Rowlett Seeks Temporary Injunction against Gun Range

Rowlett Seeks Temporary Injunction against Gun Range

ROWLETT, Texas - Police were called out to two North Texas homes last week, where the owners claim their homes were hit by gunfire. It is the same neighborhood where a man was wounded, he claims, by a stray bullet fired from a near by gun range.

Monday night, homeowners met with city leaders and got a pleasant surprise. The city of Rowlett is pulling out the big legal guns and taking aim at the Garland Public Shooting Range.

About 50 homeowners showed up wanting answers and the city was ready. Leaders announced the city has filed for a temporary injunction which could shut down the range.

“It is disturbing that there is a gun range within a mile and these incidences keep happening,” said City Manager Lynda Humble. “The two reported last week were not bullets found in yards, so that is pretty serious.”

Last week, the Bowman’s house was hit by a stray bullet. It ended up going through their child’s bedroom. Another bullet penetrated an exterior wall and lodged itself into a dining room wall at the Ngo’s house.

It was a frightening evening for fourth grader Lilly Ngo, who translated for her mother.

Full Story Here:
Rowlett Seeks Temporary Injunction against Gun Range

Below is the message I sent to the Rowlett City Council, City Manager and several other folks in Rowlett City government.

As you know, I am a Second Amendment guy to the core, but there have got to be some FOOLS at that damned range, they have got to be shooting at some serious elevation if their berm and the height of the landfill isn’t stopping their rounds.

I honestly don’t believe these are *stray* rounds, I believe they are rounds fired by ignorant people.

I want the entire Council and those City Officials listed here to know, I support this effort and applaud your efforts to keep the citizens of Rowlett safe!

In MY opinion, the owner of the range, Mr. James Day, may well be THE most ignorant person I have had the displeasure of knowing about. The following will substantiate my making that statement.

Range owner James Day says the bullets are not coming from his range. He does not believe they can travel that far. The neighborhood is about a mile from the range.

Pay attention Mr. James Day, because apparently, YOU need to be taken to school, and I am just the one to do it.

Even a lowly .22 LRHP (long rifle hollow point) can, and will travel a mile, possibly a bit further. What the hell kind of gun person are you if you don’t know that?

This is what I found with a very simple Google search concerning the .308 Winchester, or if you prefer, a 7.62×51 NATO round, a VERY common rifle round.

The US Army preaches an 800 meter maximum effective range for the .308, the USMC preaches a 1000 yard (915 meter) max effective range. While we have made hits at 1000+ meters with the .308, we tend to agree with the Army and indicate that 800 meters is about the max limit for RELIABLE hits in all but extreme weather conditions. After that the .308 is dropping like a rock and can become inconsistent. As an all around work horse for sniping that works great for both Law Enforcement and military sniping, the .308 is hard to beat. SOURCE

The USMC says this round is ACCURATE at 1,000 yards. That’s 3,000 FEET people. That is the ACCURATE range of a .308 Winchester, NOT the MAXIMUM range.

The hits on the houses in Rowlett were not, at least in MY opinion, a *targeted* thing, it would be nearly impossible to do so, but the MAXIMUM range of the .308 would be more than ample to carry it from the gun range to these homes if fired at an elevation that would cause it to clear the dirt berm at the gun range and the 25 to 30 feet rise in elevation that the land fill between the range and the homes presents.

If Mr. James Day doesn’t KNOW this, Mr. James Day doesn’t need to own nor operate a gun range! It appears to me, at first glance, that perhaps the operator of the gun range doesn’t supervise the shooters and doesn’t *police* that range as it should be supervised.

And one other thing, I know Rowlett City Manager Lynda Humble, before ANYONE even thinks about saying that she is an anti-gun person, think again. Ms. Humble is a gun owner and user. So, save the anti rants for another time and place, they will NOT fly in this post!

Several members of the Rowlett City Council are gun owner and users, but you see, the safety of Rowlett citizens comes 1st. A careless range user, or a range owner that hasn’t got the knowledge to run a gun facility, or to know the maximum range of even the most rudimentary bullets, as I see it, those issues are the root of the problem.

It’s not about anti anything; it’s about the health, safety and well being of our citizens.

And one thing is for sure, this is NOT a Second Amendment issue, not in it’s true sense of the right to keep and bear arms in and of itself. It’s about the right to keep and bear arms and to use them in a safe and responsible manner within the confines a safe facility.

I shot an Arrow into the air
It fell to earth I know not where,
For so swiftly it flew, the sight
Could not follow it in its flight.
~Henry Wadsworth Longfellow~

That’s not just a catchy little poem you know.

Digg This+1Share on LinkedInSubmit to StumbleUponShare on TumblrShare on Twitter Share
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

This entry was posted in Rowlett and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to Rowlett Seeks Temporary Injunction against Gun Range

  1. Shady says:

    So what you are saying is this guy owns a gun range and does not know “What goes up must COME DOWN! Hummm. DUMMY! I learned that in grade school in the late 50’s

    Now that’s silly

    • TexasFred says:

      I think by the tone of my post most anyone is going to get the idea that I am pissed off, and they would be correct.

      It’s 7:30AM and my Mayor just called to congratulate and thank me for this story.

      Some folks in Rowlett are as pissed off about this as I am, others, not so much. It kinda makes me wonder about some of MY neighbors. If they aren’t pissed off maybe we need to just start *popping caps* in the back yard and let the bullets fall where they may.

      I’ll bet you THAT would get their attention, the demands that this nonsense stop and the person(s) doing it be arrested would be cacophonous!

  2. Dick Robie says:

    Here in Winnemucca Nevada we had the same issue, but not on the scale you describe. The City shut down the range-just skeet now-and built a new range in the hills-surrounded by hills-all a good thing here and obviously a good thing there. But a range master that doesnt know a simple .22 will go over a mile and shooters that cannot keep rounds near the target are irresponsible and stupid and give all gun owners and shooters a bad name. Sounds like the solution in Rowlett is the same as the solution here. Good work, again, Fred and the Mayor of Rowlett

  3. mrchuck says:

    The gun range will be moved by the political forces in Rowlett, unless this recalcitrant gun range owner takes immediate measures to totally eliminate this problem.

    1. Place the bunker backstop at a different location, where errant rounds can disperse it’s energy safely.
    2. Place cameras on firing line.

  4. Katie says:

    Ask any Emergency Room doctor or nurse about bullets going astray. They will tell you that if you shoot a gun in the air (or in the wrong direction) it will return to Earth. Many times injuring or killing someone.

    This Mr. Day should be shut down if he doesn’t know simple ballistics. The council was correct in this matter.

    And it would be a better council with you on it Fred.

  5. Chris says:

    My understanding is that the suspect weapon is a .30-06.

    I’ve read that military ball .30-06 can reach from about 3,000 yds (150 gr.), and to about 6,000 yds (180 gr.).

    There is no question that my Sako Finnbear could easily reach out the 2,300 yds or so to that neighborhood from that range.

    Agree that anyone who believes that a bullet cannot travel a mile has no business running a range, perhaps has no business being on a range.

    I defended a range years ago following the death of a child. Standing at the firing points, it didn’t look like a round could get past the baffles - only the smallest slivers of daylight could be seen between them.

    As it turned out, that was all that it took.

    Keeping bullets confined to the range is serious business. What’s hard to understand is why, after the shooting last year, this would still be an issue at this range.

    • TexasFred says:

      I have been kinda/sorta watching the ‘net for reactions to this story, from FOX4 and my blog, and surprisingly, there hasn’t been too much reaction, a couple of *Gun range under attack* posts here and there but nothing about the range and it’s users needing to exercise some personal responsibility.

  6. says:


    Agreed TOTALLY with your opinion, Also must say that anyone who thinks they should be able to shoot their weapons and is unaware of the ability to “reach out” past a mile (Snipers have made shots to kill past that with 30-06 rare but documented) have no business with those weapons until they have taken a course in ballistics (probably useless since most ammo boxes say clearly that the rounds will travel and are deadly over a mile) Just sayin’


  7. Bob Mack says:

    Seems like a responsible range master wouldn’t argue the point; he’d make sure that additional safety precautions were undertaken.

  8. Bunkerville says:

    This ignorance is what gives Guns and their owners a bad name. Dumb and dumber.

  9. TexasFred says:

    Some things are in the works and I am going to wait until I have *official* notification before I make any announcements, but this issue IS being looked at from *on high*, and I am anxiously awaiting *the good word*…

Comments are closed.