Glendale | MSSA - The Missouri Sport Shooting Association

GLENDALE SHOOTING CLUB | HISTORICAL COURT CASES

We need your help to fight to have Courts uphold existing law to

protect our gun ranges

Glendale Shooting Club Inc is a not-for-profit corporation which operates a shooting range located in Robertsville, Missouri in the county of Franklin. Glendale has approximately 160 members. and will be 100 years old in 2028. We are a 100% NRA member club. We’ve been under restrictions by an injunction set in 1987, due to a nuisance claim, significantly limiting our days and hours available to shoot and hold competitions at our gun range. This has greatly impacted our membership.

In 2008, a new law passed strengthening the protection first granted firearms ranges against nuisance claims in 1998. Earlier this year, our gun club won a circuit course case to remove the injunction based on the 2008 statute and physical changes we made to the property to reduce noise impact on the adjoining property. Our neighbor has now filed an appeal to the Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of the statute. If the Supreme Court was to declare the statute unconstitutional this could impact every Shooting Range, Hunting Preserve, Conservation Department Range and Law Enforcement range/training facility and virtually every gun owner in the state. We cannot lose this protection from the nuisance of noise, or there will be no range able to operate in the state without the risk of being taken to court. Our members have heavily borne the financial burden of these court cases. The Glendale Shooting Club and its members are defending the state law by ourselves. We need your help to fight for the laws in place to protect all gun ranges.

YOU CAN HELP SUPPORT OUR CLUB

Around 99% of our funding to support legal representation and installation of sound barriers have been financed by our club’s yearly dues and personal loans directly from its members, equating to over $200,000. You can help support our club in this legal fight by donating at the link below:

GiveSendGo Fundraiser | Glendale Shooting Club Inc Legal Fund

Funds received via GiveSendGo will directly support reimbursing our club and continued litigation fees.

Please continue reading for a full historical overview of our legal fight.

———————————————————————–

ORIGINAL NUISANCE CASE

In 1976 we purchased approximately 110 ac. property we currently own in Robertsville. In 1983 the neighbor to our east filed suit for nuisance, largely due to noise and trespass (due to bullets allegedly crossing onto or over their property). This was case 20CV0183-0501CC (linked below).

In 1987 they were awarded $10 for the bullet trespass and the club was enjoined as a result of noise constituting a nuisance to the adjoining property owner. We have been limited to shooting from 9 a.m.- 6 p.m. or Dark, whichever comes first. We could only shoot anything larger than a .22 rimfire on Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday. Any day of the week we could shoot .22 rimfire standard velocity; which forced most of the shooting to Saturday. We were also limited to no more than 8 people on the firing line at any one time, which essentially limited the number of members we could have due to the capacity we could handle. We were also limited to how many matches we could have and how many matches in any month. See attached the 1987 Judgement.

NEW NEIGHBORS PURCHASED ADJOINING PROPERTY

Within a few years of the injunction, the neighbor’s property was sold to the current owners. They were aware of the gun club and the injunction before they purchased the property. In 1998 the laws changed to provide some protection to gun clubs from nuisance claims, and we moved forward with asking the court for relief from the injunction placed in 1987. The current neighbors were allowed to defend against our request to have the injunction set aside. Unfortunately, Glendale ran short of money to pay for legal representation and the club ended up settling for a stipulation agreement where we agreed to take no legal action for 20 years. The original injunction would remain in effect.

NEW LAW PASSED IN SUPPORT OF GUN RANGES NUISANCE CLAIMS

In 2008 the current statute, 537.294 was passed:

537.294. Firearm ranges — definitions — not to be deemed a nuisance, when — immunity from civil and criminal liability, when. — 1. As used in this section, the following terms shall mean:

(1) “Firearm range”, any rifle, pistol, silhouette, skeet, trap, black powder or other similar range in this state used for discharging firearms in a sporting event or for practice or instruction in the use of a firearm, or for the testing of a firearm;

(2) “Hunting preserve”, any hunting preserve or licensed shooting area operating under a permit granted by the Missouri department of conservation.

All owners and authorized users of firearm ranges shall be immune from any criminal and civil liability arising out of or as a consequence of noise or sound emission resulting from the use of any such firearm range. Owners and users of such firearm ranges shall not be subject to any civil action in tort or subject to any action for public or private nuisance or trespass and no court in this state shall enjoin the use or operation of such firearm ranges on the basis of noise or sound emission resulting from the use of any such firearm range. Any actions by a court in this state to enjoin the use or operation of such firearm ranges and any damages awarded or imposed by a court, or assessed by a jury, in this state against any owner or user of such firearm ranges for nuisance or trespass are null and void.

3. All owners and authorized users of existing hunting preserves or areas that are designated as hunting preserves after August 28, 2008, shall be immune from any criminal and civil liability arising out of or as a consequence of noise or sound emission resulting from the normal use of any such hunting preserve. Owners or authorized users of such hunting preserves shall not be subject to any action for public or private nuisance or trespass, and no court in this state shall enjoin the use or operation of such hunting preserves on the basis of noise or sound emission resulting from normal use of any such hunting preserve.

4. Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, nothing in this section shall be construed to limit civil liability for compensatory damage arising from physical injury to another human, physical injury to tangible personal property, or physical injury to fixtures or structures placed on real property.

SUMMARY JUDGEMENT | GLENDALE GUN RANGE FILES FOR RELIEF FROM INJUNCTION

After the passing of the 2008 law, we were precluded from asking for relief under the new law because of our agreement with the current neighbor. We continued to honor our 20 year agreement with the neighbor to not go to court until 2021.

In December of 2021 we filed for relief under the new law 537.294. The case is 21AB-CC00242 (linked below). We asked for a Summary Judgement, a way to resolve a lawsuit or specific claim within a lawsuit before trial when there’s no genuine dispute about the material facts, and one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. We are a gun club. The law states that we are protected from nuisance claims and our injunction should be null and void. The judge ruled in the club’s favor and the injunction was set aside in June 2022.

FIRST SUPREME COURT CASE | CHANGE IN LAW, IN AND OF ITSELF, COULD NOT SET ASIDE AN INJUNCTION

Following the Summary Judgement, the defendants appealed to the Supreme Court claiming that the law 537.294 was unconstitutional under both the Missouri and federal constitutions (Article I, Sections 26 and 28 of the Missouri Constitution and under the 5th and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution). They claimed that the statute constituted a “taking”. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, case # SC99701 (linked below). The Supreme Court had already heard the case of Goerlitz vs. City of Maryville in 2010. Fortunately, in that case they ruled for the city of Maryville, so we thought that we had good ground to stand on. But, in a footnote, they said the constitutionality of the law was not addressed in Goerlitz..

In the Opinion linked below from SC99701, the Supreme Court did not answer the constitutional question, but did rule that a change in the law does not, in and of itself, serve as grounds to set aside an injunction. Instead, the Court held that there had to be a substantial change in circumstances which rendered continuation of the injunction inequitable (unfair), relying on the Court’s recent ruling in City of Normandy vs. Parson (“Normandy II”). The Supreme Court sent the case back to the Circuit Court to determine if there was a substantial change in circumstances which made it inequitable to keep the injunction in force.

GLENDALE CASE REMANDED BACK TO CIRCUIT COURT | INSTALLATION OF SOUND BARRIERS

We made changes at our club even though the law itself did not require us to do so for relief. We did a sound study and sound modeling to see what we could do to help reduce the sound heard by our neighbors. We installed sound barrier material on 3 of our ranges. Our sound engineer estimated a 6 db reduction after he did the sound modeling.

We had a 2 day trial on April 14 and 15 of 2025 in the circuit court. Our sound engineer testified that there was 6 db reduction after the installation of the sound barriers and the sound engineer for the defendants agreed, and also testified at trial to the same. Ultimately, the judge ruled in our favor and set aside the injunction again (see attached “Amended Judgement, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law”).

The defendants then filed a Notice of Appeal (linked below) to the Missouri Supreme Court again arguing that the law was unconstitutional under Articles 1, Sections 14, 26 and 28 of the Missouri Constitution and the 5th and 14th amendments U.S. Constitution because it constituted a taking of defendants’ property without just compensation. Defendants assert that they are entitled to appeal directly to the Supreme Court because they have called into question the constitutionality of a state statute.

SECOND SUPREME COURT CASE

The current supreme court case number is SC101187 (linked below).

HOW COULD THIS IMPACT YOU?

This ruling could impact every Shooting Range, Hunting Preserve, Conservation Department Range and Law Enforcement range/training facility which ultimately affects every gun owner in the state. The law is very clear in 537.294 Section 2:

All owners and authorized users of firearm ranges shall be immune from any criminal and civil liability arising out of or as a consequence of noise or sound emission resulting from the use of any such firearm range. Owners and users of such firearm ranges shall not be subject to any civil action in tort or subject to any action for public or private nuisance or trespass and no court in this state shall enjoin the use or operation of such firearm ranges on the basis of noise or sound emission resulting from the use of any such firearm range. Any actions by a court in this state to enjoin the use or operation of such firearm ranges and any damages awarded or imposed by a court, or assessed by a jury, in this state against any owner or user of such firearm ranges for nuisance or trespass are null and void.

Our club has suffered under this injunction for over 36 years. To date, the Glendale Shooting Club and its members are defending the state law by ourselves. We need your help and the help of every gun owner in Missouri. As a State we cannot lose this protection from nuisance suits because of noise or there will be no range able to operate in the state without the risk of being taken to court. The legislature and the Governor had a very particular intent in 2008, that no range would have to worry about having damages awarded against it, or be subjected to severe restrictions imposed by injunction such as we have endured.

Please help us any way you can. Litigation is not cheap. Around 99% of our funding to support legal representation and installation of sound barriers have been directly financed by our club and its members. You can help support our club in this legal fight. Whether it is legal assistance, Amicus Briefs, monetary help by way of grants or donations, we would appreciate anything you can do to help us protect Missouri and its ranges.

———————————————————————–

YOU CAN HELP SUPPORT OUR CLUB

GiveSendGo Fundraiser | Glendale Shooting Club Inc Legal Fund

Funds received via GiveSendGo will directly support reimbursing our club and continued litigation fees.

———————————————————————–

CASES