TexasCHLforum.com

http://www.kxxv.com/story/23642602/chan ... -to-reopen" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Mr. Cotton, thanks for representing the members, and owner of this range! we've had the screws put to us long enough.

What I want to know is when the so called neighbor gets nailed.

Definitely glad to see Mr. Cotton on board and eager to see what plays out on the 7th.

I'll save my opinions of what's transpired so far for after... here's to hoping for a range day on the 9th.

The hearing was held yesterday and we won. The judge found that Ms. Williams had complied with the Court's order and the injunction was lifted. Ms. Williams was allowed to resume shooting immediately, although I believe they will reopen on Saturday.

Congratulations to Ms. Williams, Chandlers' Gun Shop & Range and all of her supporters who once again have a place to shoot. Several of them were in the courtroom to watch the hearing.

Chas.

One for the good guys!!!!

Thank you Charles!

It even made the TV news up there. It was a big decision for a lot of folks needing a place to shoot.

Chas.

http://www.kxxv.com/story/23911761/judg ... -to-reopen" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Charles L. Cotton wrote:It even made the TV news up there. It was a big decision for a lot of folks needing a place to shoot.

Chas.

http://www.kxxv.com/story/23911761/judg ... -to-reopen" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So Charles, since it appears that Judge Gassaway abdicated a large part of his responsibilities to the plaintiff and let Plaintiff decide A) what conditions should be required, and B) if those conditions had been met, is there any likelihood that the State Commission on Judicial Conduct could be persuaded to get involved and sanction Gassaway in some way or other?

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:It even made the TV news up there. It was a big decision for a lot of folks needing a place to shoot.

Chas.

http://www.kxxv.com/story/23911761/judg ... -to-reopen" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So Charles, since it appears that Judge Gassaway abdicated a large part of his responsibilities to the plaintiff and let Plaintiff decide A) what conditions should be required, and B) if those conditions had been met, is there any likelihood that the State Commission on Judicial Conduct could be persuaded to get involved and sanction Gassaway in some way or other?

The judge did no such thing. After the jury verdict against the range, a hearing was held to decide what improvements the judge would ultimately order. Both sides presented evidence and the judge issued an order that required far less than what was demanded by the Plaintiff. In fact, the court's order was very close to what the defendant's expert testified would be required. After the improvements were made, the plaintiff was allowed to inspect the property next door to him to see if he agreed that the range improvements met the court's order. If not, the Plaintiff has 48 hours to submit specific written objections. Then a hearing would be held and the judge would decide. Each side could call witnesses, including expert witnesses, call fact witnesses and cross-examine all witnesses. At the end of the hearing, the judge would rule based upon the evidence. This happened at one hearing prior to me getting involved in the case. After that first hearing, the judge required the range to change two items.

The plaintiff inspected the range again and claimed it still did not meet the judge's order. I then got involved and represented the defendants in the latest hearing. We again presented evidence, called fact and expert witnesses, cross-examined witnesses and ultimately prevailed. It should also be noted that the judge's ruling after the first compliance hearing contained a strong warning to plaintiff not to frivolously refuse to agree that the changes made by the range owner complied with the court's order. He proved to be a man of his word when he ruled in our favor.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:It even made the TV news up there. It was a big decision for a lot of folks needing a place to shoot.

Chas.

http://www.kxxv.com/story/23911761/judg ... -to-reopen" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So Charles, since it appears that Judge Gassaway abdicated a large part of his responsibilities to the plaintiff and let Plaintiff decide A) what conditions should be required, and B) if those conditions had been met, is there any likelihood that the State Commission on Judicial Conduct could be persuaded to get involved and sanction Gassaway in some way or other?

The judge did no such thing. After the jury verdict against the range, a hearing was held to decide what improvements the judge would ultimately order. Both sides presented evidence and the judge issued an order that required far less than what was demanded by the Plaintiff. In fact, the court's order was very close to what the defendant's expert testified would be required. After the improvements were made, the plaintiff was allowed to inspect the property next door to him to see if he agreed that the range improvements met the court's order. If not, the Plaintiff has 48 hours to submit specific written objections. Then a hearing would be held and the judge would decide. Each side could call witnesses, including expert witnesses, call fact witnesses and cross-examine all witnesses. At the end of the hearing, the judge would rule based upon the evidence. This happened at one hearing prior to me getting involved in the case. After that first hearing, the judge required the range to change two items.

The plaintiff inspected the range again and claimed it still did not meet the judge's order. I then got involved and represented the defendants in the latest hearing. We again presented evidence, called fact and expert witnesses, cross-examined witnesses and ultimately prevailed. It should also be noted that the judge's ruling after the first compliance hearing contained a strong warning to plaintiff not to frivolously refuse to agree that the changes made by the range owner complied with the court's order. He proved to be a man of his word when he ruled in our favor.

Chas.

I can understand TAM's question because the picture you paint, while undoubtedly more accurate (and truthful), is a far cry from the media articles.

RottenApple wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:It even made the TV news up there. It was a big decision for a lot of folks needing a place to shoot.

Chas.

http://www.kxxv.com/story/23911761/judg ... -to-reopen" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So Charles, since it appears that Judge Gassaway abdicated a large part of his responsibilities to the plaintiff and let Plaintiff decide A) what conditions should be required, and B) if those conditions had been met, is there any likelihood that the State Commission on Judicial Conduct could be persuaded to get involved and sanction Gassaway in some way or other?

The judge did no such thing. After the jury verdict against the range, a hearing was held to decide what improvements the judge would ultimately order. Both sides presented evidence and the judge issued an order that required far less than what was demanded by the Plaintiff. In fact, the court's order was very close to what the defendant's expert testified would be required. After the improvements were made, the plaintiff was allowed to inspect the property next door to him to see if he agreed that the range improvements met the court's order. If not, the Plaintiff has 48 hours to submit specific written objections. Then a hearing would be held and the judge would decide. Each side could call witnesses, including expert witnesses, call fact witnesses and cross-examine all witnesses. At the end of the hearing, the judge would rule based upon the evidence. This happened at one hearing prior to me getting involved in the case. After that first hearing, the judge required the range to change two items.

The plaintiff inspected the range again and claimed it still did not meet the judge's order. I then got involved and represented the defendants in the latest hearing. We again presented evidence, called fact and expert witnesses, cross-examined witnesses and ultimately prevailed. It should also be noted that the judge's ruling after the first compliance hearing contained a strong warning to plaintiff not to frivolously refuse to agree that the changes made by the range owner complied with the court's order. He proved to be a man of his word when he ruled in our favor.

Chas.

I can understand TAM's question because the picture you paint, while undoubtedly more accurate (and truthful), is a far cry from the media articles.

That's exactly what I was getting at. I'll grant that media often don't get it right, particularly when it comes to things gun-related, but that was all the information I had.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:The hearing was held yesterday and we won. The judge found that Ms. Williams had complied with the Court's order and the injunction was lifted. Ms. Williams was allowed to resume shooting immediately, although I believe they will reopen on Saturday.

Congratulations to Ms. Williams, Chandlers' Gun Shop & Range and all of her supporters who once again have a place to shoot. Several of them were in the courtroom to watch the hearing.

Chas.

RottenApple wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:It even made the TV news up there. It was a big decision for a lot of folks needing a place to shoot.

Chas.

http://www.kxxv.com/story/23911761/judg ... -to-reopen" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So Charles, since it appears that Judge Gassaway abdicated a large part of his responsibilities to the plaintiff and let Plaintiff decide A) what conditions should be required, and B) if those conditions had been met, is there any likelihood that the State Commission on Judicial Conduct could be persuaded to get involved and sanction Gassaway in some way or other?

The judge did no such thing. After the jury verdict against the range, a hearing was held to decide what improvements the judge would ultimately order. Both sides presented evidence and the judge issued an order that required far less than what was demanded by the Plaintiff. In fact, the court's order was very close to what the defendant's expert testified would be required. After the improvements were made, the plaintiff was allowed to inspect the property next door to him to see if he agreed that the range improvements met the court's order. If not, the Plaintiff has 48 hours to submit specific written objections. Then a hearing would be held and the judge would decide. Each side could call witnesses, including expert witnesses, call fact witnesses and cross-examine all witnesses. At the end of the hearing, the judge would rule based upon the evidence. This happened at one hearing prior to me getting involved in the case. After that first hearing, the judge required the range to change two items.

The plaintiff inspected the range again and claimed it still did not meet the judge's order. I then got involved and represented the defendants in the latest hearing. We again presented evidence, called fact and expert witnesses, cross-examined witnesses and ultimately prevailed. It should also be noted that the judge's ruling after the first compliance hearing contained a strong warning to plaintiff not to frivolously refuse to agree that the changes made by the range owner complied with the court's order. He proved to be a man of his word when he ruled in our favor.

Chas.

I can understand TAM's question because the picture you paint, while undoubtedly more accurate (and truthful), is a far cry from the media articles.

You're exactly right and that's what bothers me quite a bit. Either because they didn't read the documents, didn't understand the legal process in injunction cases, or both, they get then broadcast misleading information. When I saw the order from the prior hearing, I was confident that the judge wasn't going to buy into someone's ultimate agenda to keep the range closed. His warning to the plaintiff was very clear!

Chas.

I was at the hearing where Charles Cotton displayed his wonderful courtroom skills and was successful in getting Chandler's Gun Range reopened. This is a very safe and family friendly range in the Waco, Valley Mills area. the following note from Alice Chandler Williams is an invitation to attend the Grand Reopening of the range Saturday Nov. 16.

Alice Williams, Chandler's Gun Shop & Range wrote:Hey everyone! We are now open for business, Right now as I am typing this, the sweet sound of gunfire is but only a hundred yards away. We would like to invite and welcome you all to our Grand Re Opening BBQ starting at 10am on Saturday November 16th! As before we will be hosting a marksman competition, along with plenty of giveaways! We will finally be selecting the winner of the Ted Nugent autographed guitar ($5 a ticket or 5 tikets for $20), and giving away a free membership every hour on that day! Want to join the club? or renew? the asking price for such a thing will be $100 for new members and $75 to renew!. (day of the BBQ only you must be there in person to take advantage of the low rate)