UPDATE 11/8/13: Chandlers Gunshop and Shooting Range

Places to practice & train

Moderator: carlson1

Post Reply

Topic author
smgilliam
Junior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 6
Joined: Tue May 28, 2013 8:54 am

UPDATE 11/8/13: Chandlers Gunshop and Shooting Range

#1

Post by smgilliam » Tue Oct 15, 2013 10:24 am

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.

User avatar

OldCurlyWolf
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 1238
Joined: Sat Sep 18, 2010 3:00 am

Re: Chandlers Gunshop and Shooting Range

#2

Post by OldCurlyWolf » Tue Oct 15, 2013 4:55 pm

What I want to know is when the so called neighbor gets nailed. :mad5
I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on.
I don't do those things to other people and I require the same of them.

Don’t pick a fight with an old man. If he is too old to fight, he’ll just kill you.


mschadt
Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 78
Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: Waco-ish

Re: Chandlers Gunshop and Shooting Range

#3

Post by mschadt » Wed Oct 16, 2013 7:24 pm

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.

User avatar

Charles L. Cotton
Site Admin
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 17405
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:31 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX
Contact:

Re: Chandlers Gunshop and Shooting Range

#4

Post by Charles L. Cotton » Fri Nov 08, 2013 3:23 pm

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.
Image

User avatar

Keith B
Moderator
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 18143
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 3:29 pm

Re: Chandlers Gunshop and Shooting Range

#5

Post by Keith B » Fri Nov 08, 2013 3:59 pm

:hurry: :clapping: One for the good guys!!!!
Keith
Texas LTC Instructor, Missouri CCW Instructor, NRA Certified Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun Instructor and RSO, NRA Life Member

Psalm 82:3-4

User avatar

DocV
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 1016
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2011 4:29 pm

Re: Chandlers Gunshop and Shooting Range

#6

Post by DocV » Fri Nov 08, 2013 4:10 pm

Thank you Charles!
NRA Lifetime Member
I was addicted to the hokey-pokey, but I turned myself around.

User avatar

Charles L. Cotton
Site Admin
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 17405
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:31 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX
Contact:

Re: Chandlers Gunshop and Shooting Range

#7

Post by Charles L. Cotton » Fri Nov 08, 2013 5:13 pm

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;
Image

User avatar

The Annoyed Man
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 24805
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 12:59 pm
Location: North Richland Hills, Texas
Contact:

Re: Chandlers Gunshop and Shooting Range

#8

Post by The Annoyed Man » Fri Nov 08, 2013 5:38 pm

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?
Give me Liberty, or I'll get up and get it myself.—Hookalakah Meshobbab
I don't carry because of the odds, I carry because of the stakes.—The Annoyed Boy

User avatar

Charles L. Cotton
Site Admin
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 17405
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:31 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX
Contact:

Re: Chandlers Gunshop and Shooting Range

#9

Post by Charles L. Cotton » Fri Nov 08, 2013 8:48 pm

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.
Image


RottenApple
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 1662
Joined: Sun Jan 09, 2011 3:19 pm

Re: Chandlers Gunshop and Shooting Range

#10

Post by RottenApple » Fri Nov 08, 2013 10:39 pm

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.

User avatar

The Annoyed Man
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 24805
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 12:59 pm
Location: North Richland Hills, Texas
Contact:

Re: Chandlers Gunshop and Shooting Range

#11

Post by The Annoyed Man » Fri Nov 08, 2013 11:02 pm

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.
Give me Liberty, or I'll get up and get it myself.—Hookalakah Meshobbab
I don't carry because of the odds, I carry because of the stakes.—The Annoyed Boy

User avatar

jmra
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 10351
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 6:51 am
Location: Ellis County

Re: Chandlers Gunshop and Shooting Range

#12

Post by jmra » Sat Nov 09, 2013 8:16 am

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.
:thewave
Life is tough, but it's tougher when you're stupid.
John Wayne
NRA Lifetime member

User avatar

Charles L. Cotton
Site Admin
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 17405
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:31 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX
Contact:

Re: Chandlers Gunshop and Shooting Range

#13

Post by Charles L. Cotton » Sat Nov 09, 2013 12:09 pm

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.
Image


raggededge
Junior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 6
Joined: Fri Mar 08, 2013 12:24 pm

Re: UPDATE 11/8/13: Chandlers Gunshop and Shooting Range

#14

Post by raggededge » Mon Nov 11, 2013 8:08 am

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)

Post Reply

Return to “Shooting Ranges”