request was denied.
What does this legally operating business have to do for Doug Athas to consider them a responsible neighbor?
The issue can't be about lead, safety or noise, so what must it be?. Are there some anti 2nd Amendment people living in Doug's district who want the range shut down? That is a possibility (probability). So is Doug caving to the anti 2nd Amendment, liberal agenda? I don't know. I guess that is for each person to decide in his or her own mind.
At this time, I still support Doug Athas as a councilman. He did help rid us of the "Gang of Five"......but as you can tell, this issue is one that tears at my heart strings and I will continue in my opposition of this so called "review" until it is resolved.
Only God knows what the outcome will be and when that happens I will have no choice but to accept it as His will!! But (again) until then, I will relentlessly carry on, in my defense of Garland Public Shooting Range, their right to exist, and the 2nd Amendment. God Bless.

dracphelan · 08-14-2007, 06:59 PM

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.

This is not the same thing. This is similar to someone moving next to an airport, power plant or factory and complaining about them continuing their business. This would be the same as someone moving in near Firewheel and trying to shut it down because of the noise and pollution from all of the cars traveling to and from the mall.

scott · 08-14-2007, 07:51 PM

As others have posted, Doug, The comparisons you gave are simple criminal activities. They are not good comparisons and are clumsy attempts at making ANY action okay.

There are laws against each of the examples given of your neighbor.

There may be laws against shooting at the crows, but there is no law against owning and operating the Gun Range.

As a matter of argument solely, did your neighbor have a permit to play his music so loud it annoyed you? Prolly not.

Did the Kids have a permit to throw riocks at the car? Prolly not.

Did the Neighbor have a permit to dump oil in your yard? Prolly not.

I think the Gun Range has been permitted to own and operate this business and have likely done so within it's permit. If their permit is up, then I'm good with a review based on time limits. But not because of the given argument on This Web Forum.

There are always people who can't follow rules even for safety sake. If it is known that somone has been shooting at crows in the adjacent trees (or on the property) then I believe an individual should be held responisble for his actions. If the Gun Range owner or employees are hiding someone who did the wrong activity then maybe some charges could be filed for obstructing justice.

I don't know all the particulars and haven't the time to read all the info on every subject that comes up. So please excuse my ignorance if I have limited knowledge and missed a fact that's pertinent to the matter/discussion.

The important thing to me in this or any similar situation is property owners' rights.

These folks running the Gun Range, need the consideration that you'd be expecting in relationship to your property rights.

Oh,........and thanks for what you have done that is positive. This is still a salvage-able situation. Careful consideration of what you post in each forum might keep everyone at bay on the name calling and such.

texas_wizard · 08-14-2007, 08:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dracphelan

This is not the same thing. This is similar to someone moving next to an airport, power plant or factory and complaining about them continuing their business. This would be the same as someone moving in near Firewheel and trying to shut it down because of the noise and pollution from all of the cars traveling to and from the mall.

I agree as well. The analogies Councilman Athas gives are (very) illegal and I would be reporting them to the police IMMEDIATELY. I have not seen any evidence as to where GPSR is doing anything even remotely illegal. If a patron of GPSR was shooting at something other than targets, I can assure you they would have been ejected and banned.

Furthermore, these "issues" with GPSR do not warrant a review by the Board of Adjustment, merely a police report.

Here's the way I see it:
A. You move into a new house. The neighbor's dog barks constantly. You file a noise complaint with the police; NOT try to get him evicted.
B. You move into a new house, and it happens to be near a vet clinic, animal shelter, or what have you. TOO BAD if you don't like barking or the occasional whiff of dog doo. If you filed a noise complaint, the police would laugh at you (not to your face) for moving there. If you tried to get the land reviewed for its "use", the council would most likely laugh at you as well. Try shutting down an animal shelter because you don't like barking.
That's my analogy.

Councilman Athas, you said yourself, "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!)." So why not let a legitimate, successful business continue to operate there. If they are closed, then according to you there will be an "un-use" of land and a loss of tax money and the corresponding residual money.

I hope to continue to enjoy GPSR for many years to come.
Andrew Howe

MainStreet · 08-15-2007, 01:35 AM

If there are legitmate complaints concerning the gun range, then as a Councilman there is an obligation to follow through and investigate the issue.

One of the neatest tools that can be acccessed by all of us here on the web is the Dallas County Apprasial District's Property Map. They have provided a zoning/parcel map where you can zoom on individual parcels and identify the various owners and uses. Also, the map shows geographical elements as well, such as creeks and other bodies of water.

It is very intresting to see "the big picture" as it relates to the gun range. Here is the web address for accessing DCAD's Map: http://maps.dallascad.org/website/dcad/viewer.htm The map is interactive where you can move your cursor zooming in or out on a particular area. It's kinda fun to play with!

The gun range is located on Pleasant Valley Road approx South East of the Firewheel Town Center just before entering Sachse. Here is the link to the property record of the gun range ... http://www.dallascad.org/AcctDetailC...22661010320000. On the webpage you can "click" on the words "DCAD Map" and go directly to the interactive tool.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the actual firing area is located immediately East of Rowlett Creek. Seems like I remember crossing a bridge on Pleasant Valley before arriving at the range. If you use the Parcel ID option on the map you will notice that the City of Garland owns all of the land due East and South of the Gun Range. Researching further, the landowners due North of the range bordering Pleasant Valley include Baldwin, Swanzy, and Wilkins. The closest residential street to the range is Richfield Drive. Maybe the complaints are coming from the residents on Richfield ... IDK!

I'm not sure how much of the property in the area is in the flood plain. I do know however that you can have property removed from the flood plain ... it is a rather time consuming and expensive endeavor, but nonetheless it can be done through FEMA assuming it passes all of the various flood tests.

All in all according to the map, the property is bounded by acres of agricultural uses and appears to be no threat to the residential areas. I just hope that somewhere somehow someone or some-entity hasn't declared "open season" on the property owner. That's my main concern with this issue ... the property owner!

Robert

scott · 08-15-2007, 06:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MainStreet

I just hope that somewhere somehow someone or some-entity hasn't declared "open season" on the property owner. That's my main concern with this issue ... the property owner!

Robert

This is the most likely reason for the recent scrutiny and it's explainable.

Someone is in pursuit for personal gain.... simply put.

Our city Council Members have a moral dilemma now, that will probably be bought off by some big money. It's trendy here in Garland to let the money make the decisions. It's equally trendy for Garland's taxpayers to help pay the bill on the purchase, by spending the money and the time (of city servants and employees) to "git-r-dunn", instead of the hunter making a reasonable offer to pay for the land at what it is valued at by the them.

Watch our tax dollars at work. They will give a huge helping hand to a very wealthy company,entity, or individual at the demise of a hard working property owner/business operator.

Let's watch and see.

(I recently learned that Doug Athas used to be "tight" with Holden till the whole "LET US VOTE" thing occurred. That's about the time my attentions got turned to Garland Politics so I was unaware of their previous friendship. Is this somehow related to some of Holden's friends and deeds?)

Handyman · 08-15-2007, 07:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scott

This is the most likely reason for the recent scrutiny and it's explainable.

Someone is in pursuit for personal gain.... simply put.

Our city Council Members have a moral dilemma now, that will probably be bought off by some big money. It's trendy here in Garland to let the money make the decisions. It's equally trendy for Garland's taxpayers to help pay the bill on the purchase, by spending the money and the time (of city servants and employees) to "git-r-dunn", instead of the hunter making a reasonable offer to pay for the land at what it is valued at by the them.

Watch our tax dollars at work. They will give a huge helping hand to a very wealthy company,entity, or individual at the demise of a hard working property owner/business operator.

Let's watch and see.

(I recently learned that Doug Athas used to be "tight" with Holden till the whole "LET US VOTE" thing occurred. That's about the time my attentions got turned to Garland Politics so I was unaware of their previous friendship. Is this somehow related to some of Holden's friends and deeds?)

"Our city Council Members have a moral dilemma now" ....

That's the funniest thing I've read on the forum in several weeks Scott. This Council has no problem ignoring moral issues whatsoever.

MainStreet
Administrator

Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 404

If there are legitmate complaints concerning the gun range, then as a Councilman there is an obligation to follow through and investigate the issue.

One of the neatest tools that can be acccessed by all of us here on the web is the Dallas County Apprasial District's Property Map. They have provided a zoning/parcel map where you can zoom on individual parcels and identify the various owners and uses. Also, the map shows geographical elements as well, such as creeks and other bodies of water.

It is very intresting to see "the big picture" as it relates to the gun range. Here is the web address for accessing DCAD's Map: http://maps.dallascad.org/website/dcad/viewer.htm The map is interactive where you can move your cursor zooming in or out on a particular area. It's kinda fun to play with!

The gun range is located on Pleasant Valley Road approx South East of the Firewheel Town Center just before entering Sachse. Here is the link to the property record of the gun range ... http://www.dallascad.org/AcctDetailC...22661010320000. On the webpage you can "click" on the words "DCAD Map" and go directly to the interactive tool.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the actual firing area is located immediately East of Rowlett Creek. Seems like I remember crossing a bridge on Pleasant Valley before arriving at the range. If you use the Parcel ID option on the map you will notice that the City of Garland owns all of the land due East and South of the Gun Range. Researching further, the landowners due North of the range bordering Pleasant Valley include Baldwin, Swanzy, and Wilkins. The closest residential street to the range is Richfield Drive. Maybe the complaints are coming from the residents on Richfield ... IDK!

I'm not sure how much of the property in the area is in the flood plain. I do know however that you can have property removed from the flood plain ... it is a rather time consuming and expensive endeavor, but nonetheless it can be done through FEMA assuming it passes all of the various flood tests.

All in all according to the map, the property is bounded by acres of agricultural uses and appears to be no threat to the residential areas. I just hope that somewhere somehow someone or some-entity hasn't declared "open season" on the property owner. That's my main concern with this issue ... the property owner!

Robert

The online tools Mainstreet points out above can also be used to show who the one property owner was that would best benefit by the pond liner budget issue of last year at Campbell and Shiloh

. It was the one where they were going to put in a fountain aerator water feature and such.
Has anybody explored the business relationships (if any...), between the property owners, that Mainstreet listed above to see if there's a connection?

Linda Jaresh · 08-15-2007, 10:00 AM

(I recently learned that Doug Athas used to be "tight" with Holden till the whole "LET US VOTE" thing occurred. That's about the time my attentions got turned to Garland Politics so I was unaware of their previous friendship. Is this somehow related to some of Holden's friends and deeds?)
This is a great big NO!

This is in response to Scott's observation about Doug having been tight with Holden until the "Let Us Vote" campaign.

I do not think they were ever, I repeat EVER, tight, that is so unlikely.
When Michael Holden was elected to the Council (the second time) Doug Athas was on the Plan Commission and Holden replaced Athas with someone else. Doug was appointed to the Commission by Mayor Day, as the At Large Commissioner. On the Commission he was one of the best Plan Commissioner members ever. His insight and knowledge about everything concerning development and zoning is second to none. His connection with people who are experts in the field of urbanism is superb. He has been to many conferences and meetings where this has been discussed. I have been to training with Doug and Mr. Yen and have been on "field trips" to several other citiies who are developing unique and significant neighborhoods with zero lot lines and revitalizing their downtowns. He has been a mentor to me as I learned the ropes of being on the Plan Commission and I treasure and respect his friendship and knowledge on the subjects that came before us.

I do not like to post on here because someone almost always trashes what I say. But I just had to respond to this. Yes Doug is my friend. So are most of you guys. I am not at all sure what the issue is about the gun range, but I will find out and if there are any improprieties whatsoever I will report them in the paper. You can take my word on that.

And you do have the right to express your opinion; however please limit your thoughts and critiques to facts and not assumptions.

LuvinTheGrape · 08-15-2007, 10:37 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.

With all due respect (and at this point there is very little of that due) that's one of the worst analogies I've ever heard, as it bears absolutely no resemblence to the situation under discussion. As a result, one is left to choose between one of two possibilities:

1) You don't understand the fundamental and incredibly obvious differences between your hypothetical and the real situation (as they've been well explained by others already), or...

2) You do know that it's an apples-to-oranges comparison, but you're making it anyway, apparently hoping that your constituents are dumb enough to not see through it.

If #1 is the case then it would cast serious doubt on your suitability for public office. If #2 is true then it casts even more serious doubt on the purity of your claimed motives.

So, Councilman Athas...which conclusion should we draw? You don't grasp relatively simple concepts, or you're trying to pull a fast one?

scott · 08-15-2007, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Linda Jaresh

(I recently learned that Doug Athas used to be "tight" with Holden till the whole "LET US VOTE" thing occurred. That's about the time my attentions got turned to Garland Politics so I was unaware of their previous friendship. Is this somehow related to some of Holden's friends and deeds?)
This is a great big NO!

This is in response to Scott's observation about Doug having been tight with Holden until the "Let Us Vote" campaign.

I do not think they were ever, I repeat EVER, tight, that is so unlikely.
When Michael Holden was elected to the Council (the second time) Doug Athas was on the Plan Commission and Holden replaced Athas with someone else. Doug was appointed to the Commission by Mayor Day, as the At Large Commissioner. On the Commission he was one of the best Plan Commissioner members ever. His insight and knowledge about everything concerning development and zoning is second to none. His connection with people who are experts in the field of urbanism is superb. He has been to many conferences and meetings where this has been discussed. I have been to training with Doug and Mr. Yen and have been on "field trips" to several other citiies who are developing unique and significant neighborhoods with zero lot lines and revitalizing their downtowns. He has been a mentor to me as I learned the ropes of being on the Plan Commission and I treasure and respect his friendship and knowledge on the subjects that came before us.

I do not like to post on here because someone almost always trashes what I say. But I just had to respond to this. Yes Doug is my friend. So are most of you guys. I am not at all sure what the issue is about the gun range, but I will find out and if there are any improprieties whatsoever I will report them in the paper. You can take my word on that.

And you do have the right to express your opinion; however please limit your thoughts and critiques to facts and not assumptions.

It might be that I am being "played". I don't have any reason to believe I am though.

Linda, as you have critical thoughts of others posts, they will have critical thoughts of yours. One critique I must make is, you often post telling others how to behave as did in the response to my post. That is one of the fastest ways to draw harsh criticism.

In this case It is not productive to Trash your post, but to discuss it's impact. (this is not typically the direction things go, I understand.)

Is there proof positive or negative that your assumptions are any more correct than mine? I don't know. I put my trusts where I believe they belong. That doesn't mean I know all.

I heard back last year shortly after the New Council members won their seats, that Holden was no longer a Garland Resident, and was undergoing a Family Makeover(divorce). No one has denied that or substantiated that either.

I get the gossip end of this stuff, as it is complimentary to some of the "real" stuff". I know it's gossip too. Sometimes gossip is true. Sometimes it's not.

Anyone else know anything about the possible ties of Athas to Holden prior to "LET US VOTE"???? (trying not to assume anything is true just yet)

I'm listening........poking the fire to see if we can get things cooking....

08-14-2007, 02:50 PM	#11
aerod1 Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 48	Well, eveidently, the only part of my previous post that was read by Councilman Athas was the part about him being a decent Councilman.....up until now. I gave some very sound reasons why this legally operating business should be left alone but he chose to ignore that part. Instead he proceeded to compare apples with oranges such as a neighbor dumping oil across your fence and kids throwing rocks at your car. Doug, surely you can do better than that!! Back in the 1960's, when Jim Day was thinking of opening a range, he went to the city of Garland and ask them to review the property he was considering. He did this even though he was OUTSIDE the city limits. The city officials told him his location was a "perfect place for a range" because it was all worthless bottom land. So he built a shooting range at that location. Then in the 1980's he wanted to move across Rowlett creek to the property he also owns and offered to "GIVE" the land presently occupied by GPSR to the city if they would allow him to move. This would have actually put him farther away from the encroaching neighborhood. This request was denied. What does this legally operating business have to do for Doug Athas to consider them a responsible neighbor? The issue can't be about lead, safety or noise, so what must it be?. Are there some anti 2nd Amendment people living in Doug's district who want the range shut down? That is a possibility (probability). So is Doug caving to the anti 2nd Amendment, liberal agenda? I don't know. I guess that is for each person to decide in his or her own mind. At this time, I still support Doug Athas as a councilman. He did help rid us of the "Gang of Five"......but as you can tell, this issue is one that tears at my heart strings and I will continue in my opposition of this so called "review" until it is resolved. Only God knows what the outcome will be and when that happens I will have no choice but to accept it as His will!! But (again) until then, I will relentlessly carry on, in my defense of Garland Public Shooting Range, their right to exist, and the 2nd Amendment. God Bless. __________________ NRA Life Member TSRA Life Member U.S. Navy Veteran (U.S.S. Midway) Last edited by aerod1; 08-14-2007 at 03:14 PM.

08-14-2007, 07:51 PM	#13
scott Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 968	Take care now, Doug.... As others have posted, Doug, The comparisons you gave are simple criminal activities. They are not good comparisons and are clumsy attempts at making ANY action okay. There are laws against each of the examples given of your neighbor. There may be laws against shooting at the crows, but there is no law against owning and operating the Gun Range. As a matter of argument solely, did your neighbor have a permit to play his music so loud it annoyed you? Prolly not. Did the Kids have a permit to throw riocks at the car? Prolly not. Did the Neighbor have a permit to dump oil in your yard? Prolly not. I think the Gun Range has been permitted to own and operate this business and have likely done so within it's permit. If their permit is up, then I'm good with a review based on time limits. But not because of the given argument on This Web Forum. There are always people who can't follow rules even for safety sake. If it is known that somone has been shooting at crows in the adjacent trees (or on the property) then I believe an individual should be held responisble for his actions. If the Gun Range owner or employees are hiding someone who did the wrong activity then maybe some charges could be filed for obstructing justice. I don't know all the particulars and haven't the time to read all the info on every subject that comes up. So please excuse my ignorance if I have limited knowledge and missed a fact that's pertinent to the matter/discussion. The important thing to me in this or any similar situation is property owners' rights. These folks running the Gun Range, need the consideration that you'd be expecting in relationship to your property rights. Oh,........and thanks for what you have done that is positive. This is still a salvage-able situation. Careful consideration of what you post in each forum might keep everyone at bay on the name calling and such. __________________ SCOTT If You Always Do What You've Always Done, You'll Always Get What You've Always Gotten.

08-15-2007, 01:35 AM	#15
MainStreet Administrator Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 733	If there are legitmate complaints concerning the gun range, then as a Councilman there is an obligation to follow through and investigate the issue. One of the neatest tools that can be acccessed by all of us here on the web is the Dallas County Apprasial District's Property Map. They have provided a zoning/parcel map where you can zoom on individual parcels and identify the various owners and uses. Also, the map shows geographical elements as well, such as creeks and other bodies of water. It is very intresting to see "the big picture" as it relates to the gun range. Here is the web address for accessing DCAD's Map: http://maps.dallascad.org/website/dcad/viewer.htm The map is interactive where you can move your cursor zooming in or out on a particular area. It's kinda fun to play with! The gun range is located on Pleasant Valley Road approx South East of the Firewheel Town Center just before entering Sachse. Here is the link to the property record of the gun range ... http://www.dallascad.org/AcctDetailC...22661010320000. On the webpage you can "click" on the words "DCAD Map" and go directly to the interactive tool. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the actual firing area is located immediately East of Rowlett Creek. Seems like I remember crossing a bridge on Pleasant Valley before arriving at the range. If you use the Parcel ID option on the map you will notice that the City of Garland owns all of the land due East and South of the Gun Range. Researching further, the landowners due North of the range bordering Pleasant Valley include Baldwin, Swanzy, and Wilkins. The closest residential street to the range is Richfield Drive. Maybe the complaints are coming from the residents on Richfield ... IDK! I'm not sure how much of the property in the area is in the flood plain. I do know however that you can have property removed from the flood plain ... it is a rather time consuming and expensive endeavor, but nonetheless it can be done through FEMA assuming it passes all of the various flood tests. All in all according to the map, the property is bounded by acres of agricultural uses and appears to be no threat to the residential areas. I just hope that somewhere somehow someone or some-entity hasn't declared "open season" on the property owner. That's my main concern with this issue ... the property owner! 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 Last edited by MainStreet; 08-15-2007 at 02:40 AM.

08-15-2007, 10:00 AM	#18
Linda Jaresh Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 35	(I recently learned that Doug Athas used to be "tight" with Holden till the whole "LET US VOTE" thing occurred. That's about the time my attentions got turned to Garland Politics so I was unaware of their previous friendship. Is this somehow related to some of Holden's friends and deeds?) This is a great big NO! This is in response to Scott's observation about Doug having been tight with Holden until the "Let Us Vote" campaign. I do not think they were ever, I repeat EVER, tight, that is so unlikely. When Michael Holden was elected to the Council (the second time) Doug Athas was on the Plan Commission and Holden replaced Athas with someone else. Doug was appointed to the Commission by Mayor Day, as the At Large Commissioner. On the Commission he was one of the best Plan Commissioner members ever. His insight and knowledge about everything concerning development and zoning is second to none. His connection with people who are experts in the field of urbanism is superb. He has been to many conferences and meetings where this has been discussed. I have been to training with Doug and Mr. Yen and have been on "field trips" to several other citiies who are developing unique and significant neighborhoods with zero lot lines and revitalizing their downtowns. He has been a mentor to me as I learned the ropes of being on the Plan Commission and I treasure and respect his friendship and knowledge on the subjects that came before us. I do not like to post on here because someone almost always trashes what I say. But I just had to respond to this. Yes Doug is my friend. So are most of you guys. I am not at all sure what the issue is about the gun range, but I will find out and if there are any improprieties whatsoever I will report them in the paper. You can take my word on that. And you do have the right to express your opinion; however please limit your thoughts and critiques to facts and not assumptions.