Stray Bullets From Range Hit Home

[Ignition Override]

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.

 

[Gbro]

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???

 

[buck460XVR]

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.

 

[thallub]

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

 

[Double Naught Spy]

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.

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.

 

[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."

 

[Gbro]

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!!

 

[myusername]

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.

 

[MattShlock]

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...

 

[zincwarrior]

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?

 

[thallub]

Actually, bullets leaving a range property are fine -- it is called "safety fan" design.

Bullets leaving a firing range is never "fine" or safe. This statement is a contradiction. The term "safety fan" comes from the US military. The US military controls the land to the maximum range of the round being fired. You can't have a safety anything if rounds are leaving the firing range.

Many old firing ranges were constructed with very little forethought or safety consideration. If peoples homes are being hit by bullets, endangering the lives of the occupants, then the range should be shut down or redesigned.

Recently a guy on one of the websites i visit recommend the use of a large round hay bale for a backstop.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

The problem with the "safety fan" notion is that most ranges don't own the land on which they are assuming there is a "safety fan." They are basing their range's safety on the risk incurred by the properties around them that they don't own. That is a problem.

It really isn't like the issue of the smell from a pig farm. Pig farm smell isn't illegal. The Caldwell's didn't assume the risk for being shot by being located near the range. That tactic was tried in the trial, the range opening in 1986, the Caldwell home built in 1990, and the Caldwells moving into the home in 1998. However, the jury didn't agree with the argument and made a decision based on GA law.

“The range has been in operation since 1986 at least, the house was built in 1990 and the Caldwells bought it in 1998,” Teasley said. “No one from 1990-1998 had an issue. ... It kind of makes you wonder why someone would buy a house at the end of a gun range. It’s like buying a house near the airport and then complaining about the noise.”

http://www.times-georgian.com/news/local/article_d4796b14-dd20-11e2-a1c5-001a4bcf6878.html

The lawyer makes a similar argument of noise at an airport, but the the Caldwells were not complaining about the noise. It really isn't the same thing.

Based on Google Earth and using the timeline feature that shows images over time taken of the location to identify the particular residence, the Caldwell home is approximately 166 yards from the backstop of the 100 yard berm.

Certainly stupid to buy a home there, but being stupid didn't mean losing their rights.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Actually, bullets leaving a range property are fine -- it is called "safety fan" design....

No, it is not fine if it means the bullets wind up on the property of someone else.

...Then encroachment, people moving into previously expected-unlikely-to-be-populated areas where moderate range containment measures existed,...

Still the only way a range can expect to prevent that encroachment is to own the land. The operators of a shooting range have no basis upon which to expect that vacant land privately owned by someone else will remain vacant indefinitely.

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?

Not to presume to speak for Spats, but I think he was specifically referring to a claim based on a trespass theory. Here's the whole exchange (emphasis added):

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."

On the other hand, a different analysis would be appropriate were a claim based on a theory of strict liability for a hazardous activity (see post 19 and the discussion of Rylands v. Fletcher).

 

[Spats McGee]

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?

To be honest, I haven't had the opportunity to go looking. I was specifically responding to the trespass argument, but if suit were brought on negligence grounds, it's one of the defenses I'd raise if I were defending the range. Strict liability, OTOH, is a different beast.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

The trespass defense and the suggestion that the bullet holes were from hunters and other shooters not associated with the range was raised and discounted.

Also, the reason for the suit appears stated here...
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/guns/couple-awarded-175k-over-stray-bullets-nearby-gun-range

When asking politely failed, the Caldwells fell back on a time-honored classic: a good ol’-fashioned lawsuit. The couple sued the gun range for making no attempts to protect them and their property from shooters’ bullets.

 

[Willie D]

There was a range near me that had a documented problem with bullets leaving the range. They eventually installed barriers just above the trajectory of "on-target" bullets so that it is nearly impossible to shoot above the target backers, much less the berm, when seated at the bench.


My own range uses a similar setup. There are elevated wood barriers at 6and12' out filled with stones just above your sightlines at benches and off-hand positions. If I were 2" taller I'd be unable to shoot off hand but as-is it's not a problem. This range has a very large natural backstop but is near quite a lot of residential land and I think it was an added safety concession to the township.

 

[Wild-Bill]

Did they inspect the trees between the range and the house. If 27 rounds hit the house, how many hit the trees ?
Looks like a trap shooting range on the other side of the pond ??

 

[Frank Ettin]

Did they inspect the trees between the range and the house. If 27 rounds hit the house, how many hit the trees ?
Looks like a trap shooting range on the other side of the pond ??

Let's not re-try the case. It's over, and the range was found liable.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Did they inspect the trees between the range and the house. If 27 rounds hit the house, how many hit the trees ?
Looks like a trap shooting range on the other side of the pond ??

If you watched the videos, then you say that the holes in the house were NOT from the trap range. The holes were not from birdshot.

 

[oldgunsmith]

I've never been comfortable with the numbers of shooters who find ways to miss the backstop, no matter how high and wide it is. No big deal to them. Another one got away. So what?