Home
Menu
Call attorney Graham Syfert at 904-383-7448
Personal Injury Lawyer
Florida Statute 823.16 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research
F.S. 823.16 Case Law from Google Scholar
Statute is currently reporting as:
Link to State of Florida Official Statute Google Search for Amendments to 823.16

The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title XLVI
CRIMES
Chapter 823
PUBLIC NUISANCES
View Entire Chapter
F.S. 823.16
823.16 Sport shooting ranges; definitions; exemption from liability; exemption from specified rules; exemption from nuisance actions; continued operation.
(1) Definitions.As used in this act, the following terms shall have the following meanings:
(a) “Unit of local government” means a unit of local government created or established by law, including, but not limited to, a city, consolidated government, county, metropolitan government, municipality, town, or village.
(b) “Person” means an individual, corporation, proprietorship, partnership, association, club, two or more persons having a joint or common interest, or any other legal entity.
(c) “Sport shooting range” or “range” means an area designed and operated for the use of rifles, shotguns, pistols, silhouettes, skeet, trap, black powder, or any other similar type of sport shooting.
(2) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a person who operates or uses a sport shooting range in this state shall not be subject to civil liability or criminal prosecution in any matter relating to noise or noise pollution which results from the operation or use of a sport shooting range, if the range is in compliance with any noise control laws or ordinances adopted by a unit of local government applicable to the range and its operation at the time of construction or initial operation of the range.
(3) A person who operates or uses a sport shooting range is not subject to an action for nuisance, and a court of this state shall not enjoin the use or operation of a sport shooting range on the basis of noise or noise pollution, if the range is in compliance with any noise control laws or ordinances that applied to the range and its operation at the time of construction or initial operation of the range.
(4) Rules adopted by any state department or agency for limiting levels of noise in terms of decibel levels which may occur in the outdoor atmosphere shall not apply to a sport shooting range exempted from liability under this act.
(5) A person who acquires title to or owns real property adversely affected by the use of property with a permanently located and improved sport shooting range shall not maintain a nuisance action against the person who owns the range to restrain, enjoin, or impede the use of the range where there has not been a substantial change in the nature of the use of the range. This section does not prohibit actions for negligence or recklessness in the operation of a sport shooting range or by a person using the range.
(6) A sport shooting range that is not in violation of existing law at the time of the enactment of an ordinance applicable to the sport shooting range shall be permitted to continue in operation even if the operation of the sport shooting range does not conform to the new ordinance or an amendment to an existing ordinance, provided the range was not in violation of any law when the range was constructed and provided that the range continues to conform to current National Rifle Association gun safety and shooting range standards.
(7) Except as otherwise provided in this act, this act shall not prohibit a local government from regulating the location and construction of a sport shooting range after the effective date of this act.
History.s. 1, ch. 99-134.

F.S. 823.16 on Google Scholar

F.S. 823.16 on Casetext

Amendments to 823.16


Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 823.16
Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

S823.16 - PUBLIC ORDER CRIMES - SHOOTING RANGE FAIL TO COMPLY WITH NOISE REGS - M: S



Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

EZELL, v. CITY OF CHICAGO,, 651 F.3d 684 (7th Cir. 2011)

. . . . § 823.16(6) (2011) (referencing the safety standards of the NRA Range Source Book)-, Kan. Ajdmin. . . .

In G. PENNELL, AT T v. G., 238 B.R. 737 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 1999)

. . . detail charges totaling the following amounts in each month: November, 1996 $2,637.94 December, 1996 823.16 . . .

In CONVENT GUARDIAN CORP. In N. WENIGER,, 103 B.R. 937 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1989)

. . . Marwil on 9/4/87. 9/22/87 The Carlton Club. 106.56 Total $823.16 Even if counsel could provide the Court . . .

DIXON v. UNITED STATES, 96 F. Supp. 986 (E.D. Ky. 1950)

. . . return of capital investment, and has also conceded that the plaintiffs are entitled to a refund of $823.16 . . . III The taxes in the sum of $823.16 collected on the amount of $1,706.31 received by the estate from . . . On this issue the plaintiffs are entitled to recover $823.16, with interest from February 11, 1948, as . . .