TexasCHLforum.com

Appereantly they upgraded their backstop in a manner that the City of Houston circa 1974 does not approve of

http://www.courthousenews.com/2014/01/14/64512.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

psijac wrote:Appereantly they upgraded their backstop in a manner that the City of Houston circa 1974 does not approve of

http://www.courthousenews.com/2014/01/14/64512.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The solution is not in the hands of the police - the city council needs to amend the ordinance so it no longer requires a health hazard in the name of safety.

Excaliber wrote:

psijac wrote:Appereantly they upgraded their backstop in a manner that the City of Houston circa 1974 does not approve of

http://www.courthousenews.com/2014/01/14/64512.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The solution is not in the hands of the police - the city council needs to amend the ordinance so it no longer requires a health hazard in the name of safety.

We'll soon see if safety is the goal, or if it's another backdoor attack on businesses that support the second amendment.

So, for two years the modern backstop was all fine and good to go, but now its a problem? This is either someone looking for "brownie points" from their bosses, or political. Hopefully a judge will see through this mess and make it right. Running a safe operation should be paramount.

Excaliber wrote:We'll soon see if safety is the goal, or if it's another backdoor attack on businesses that support the second amendment.

I hope Top Gun is able to get this cleared up. It's close enough to my work that I can drop by on my lunch hour. The facility is clean, and the guys there have always been nice (to me).

K.Mooneyham wrote:So, for two years the modern backstop was all fine and good to go, but now its a problem? This is either someone looking for "brownie points" from their bosses, or political. Hopefully a judge will see through this mess and make it right. Running a safe operation should be paramount.

However wouldn't a judge have to follow the law or code guidelines? On the flipside I wonder if there is a worthwhile argument that the site has been cleared twice previously and is not changed since.

Why do they even need to get it certified a second time?

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

K.Mooneyham wrote:So, for two years the modern backstop was all fine and good to go, but now its a problem? This is either someone looking for "brownie points" from their bosses, or political. Hopefully a judge will see through this mess and make it right. Running a safe operation should be paramount.

However wouldn't a judge have to follow the law or code guidelines? On the flipside I wonder if there is a worthwhile argument that the site has been cleared twice previously and is not changed since.

Why do they even need to get it certified a second time?

I would think that a judge could declare a code invalid/obsolete as he could declare a law unconstitutional. From what I have read, the technology has improved since the code was passed.
So even though he construction didn't meet code, it would be better than the code and meet the intent.
IANAL so I am using my best logic.

WildBill wrote:I would think that a judge could declare a code invalid/obsolete as he could declare a law unconstitutional. From what I have read, the technology has improved since the code was passed.
So even though he construction didn't meet code, it would be better than the code and meet the intent.
IANAL so I am using my best logic.

You might be right on that, and hopefully so in this case. I am not a fan of a government entity coming back after something has been approved twice and then changing the terms. It screams 'someone wants a bribe or a bigger bribe,' or that the city no longer finds your business politically correct.

Backstops are a major capex. I wonder if they have records of some sort of approval or coordination with the city when or before it was put in place. That would be an excellent basis for a waiver too I would think in my not so humble and completely ignorant opinion.

The city could also just simply approve a variance without having to change the ordinance. Try that and see what falls out of the wood work politically.

Where would the range protection provision from 2011 come in? Wouldn't this type of city action fall within the scope of that law?

And fwiw, I wouldn't hold my breath on the Houston city council or mayor coming to the rescue on this. They are "progress"ing quite nicely according to the Washington DC imperial edicts.

oohrah wrote:The city could also just simply approve a variance without having to change the ordinance. Try that and see what falls out of the wood work politically.

That is one alternative that I didn't think about. It sounds like the quickest solution until the code can be updated.