Alice Tripp (Texas State Rifle Association and TOP group) has warned of discussions already taking place early in this session to limit archery and likely dove/bird hunting within city limits. Legislation in 2005 allowed these activities, and overcame long term abuses by small and large communities to shut down hunting even in rural parts of their areas. Safety buffer areas were built into the legislation. Specific legislators are being contacted and moving forward...
From: Michelle Harris m.l.harris@suddenlink.net Ms. Berryman, Unfortunately, we still have an issue with respect to the discharge of certain weapons within the City of Georgetown. In addition to this letter, we have also attached the original email sent to the City regarding this issue (provided for background reference). When we spoke Monday (12/1/2008), I had just received word that the city (David Morgan) had all the proper enforcement authority concerning the discharge of weapons (bows and arrows specifically) and hunting within the city limits. At that time, David However, on Saturday afternoon (12/6/2008), we were visited by Officer Dauer with upsetting news. He informed us that updated ordinance 2003-35 does not address our concerns and under some state laws (Texas Local Government Code chapter 229, section 229.002) that the City’s rights to enforce this critical public safety issue on lots greater than 10 acres annexed after 1981 is greatly restricted. He indicated that discharging certain weapons on the property adjacent to our property is not prohibited, and that the City cannot regulate this practice. He indicated to us that this piece of property adjacent to our residential property was annexed after the 9/1/1981 date referenced in the statute. We would like assistance in confirming the annexation date for the property as defined in WCAD as: HAVINS SUB, BLOCK 1, LOT 1, ACRES 12.82; Owner: HAVINS STANLEY & LARRY & MARY E HAVINS HILL (O038732) - R3174156151 FM 3405; GEORGETOWN,TX 78628-4045 We have found the following information regarding the state statute which prevents municipalities from effectively protecting citizens’ safety within a municipality: Local Government Code ( Title 7) § 229.002. REGULATION OF DISCHARGE OF WEAPON. A municipality may not apply a regulation relating to the discharge of firearms or other weapons in the extraterritorial jurisdiction of the municipality or in an area annexed by the municipality after September 1, 1981, if the firearm or other weapon is: (1) a shotgun, air rifle or pistol, BB gun, or bow and arrow discharged: (A) on a tract of land of 10 acres or more and more than 150 feet from a residence or occupied building located on another property; and (B) in a manner not reasonably expected to cause a projectile to cross the boundary of the tract; or (2) a center fire or rim fire rifle or pistol of any caliber discharged: (A) on a tract of land of 50 acres or more and more than 300 feet from a residence or occupied building located on another property; and (B) in a manner not reasonably expected to cause a projectile to cross the boundary of the tract. Added by Acts 2005, 79th Leg., Ch.18, § 4, eff. May 3, 2005. From information publicly available on Texas Legislature Online, we have found that during the Meeting of the Intergovernmental Relations Committee on 3/16/2005, Scott Houston, Director of Legal Services of the Texas Municipal League, was the only witness present that took the position AGAINST this legislation (introduced as SB734). He also attended the meeting of the Land & Resource Management Committee on 3/3/2005 where he and David Lilley (representative for the City of Copperas Cove) both took the position AGAINST similarly proposed legislation (introduced as companion bill HB1364). The City of Georgetown is a member of the Texas The intent of the author’s legislation for SB734, and companion HB1364 (which lead to Local Government Code ( Title 7) § 229.002): Under current law, if a municipality annexes property, the regulations of the municipality will apply to that property. In some parts of the state, large tracts of land that have traditionally been used for hunting leases have been annexed. Upon annexation, the municipality frequently informs the owners of these large tracts that they can no longer discharge firearms on the property, thereby ending their right to lease their property for hunting. Many owners of these large tracts depend on the revenue generated from their hunting leases. S.B. 734 prevents municipalities from restricting the discharge of firearms on recently annexed tracts of land under certain conditions that protect the public safety. This 12.82 acre tract of land behind my house does not appear to fit the intent of a “large tract of land traditionally used for hunting leases” and does not appear that the owners of this property “depend on the revenue generated” from using this as a hunting lease. The particular tract of land that is directly behind our property is (according to WCAD) approximately 320 feet wide from the rear of our property to Georgetown police officers responded to our call and witnessed this injured deer with arrow embedded, in our yard. In addition, there were changes to the proposed legislation as stated on Texas Legislature Online: The substitute changes the date before which municipal authority can be exercised to regulate to September 1, 1981, from September 1, 2005. The purpose of this change was to coincide with the passage of the Agricultural Protection Act of 1981 that many argue should have contained protections for wildlife management (hunting). The Attorney General’s Office is currently working on an opinion to determine if this is an accurate interpretation. There were 2 requests for Attorney General opinion on the matter (see attached letters to the AG) to clarify if wildlife management, including hunting, is an agricultural operation under the Agriculture Protection Act, and a specific request from the City of Copperas Cove in which they directly address this issue with regard to SB734 and a city’s ability to impose hunting regulations in newly annexed areas. Both of these requests for AG opinion were WITHDRAWN. I cannot find any other information regarding the outcome of the issues raised by the 2 letters of request. From the Texas Agriculture Code (see bolded text which appears to be relevant): § 251.005. EFFECT OF GOVERNMENTAL REQUIREMENTS. (a) For purposes of this section, the effective date of a governmental requirement is the date on which the requirement requires or attempts to require compliance as to the geographic area encompassed by the agricultural operation. The recodification of a municipal ordinance does not change the original effective date to the extent of the original requirements. (b) A governmental requirement of a political subdivision of the state other than a city: (1) applies to an agricultural operation with an established date of operation subsequent to the effective date of the requirement; (2) does not apply to an agricultural operation with an established date of operation prior to the effective date of the requirement; and (3) applies to an agricultural operation if the governmental requirement was in effect and was applicable to the operation prior to the effective date of this chapter. (c) A governmental requirement of a city does not apply to any agricultural operation situated outside the corporate boundaries of the city on the effective date of this chapter. If an agricultural operation so situated is subsequently annexed or otherwise brought within the corporate boundaries of the city, the governmental requirements of the city do not apply to the agricultural operation unless the requirement is reasonably necessary to protect persons who reside in the immediate vicinity or persons on public property in the immediate vicinity of the agricultural operation from the danger of: (1) explosion, flooding, vermin, insects, physical injury, contagious disease, removal of lateral or subjacent support, contamination of water supplies, radiation, storage of toxic materials, or traffic hazards; or (2) discharge of firearms or other weapons, subject to the restrictions in Section 229.002, Local Government Code. (c-1) A governmental requirement may be imposed under Subsection (c) only after the governing body of the city makes findings by resolution that the requirement is necessary to protect public health. Before making findings as to the necessity of the requirement, the governing body of the city must use the services of the city health officer or employ a consultant to prepare a report to identify the health hazards related to agricultural operations and determine the necessity of regulation and manner in which agricultural operations should be regulated. (d) This section shall be construed to maintain, to the limited degree set forth in this section, the authority of a political subdivision under prior law over nonconforming uses but may not be construed to expand that authority. Added by Acts 1981, 67th Leg., p. 2595, ch. 693, § 21, eff. Aug. 31, 1981. Amended by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 450, § 1, eff. Aug. 28, 1995. Important issues which we believe need to be addressed/resolved: · Because we could find no definition for “residence” in the Local Government Code, we went to the Attorney General’s website to find where this term was previously discussed. It appears from several AG opinions that “it is an elementary rule in construing statutes that the context in which a word is used should be considered in arriving at the meaning intended by the Legislature”. We are very concerned that each municipality could interpret what “residence” means. Officer Dauer indicated that the police department is interpreting the above statute with respect to the term “residence” as the structure (our house) and not considering our entire property. It would be surprising (and alarming) to us if the Legislature intended that certain residents such as ourselves not be able to have normal use and enjoyment of our backyard property. Based on the Georgetown Police Department’s information provided to us, they have decided to interpret this to mean just the structure of our house. In our case, if you apply the 150 foot distance from the back of the structure of our house, that puts the zone that someone could discharge a weapon at approximately 15 feet from our property line (and due to the odd shape of my lot, in some areas, the 150 feet would be ON my property line). If the legislative intent in including a distance requirement was to ensure adjacent property owners’ safety, one would logically presume that they intended “residence” to mean the entire property, measuring from the property line. That would provide the additional safeguards for persons to safely enjoy their backyards, while still allowing the other property owners who want to discharge weapons, the ability to do so without endangering others. With that interpretation by the City, that can place my family, which includes 2 children, only 15 feet (or less) from a weapon being discharged on adjacent property when we choose to enter our backyard. If this is the case, then we cannot safely allow our children to play in our own backyard. We purchased property within the City limits specifically because of the additional ordinances and safeguards that a city typically offers its residents. Due to the City’s interpretation of the state statute, it appears that the City will not be affording all of the residents in the City of Georgetown the same protection from public safety threats. In most any other situation in the City limits, it would be illegal to discharge a weapon in that manner and in such close proximity to other people. · We plan on contacting Senator Steve Ogden’s office and House Representative Dan Gattis’ office to explain the issues and to request they propose legislation this session to address this major public safety issue. One option may be to clearly define “residence” as the entire property inclusive of any yard. This would set back the distance at which someone could discharge a weapon from a residential backyard, side yard (whatever) to the 150 feet from a property line. This would allow those on adjacent residential lots to feel more secure when allowing their children to play on their property, while at the same time allowing persons to discharge their weapons. While this is by no means the perfect solution, it is better than what we are left with right now. · This is obviously a concern shared by other municipalities as evidenced by the involvement of the Texas Municipal League, which represents the interests of numerous cites in Texas, and highlighted by the interest expressed by the City of Copperas Cove.
· How many other residential lots within the City are affected by this issue? I have cc’d the homeowner associations of several neighborhoods in the City in case this issue would apply to any of their residents. · Didn’t Georgetown recently annex a large piece of property ( We have several ideas about how to work with local and state officials to try to improve this law so that citizens of Georgetown can feel safe while enjoying their residential property. Thanks again for your support. We would like to discuss these issues further with you. Please contact Michelle Harris at 512-626-7328 so we can set up a time to meet, provide you with all the information we have been able to locate, and hopefully develop a plan on how to proceed. Respectfully, Brandon and Michelle Harris
Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2008 3:31 PM
To: dist5@georgetowntx.org
home made cialis cialis canada generic 10mg no prescription do not take cialis bph cialis http://www.maxipharmacy.com/.
Posted by: cialis to buy | June 22, 2011 at 01:25 AM
Current legislation restricts the rights of property owners to utilize property for residential purposes within CITY LIMITS and also is a PUBLIC SAFETY RISK. This legislation does not restrict rights, it does the opposite - increases rights to the enjoyment of outdoor recreation.
Posted by: Test12 | March 18, 2009 at 12:33 PM
One more attempt to limit or restrict our rights. As Americans, we must have our voices heard. Please contact your representatives and express you have no interest in any form legislation to restrict your rights. Consider joining organizations that will speak for you such as the Texas Rifle Association did here.
Posted by: Chris Nicholes | February 27, 2009 at 08:22 AM
One more attempt to limit or restrict our rights. As Americans, we must have our voices heard. Please contact your representatives and express you have no interest in any form legislation to restrict your rights. Consider joining organizations that will speak for you such as the Texas Rifle Association did here.
Posted by: Chris Nicholes | February 27, 2009 at 08:21 AM