I imagine that needed some sort of arbitrary 'standard' to get the bill passed, similar to the training 'standards' required to qualify for a CWFL. State didn't want to write their own, so they used a generally accepted standard for all things gun-related...the NRA.
Exactly. However, the statute IMHO makes a few things about the Gulf Breeze situation abundantly clear:
1. The range, despite being owned by an individual, was subject to and protected by s. 823.16(1)(b).
2. Santa Rosa County adopted the noise ordinance as a result of complaints received after the range was already in operation.
3. The noise ordinance violated s. 823.16(2), regardless of whether or not it also violated s. 790.33 (preemption).
4. The range owner is not protected from charges of negligence or recklessness under s. 823.16(5).
5. The range must be maintained to conform with standards of the NRA. Failure to do so can be grounds for the county to demand operations be ceased under s. 823.16(6).
6. The statute, being made law in 1999, predates the range establishment, therefore the county may deem either the location or the construction of the range to be unsuitable per s. 823.16(7).
So I guess what I'm saying is that except for the bogus noise ordinance, the deck is stacked heavily in the county's favor. There is no reason for them to try to push a "discharge" ordinance that would generate a possible challenge based on s. 790.33, nor is there any reason for them to be mucking with SB 402/HB 45.