« A workout in the park -- new exercise devices | Main | The curious case of Rom Houben »

November 25, 2009


Excellent obsevation.
And now not only should this range be open to the public, it will be.
I am currently working towards identifying the proper fed authority that will kindly remind the City of Midland that this resource just became public use domain.

Go for it, Theweed. And please keep me posted on the progress.

Will do. Have done some preliminary digging, will see what comes up...

Good luck, Theweed.

I do not agree. I was a member of the Midland Shooter's Association and they have an excellent range for private use. The problem is it is a cold range, no rounds in chambers. This is a safety issue with those not accustomed to using weapons (beginners learning to use a gun). However I have got in trouble numerous times because, as a peace officer, that is how I carry my weapon day in and day out. I cannot practice weapons transitions (going from rifle to pistol in case of a malfunction in the rifle) due to restrictions on sling use. I am not supposed to carry my weapon in my holster, loaded, even though this is how I have carried it for five years and it has yet to discharge while in my holster. My skills are extremely advanced and my firearms drills are not permitted at the MSA because someone not experienced will try to copy me and get hurt. Needless to say I have let my membership go inactive and will just practice on my own land (out in the county) or at the MPD range.

That is all fine and good to petition public use of the range if that is what the law allows. But will the citizens of Midland support salaries for range masters and instructors to supervise the range? What if someone shoots their self or someone else on city property? Will the city tolerate an expensive civil suit? How will training be degraded for the police department due to heavy, unpracticed, irresponsible traffic through the range? (Trust me I have seen trash and casings left at MSA along with a whole lot of stuff shot up that should'nt be shot up) These questions should be pondered before looking to do this.

There is a reason we go through months of training and demonstrated continued proficiency on our skills. I am sure the person sighting in his deer rifle that day was fed up with the restrictions at MSA or unaware of their existence as a place to sight in rifles. Maybe it was a police issued weapon and no one asked him what it was? Maybe he described it as a deer rifle so the uninitiated could understand what it was or save them the connotation of describing it as a "sniper rifle"? Who knows what was said that day. I do find it disturbing that this mindset of "I want it because they have it". Like I said we train, we sacrifice, because when the bullets start firing we run to the sounds of gunshots while everyone else runs away. And they say "that is what we get paid to do". Paid to get killed. We are training on this land to defend society in a legal safe way so as not to endanger innocent bystanders. There are plenty of places for "recreational shooting". We are not plinking rounds out there, we are training to save lives and that should be factored into decisions to allow public use of the land.

Good luck in your endeavors, remember I may not agree with your opinions or a ruling of law, but I will defend to the death your right to do so and in pursuant to defending that law. It's what I get paid to do.


Brad, there must have been a rule change at MSA. I believe in the past, peace officer were allowed to carry as they would on duty.

For what it's worth, I've heard complaints from others about the rules at MSA and the enforcers, but I know of no accident in which someone was shot. Whether it's the MSA range or the MPD range, if the rules are followed, people don't get hurt.

The thing that rubs me the wrong way about the MPD range is that it's a private shooting club for officers funded by tax payers.

BTW, the MPD Range Master was the one who said the off duty officer was sighting in his deer rifle.

I understand, maybe my own personal experience colors my response. Thanks for the comments about the range master, clarifys the situation.


If the range is being used by off-duty officers for something other than training, that would be worth looking into. Training by the officers off-duty may be a little more responsible use of tax payer money.

Allow me to add an addendum in anticipation of my pursuit of this matter.
My course is not one designed to "stick it" to the MPD. I recognize they choose and accept certain risks in pursuit of their profession, and I commend them for this, much as I commend those who make the personal choice to work at great risk in the oilfield to feed their family or those of us who defend our country via military endeavers.
This matter is one of local, state and federal govements run amuck. Our local leaders, whom for political expediency more than anything else it seems, portray themselves as conservative beacons, salt of the earth, all the while stuffing themselves at the trough of pork spending, endless municipal projects, and massive property tax rates, among the highest in Texas. Some of the largesse used, it seems, at defiance of law.
Much like the fool on the game show, grabbing dollars in a wind blown glass booth, our leaders were too busy stuffing dollars in their pockets to be much bothered with the fine print, which states that the people who pay for it get to use it.
THE question in my mind is, given the current ecomomic climate, did COM have any business spending this significant taxpayer money on improvments in a private use firing range?
The solution is simple. If a private use firing range is imperative, they need to return OUR money if they do not care to abide by the conditions set forth by law.
I will also note this; some of us are not "plinkers", but are advanced firearm experts trained via special service military, often possessing training well advanced of local police firearms training. Should they be allowed facility use but not other citizens? Is that what should determine access? Of course the answer is no. The spirit of the grant appears to be of a notion that those who paid for it get to use it, period.
Unless citizens begin standing up to the crimes of continued resolution budgets, line item spending and the like, we are all going to need a wheelbarrow of US bills to buy lunch and there may be not much left for law enforcement to protect.....


Theweed, that's a very eloquent summation of the disconnection between our elected officials and the voters who put them there. I love this city, and I would hope that our elected officials are a notch above.

Brad, kudos for your ability to see both sides of an issue.

Let us see what Mike Conway does now.
For the record, I tend to agree that a private range for MPD, while not imperative, probably carries some advantage.
I would like to see COM return the money..

Midland City Council member perhaps??


Heh heh! That may be our tax money blowin' in the wind, Theweed.

Don't go for looks; they can deceive. Don't go for wealth; even that fades away. Go for someone who makes you smile because it takes only a smile to make a dark day seem bright. Find the one that makes your heart smile.

The comments to this entry are closed.