• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

HB45 pit bull turning into a poodle

Mas49.56

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2010
Messages
308
Location
Florida, USA
Read the above article on Gulf Breeze and the range issue, then read this:

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes...ing=&URL=0800-0899/0823/Sections/0823.16.html

I'd like your comments with regards to not only the "noise ordinance" baloney that Santa Rosa County passed, but also the requirement in this statute for an NRA-standards compliant range and how bogus this issue really is.

The Doctor should win a law suit with this section.
"(6) A sport shooting range that is not in violation of existing law at the time of the enactment of an ordinance applicable to the sport shooting range shall be permitted to continue in operation even if the operation of the sport shooting range does not conform to the new ordinance or an amendment to an existing ordinance, provided the range was not in violation of any law when the range was constructed and provided that the range continues to conform to current National Rifle Association gun safety and shooting range standards. "
IIRC the reason the NRA standards are included, was because they pushed hard for this range protection legislation to pass and to give them a guide to go by. I'm not sure about the AG's take on this noise issue. I think it is a issue that should be addressed the same state wide and not on the fly by a county gov't. We will soon see.
 

rvrctyrngr

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2008
Messages
363
Location
SE of DiSOrDEr, ,
Read the above article on Gulf Breeze and the range issue, then read this:

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes...ing=&URL=0800-0899/0823/Sections/0823.16.html

I'd like your comments with regards to not only the "noise ordinance" baloney that Santa Rosa County passed, but also the requirement in this statute for an NRA-standards compliant range and how bogus this issue really is.

I imagine that needed some sort of arbitrary 'standard' to get the bill passed, similar to the training 'standards' required to qualify for a CWFL. State didn't want to write their own, so they used a generally accepted standard for all things gun-related...the NRA.
 

Rich7553

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2010
Messages
515
Location
SWFL
I imagine that needed some sort of arbitrary 'standard' to get the bill passed, similar to the training 'standards' required to qualify for a CWFL. State didn't want to write their own, so they used a generally accepted standard for all things gun-related...the NRA.

Exactly. However, the statute IMHO makes a few things about the Gulf Breeze situation abundantly clear:

1. The range, despite being owned by an individual, was subject to and protected by s. 823.16(1)(b).
2. Santa Rosa County adopted the noise ordinance as a result of complaints received after the range was already in operation.
3. The noise ordinance violated s. 823.16(2), regardless of whether or not it also violated s. 790.33 (preemption).
4. The range owner is not protected from charges of negligence or recklessness under s. 823.16(5).
5. The range must be maintained to conform with standards of the NRA. Failure to do so can be grounds for the county to demand operations be ceased under s. 823.16(6).
6. The statute, being made law in 1999, predates the range establishment, therefore the county may deem either the location or the construction of the range to be unsuitable per s. 823.16(7).

So I guess what I'm saying is that except for the bogus noise ordinance, the deck is stacked heavily in the county's favor. There is no reason for them to try to push a "discharge" ordinance that would generate a possible challenge based on s. 790.33, nor is there any reason for them to be mucking with SB 402/HB 45.
 
Last edited:

rvrctyrngr

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2008
Messages
363
Location
SE of DiSOrDEr, ,
Exactly. However, the statute IMHO makes a few things about the Gulf Breeze situation abundantly clear:

1. The range, despite being owned by an individual, was subject to and protected by s. 823.16(1)(b).
2. Santa Rosa County adopted the noise ordinance as a result of complaints received after the range was already in operation.
3. The noise ordinance violated s. 823.16(2), regardless of whether or not is also violated s. 790.33 (preemption).
4. The range owner is not protected from charges of negligence or recklessness under s. 823.16(5).
5. The range must be maintained to conform with standards of the NRA. Failure to do so can be grounds for the county to demand operations be ceased under s. 823.16(6).
6. The statute, being made law in 1999, predates the range establishment, therefore the county may deem either the location or the construction of the range to be unsuitable per s. 823.16(7).

So I guess what I'm saying is that except for the bogus noise ordinance, the deck is stacked heavily in the county's favor. There is no reason for them to try to push a "discharge" ordinance that would generate a possible challenge based on s. 790.33, nor is there any reason for them to be mucking with SB 402/HB 45.

Sure there is, Rich...It provides for penalties they can't just blow off. Upsets their little fiefdoms...can't have that. Politicians should be able to do whatever they want, ya know.
 

Rich7553

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2010
Messages
515
Location
SWFL
Sure there is, Rich...It provides for penalties they can't just blow off. Upsets their little fiefdoms...can't have that. Politicians should be able to do whatever they want, ya know.

Perhaps I should have rephrased that to read, "...nor is there any legitimate reason to the commoners for them to be mucking with SB 402/HB 45.
 
Top