Chelsea L. McGowan

cmcgowan@weatherforddemocrat.com

Members of the Remuda Ranch Estates Homeowners Association won a victory last Friday when they convinced the Parker County Commissioner’s Court to approve an ordinance restricting gunfire in subdivisions with plots 10 acres or smaller. The decision was met by applause and cheers, and only opposed by one member of the court.

However, Remuda shooting enthusiasts affected by the new ordinance say the court made this decision based on false representations made by a group of people with a personal vendetta.

“This is absolutely a personal vendetta that Orin Book and the homeowner’s association have against me,” Jack Cavenah said. “They’ve twisted this and made it sound like something it’s not, and all we want is both sides of the story. If they’d whipped us fair and square, that’d be one thing and I’d shut up. But this smells.”

Cavenah claims the court session wherein the ordinance was adopted, was held without giving both sides an opportunity to present their case.

“We had no idea that meeting was happening because the meetings usually happen on Mondays, and this one was on Friday,” he said. “I spoke to both the county judge and Commissioner Jim Webster the week before about this very issue, and neither of them mentioned the meeting to me. They didn’t mention it because they’d already made up their minds and they didn’t want us there telling our side of the story.”

Although the issue was presented to the court as a basic safety concern, Cavenah said he believes the whole thing can be chalked up to a clash between neighbors that’s gone too far.

“I don’t know where they get off saying this ordinance is about safety, when it specifically targets those in subdivisions on less than 10 acres,” he said. “That’s not what this is about, and it doesn’t make any sense. If you’re being an idiot, it’s not safe to shoot on 200 acres ... 1,000 acres, even. If you aren’t responsible, it doesn’t matter where you’re shooting, something bad can happen. But if you know what you’re doing and shoot responsibly, you can shoot safely on a half an acre. So the whole idea behind this 10-acre limit on the ordinance just doesn’t make any sense.”

Until the ordinance was adopted, Cavenah enjoyed a small private pistol range in his backyard. He would shoot a few times a month on his five-acre property, as would his friends from time to time. Cavenah only allows one person to shoot at a time from a safety cage that keeps the shooter pointed at the target. The target is a large round bale of hay, which Cavenah says he’s tested to contain ammunition shot at a much higher velocity than is regularly used on his property.

The target is positioned at the base of a 27-foot hill and surrounded by a wooded area, which Cavenah said is filled with wildlife and provides a buffer between his property and any roads or neighbors.

“I have letters from six of my closest neighbors saying I’ve never bothered them, and they’re all a lot closer to me than the yahoos that are doing all the complaining,” he said. “The idea that I’m out there with a big group of people all shooting at once for hours on end ... that’s just not true. I’ve only shot twice since Nov. 2, and I never shoot for longer than 45 minutes or so.”

Cavenah also said he’s had the authorities called on him several times by Book and others looking to catch him doing something wrong. However, he claims he’s never been charged with wrongdoing, and his property has been certified safe by every law enforcement official who’s ever visited him.

“Numerous Sheriff’s deputies have been out here and looked at this little range and said there’s absolutely nothing wrong with it,” he said. “Which is why I’ve never been cited for doing anything wrong. If there’d ever been a problem, you’d have heard about it, or I’d have gotten in trouble. But I’ve never had a round leave my property, and I never will because I know what I’m doing and I’m safe.”

A meeting was held Tuesday morning at the Cavenah residence where almost a dozen community members gathered on short notice to discuss how they could present their side of the story.

A relatively new resident of Remuda Ranch Estates said she was struck by the homeowners association’s hostility during the first meeting she attended, and she believes the group turned to the commissioner’s court only after it became apparent they were sinking money into a losing court battle.

“They’ve spent all this money on a lawsuit against Jack and they know they can’t win,” Corina Dean said. “So they can keep spending money or they can go to the commissioner’s and get an ordinance passed that stops everyone from doing what Jack was doing ... everyone all over the county who was shooting responsibly. They don’t care if it affects the whole county. Winning this ordinance just meant they won their battle against Jack without having to spend the money.”

Terry Lehman, another area resident, said she believes there might be people in Parker County with safety concerns over irresponsible shooting near their homes. But she said the Remuda Ranch Estates residents targeting Cavenah and his private range do not, in her opinion, have any legitimate safety concerns.

“The people at the court session who said there were bullets flying by them can’t have been talking about Remuda,” she said. “That’s just not possible. If you’ve been out here, it’s all hills and twists and curves, especially back here where Jack lives. It’d be nearly impossible to shoot and have a bullet land in someone else’s yard, unless that’s where you were aiming.”

Barbara Cavenah, wife of Jack, agreed those with legitimate safety concerns should seek assistance from local law enforcement. But additional laws, she said, aren’t the answer.

“There were more than just Remuda Ranch people who spoke in that meeting,” she said. “The people in the other areas that talk about bullets and arrows coming over privacy fences ... now, they might have a legitimate complaint, but they should call the Sheriff’s department. That’s what they’re there for. There are already laws on the books to protect them from people who shoot irresponsibly. But we’re not doing anything wrong or anything unsafe, and we’re who this ordinance is restricting.”

Lehman was also vocal about her belief that Book and the homeowners association are acting on their personal vendetta against Cavenah.

“This homeowner’s association has had it in for Jack for a few years,” she said. “I was the secretary of the association until recently and resigned because of this whole mess. They just don’t like anyone who dares to stand up to them, and they’ll do anything they can to win this war.”

Lehman also explained her former position led to her knowledge there’s nothing in the Remuda Ranch Estates deed restrictions about firearm discharge, although the issue is mentioned in the homeowners association bylaws.

“It’s prohibited in the bylaws, yes,” she said. “But Jack applied for a variance and went through all the appropriate steps and met all the requirements. The homeowners association ignored him, of course. But by those same bylaws, any request for a variance that they ignore is automatically valid if they don’t respond within a certain period of time. So he has a standing, valid variance, and there’s nothing in the bylaws or the deed restrictions of Remuda Ranch Estates to keep him from shooting on his property.”

Cavenah also said he’d discussed his situation with a number of attorneys, all of whom said the homeowners association would have no real case against him should they try to bring litigation. That, in fact, turned out to be accurate, as the suit brought by the association was rejected by the District Court.

In Friday’s court session, Book told the court the cost of their attempted lawsuit could become prohibitive, and that’s why they were asking the court to step in.

“We’re looking at $20,000 to $25,000 in expenses here,” Book said. “There’s no hammer. There’s no way we can force people to have common sense. So we have to litigate it and spend the money or the bully wins.”

Lehman said, however, the very fact the association’s case was thrown out should speak to Cavenah’s legal standing. She said the commissioners’ disregard for the district court’s decision had let the real bully win.

“What is this, but a few people forcing their will and their ideas on the entire county?” she said. “That’s the real bullying, right there. They wanted to stop one man from safely shooting on his property, like he’s done for 10 years. And now, they’ve restricted the entire county. But they don’t care. It’s all about power, and all they’re interested in is hanging on to what little power they can grab.”

When asked if they felt Webster had accurately represented the whole of the precinct when he pitched the new ordinance to the court, the assembled Remuda Ranch Estates residence answered with a resounding, “No!”

“He doesn’t return our calls, and he won’t put us on the agenda,” Cavenah said. “I can tell you this right now, he won’t get elected again. Anyone who knows numbers can see that if you don’t carry Remuda in an election, you won’t win Precinct 4. Our community is very politically active, and we’re having to go through [Precinct 3 Commissioner] John Roth to get our voices heard.”

But for the time being, the ordinance stands and the pistol range in Cavenah’s back yard will remain empty until the ordinance is rescinded.

“I’m a law abiding man and I’ll not shoot a round as long as the ordinance stands,” he said. “But I don’t like it and the rest of the community doesn’t, either. It is gun control, but it goes further than that, it’s bullying. And we won’t stand for it.”