HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 12-05-2016 - 7-a - Recommendations of the Firearms Safety Committee 1
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: December 5, 2016
Action Agenda
Item No. 7-a
SUBJECT: Recommendations of the Firearms Safety Committee
DEPARTMENT: County Manager/County
Attorney
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
1. Recommendation of the Firearms Safety Travis Myren (919) 245-2308
Committee John Roberts (919) 245-2318
2. Draft Ordinance
3. Adoption Resolution
4. Letter from Sara Conti - Firearms Safety
Committee
5. Minutes from October 25, 2016 Firearms
Safety Committee
PURPOSE: To receive the recommendations of the Firearms Safety Committee which include
rules regulating the safe discharge of firearms in Orange County and establishing an educational
campaign to increase awareness of firearms safety issues.
BACKGROUND: This item was presented in similar form at the January 21, 2016 meeting by
Orange County Planning Staff as an amendment to the Orange County Code of Technical
Ordinances ("UDO") recommended by the Planning Board and at the February 16, 2016 meeting.
No decision on the item was made at those meetings and subsequently the Board of County
Commissioners ("BOCC") created the Firearms Safety Committee to consider issues related to
firearms safety and make a recommendation to the BOCC.
The Firearms Safety Committee met multiple times from June through October and developed the
attached recommendations. The proposed recommendations include (see attachment for full listing):
• An amendment to the Code of Ordinances that includes provisions prohibiting the discharge of
firearms while an individual is impaired, maintaining adequate backstops for projectiles, and
requires discharged projectiles to remain on the property on which they are discharged.
• A recommendation that the BOCC direct the Department of Social Services and/or Health
Department to develop and distribute educational material on gun safety.
• A recommendation that the County collaborate with public and private organizations to
increase firearms safety awareness through training and distribution of safety materials.
The Firearms Safety Committee by consensus unanimously recommended the firearms safety
education and awareness items. The Committee voted 6-1 in favor of recommending the proposed
ordinance.
2
FINANCIAL IMPACT: Indirect costs associated with ordinance enforcement. Direct costs
associated with the educational campaign.
SOCIAL JUSTICE IMPACT: There is no social justice goal associated with this item.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends the Board deliberate as necessary on the
recommendations of the Firearms Safety Committee.
3
Attachment 1
Recommendation by the Firearms Safety Committee to the Board of County
Commissioners in support of voluntary community education on firearms safety.
Adopted unanimously by the Committee on October 25, 2016
The Firearms Safety Committee recommends that the County coordinate efforts across
Departments, and partner with external individuals and organizations, to advance community
awareness, understanding, and voluntary adoption of firearms safety practices. In particular, we
envision:
• The Department of Social Services and/or the Health Department developing and distributing
educational materials in collaboration with the Sheriff's Office (which already distributes
information on gun safety to persons issued a pistol purchase permit or conceal carry permit):
o For adults regarding how to securely store guns if there are children in the home.
o For home child day care providers on their obligations with respect to firearms,
including how to securely store guns on those premises.
• The County collaborating with the NC Wildlife Commission to expand from what is
currently available the opportunities for residents to take firearms safety classes. This could
include the establishment of a facility at which gun safety instruction would be more readily
available to the public than it is now, including young people.
• Collaboration across local Scouting chapters, Parent-Teacher Associations, faith
congregations, and other civic organizations, to advance adults' awareness, understanding,
and voluntary adoption of firearms safety practices,perhaps with the involvement of safety
instructors from retailers such as the Bass Pro Shops.
• The distribution, similar to the County's efforts at educating about deer dog hunting and
about the prohibition of smoking in public places, of printed brochures and the availability of
on-line information explaining the new firearms safety ordinance.
4
ORD-2016-046 Attachment 2
Section.24-3.-Regulating the Discharge of Firearms.
(a)This Section is enacted pursuant to the authority of N.C.G.S. 153A-129.This Section shall be
interpreted in accordance with any sections of the North Carolina General Statutes which, by
their terms, limit the authority of the County to regulate the discharge of firearms.
(b) Firearm as referenced herein shall mean any handgun,shotgun,or rifle which expels a
projectile by the ignition of gunpowder or by other explosive reaction.
(c)It is unlawful for any person to discharge a firearm except into a natural or constructed
backstop adequate to stop the projectile. This subsection shall not apply to trapshooting,skeet
shooting, and sporting clays when such activities are undertaken through use of a shotgun.
(d) It is unlawful for any person to discharge a firearm carelessly or heedlessly in disregard for
the safety of others.
(e) It is unlawful for any person to discharge a firearm in any manner that causes the projectile
to leave the property on which it is discharged. This subsection shall not apply when the person
discharging the firearm has written permission for such activity from the person on whose
property the projectile comes to rest. The document demonstrating written permission must
be immediately available at the time of the discharge and shall be provided to any investigating
officer.
(f) It is unlawful for any person to discharge a firearm after that person has consumed alcohol
or any other impairing substance.As used in this paragraph,an impairing substance is defined
in N.C.Gen.Stat.§20-4.01. A conforming alcohol screening device may be used to detect the
presence of alcohol. A conforming alcohol screening device is any device listed in the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Conforming Products List of Evidential Breath Alcohol
Measurement Devices as published in the Federal Register and as that list may be amended
from time to time. An investigating officer may ascertain the consumption of an impairing
substance or any level of impairment in any lawful manner.
(g)Nothing in this Section shall be construed as prohibiting the discharge of a firearm:
(1) When used for lawful hunting activities pursuant to Chapter 113,Subchapter IV;or
(2) When used in defense of person or property;or
5
(3) When used pursuant to lawful directions of law-enforcement officers.
(h)A violator of this Section shall be guilty of a Class III misdemeanor punishable by a fine of up
to five hundred dollars($500.00). A violation of this Section may subject the violator to a civil
penalty of up to five hundred dollars($500.00). All assessed penalties may be recovered in any
manner authorized by law and, if not paid within thirty(30)days, may be recovered in the
nature of debt.
RES-2016-078 Attachment 3 6
RESOLUTION OF AMENDMENT
A RESOLUTION AMENDING CHAPTER 24 OF THE ORANGE COUNTY CODE
OF ORDINANCES
Be it Resolved and Ordained by the Board of Commissioners of Orange County, North Carolina:
WHEREAS, the State of North Carolina authorizes counties to regulate the discharge of firearms
through North Carolina General Statute 153A-129; and
WHEREAS, the discharge of firearms is an inherently dangerous activity that can threaten the
health, life, safety, and welfare of individuals in the vicinity of such discharge; and
WHEREAS, in order to protect the health, life, safety, and welfare of individuals engaged in the
discharge of firearms and that of individuals located in and around areas in which firearms are
discharged it is appropriate to establish regulations for the safe discharge of firearms; and
WHEREAS, the Orange County Board of Commissioners, believing it to be in the best interest of
the citizens and residents of Orange County, hereby determines that Chapter 24 of the Orange
County Code of Ordinances should be amended to regulate the discharge of firearms.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED AND ORDAINED, that the Code of Ordinances, Orange
County, North Carolina, Chapter 24, is hereby amended by adding a section to be numbered 24-3,
which section reads as shown in the attached revised ordinance to regulate the discharge of
firearms in Orange County.
This Amendment shall become effective upon adoption.
Adopted by the Orange County Board of Commissioners this day of , 2016.
By: Attest:
, Chair Donna Baker, Clerk to the Board
Orange County Board of Commissioners
[SEAL]
Attachment 4
7
SARA A. CONTI
ATTORNEY AT LAW
POST OFFICE BOX 939
•
TELEPHONE CARRBORO,NORTH CAROLINA 27510 OFFICE ADDRESS
(919)967-3375 1117 HERON POND DRIVE
CHAPEL HILL,NORTH CAROLINA 27516
E-MAIL
saraconti@bellsouth.ne1
November 4,2016
Orange County Board of Commissioners
Attn: Donna Baker, Clerk to the Board
Post Office Box 8 i i
Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278
Re: Firearms Safety and Noise Committee
Dear Commissioners:
I appreciate having been appointed to the Firearms Safety and Noise Committee ("the
Committee") and would like to provide my comments on the work of the Committee in writing.
It was commendable that the Board of County Coinmissioners ("BOCC") chose to
address the issues of firearm safety and noise, as countless other counties throughout North
Carolina have done. I understand that the hope of the BOCC, at the outset, was that a fair
compromise of interests could be reached between the gun community and the rest of Orange
County, after resistance was presented to regulations proposed earlier this year.
However, in an effort t'o make any proposal More acceptable to the gun community, the
BOCC appointed a committee of eight voting members, only two of whom are not part of the
gun community. Those other.six committee members, for the most part, began the discussion of
an ordinance with the opinion that there is no gun safety problem in Orange County and no need
G-;,1;nance.
The Committee ultimately decided that since we had been tasked with addressing an
issue that is important to all Orange County residents, shooters and non-shooters, an ordinance
might be appropriate. At the outset, the Committee was provided by the gun community with a
copy of the Lenoir County Ordinance, which was actually denominated as an Orange County
ordinance, in hopes that we would follow the Lenoir County lead. I have enclosed a copy of that
"Orange County" ordinance for your benefit.
There are numerous other gun ordinances in North Carolina, most of which, including the
Lenoir County version, address issues that were not covered by our Committee, such as the issue
of distance. How far must you be from a dwelling before ycu shoot a firearm? Five hundred feet
in Catawba County., 150 yards in Guilford County, 1,000 feet in Hoke County, 100 yards in
•
8
Wake County, 900 feet in Mecklenburg County, 500 yards in Cabarrus County, and yes, 500 feet
in Lenoir County from various buildings and areas.
This Committee never even discussed distance. And, it never discussed a reasonable size
for property from which a person can shoot. And, it never discussed, what constitutes a
reasonable berm, or how far the berm must be from a residence. The Committee never discussed
what caliber of firearm can be fired on any given property or what kind of target can be used. We
never talked about what hours of the day are reasonable for shooting, or why it is acceptable to
regulate hunting on Sundays, but not recreational shooting. You may wonder why these issues
were never addressed in any meaningful manner, but that has everything to do with the
composition of the committee: six out of eight Committee members are part of the gun
community.
There was a lot of talk among Committee members about a distinction between "real"
safety issues, and "perceived" safety issues. This line of thinking holds that if people are firing
their guns responsibly, and there have been no deaths in Orange County, there should be no need
to regulate shooting,just because another person has a feeling of being unsafe. But, this
distinction is meaningless to the person who is hearing persistent shooting, when they don't
know how far away the shooter(s) are, from what direction they are firing, what caliber they are
shooting from what range, and how many errant rounds are being shot. For that person, safety is
an issue that just as real as standing next to a person with a gun, and the noise that alarmed those
folks in the first place is tied to safety for them. There should be a component for regulating
noise in some ordinance. Even a speaker from the gun community remarked that the "the mission
of this Committee is not about firearms restriction; it is about noise and safety."
None of this has anything to do with the Second Amendment. As another observer said,
"the Second Amendment gives you the right to bear arms; it does not give you the right to shoot
them anytime, anywhere, anyhow you want." The reality of life in Orange County, after living
here nearly thirty years, is that times have changed, like it or not. The 100 acre tract where your
family has been shooting for decades has now been surrounded by people who moved to the
county, for better or worse, to have some distance and peace. If there is a need for an ordinance
now, the gun community can thank their less respectful shooters who use high-powered rifles
and exploding targets as if they were toys.
The gun community was given an opportunity to provide input into a proposed firearm
safety and noise ordinance. Their answer to the BOCC is an ordinance that is designed to
assuage the fears of the gun community that their Second Amendment freedom is being
infringed, and that ordinance is meaningless. As presently drafted,the proposed ordinance would
make it legal to shoot an automatic rifle on a quarter of an acre of land, at an exploding target, at
2:00 in the morning, into any berm that the shooter deems appropriate, 50 feet from an occupied
dwelling, and to fire those rounds as long as the ammunition holds out.
The non-shooting community has freedoms,too, like safety and peace. While this
ordinance does little to restrict the freedom of the shooters, it does nothing to protect the
freedoms of the non-shooters. I was apparently appointed to the Committee to represent the
interests of the non-shooting community, and they are going to wonder what I was doing with
9
my time there, as there is nothing in this ordinance to protect their rights. However, with a
Committee this unbalanced, I never had a chance. I wanted to resign after the first hour of the
first meeting, but I felt a moral responsibility to stand up for the constituency whose voices I was
asked to represent. I failed them 'miserably, and as the saying goes, no good turn goes
unpunished.
Now that the gun community has had their input, it is time for the BOCC to do the hard
work of adequately addressing the issue of firearm safety and noise in Orange County. If nothing
else, I encourage you to lift the firearm exemption from the existing Orange County noise
ordinance. I have taken the liberty of enclosing copies of a firearms ordinance from Mecklenburg
County and a noise ordinance from Henderson County, which hopefully, may help with your
deliberations.
Thank you for considering my comments. I know this is a long letter, and I appreciate
your taking the time to read it.
Very truly yours,
ccArk., du, C\a„.::
Sara A. Conti
We the citizens of Orange County adopt this resolution to address the Discharge of Firearms
During Non-Hunting Activities:
AN ORDINANCE REGULATING THE DISCHARGE OF FIREARMS DURING NON-HUNTING
ACTIVITIES IN ORANGE COUNTY
WHEREAS, state law prohibits criminally negligent hunting pursuant to North Carolina General
Statute 113-290;and
WHEREAS, citizens of Orange County have reported to the Board of Commissioners that there is
also a need to regulate the negligent discharge of firearms in Orange County during non-hunting
activities as well; and
WHEREAS, N.C.G.S. 153A-129 authorizes the County to "regulate, restrict, or prohibit the
discharge of firearms at any time or any place except when used to take birds or animals pursuant
to Chapter 113, Subchapter III, when used in defense of person or property, or when used
pursuant to lawful directions of law enforcement officers,"and;
WHEREAS, the Orange County Board of Commissioners believes it to be in the best interest of
the citizens of Orange County that limitations on the discharge of firearms are necessary for the
safety and protection of the citizenry, and for the protection of the use of their property without fear
of stray bullets crossing over their property;
NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the Orange County Board of Commissioners as follows:
Section 1. Authority
This part is enacted pursuant to the authority of N.C.G.S. 153A-129. This Part shall be interpreted
in accordance with any sections of the North Carolina General Statutes which, by their terms, limit
the authority of the County to regulate the discharge of firearms.
Section 2. Firearm
Firearm as defined herein shall mean any handgun, shotgun or rifle which expels a projectile by
action of an explosion.
Section 3. Restrictions
(a) It is unlawful for any person to discharge a firearm:
(1) Within five hundred(500) feet of a school, church, daycare, playgcound, park,
recreation area, or other type of public gathering place; or — inc.(t.k_Ac cleAces-?
(2) Carelessly or heedlessly in wanton disregard for the safety of others; or
(3) Without due caution or circumspection and in a manner so as to endanger any person
or property and resulting in the unlawful property damage or bodily injury of another.
(b)It is unlawful for any person to discharge a firearm on the property of another without their
permission.
(c)It is unlawful to discharge a firearm in any manner which actually results in the projectile leaving
the property on which it is fired.
(d)This section shall not be construed as prohibiting discharge of a firearm when used:
Orange County Recreational Gun Regulation Petition
11
(d)This section shall not be construed as prohibiting discharge of a firearm when used:
(1) In lawful defense of person or property;
(2) To lawfully take birds or animals where authorized by the North Carolina General
Statutes and other applicable laws;
(3) Pursuant to lawful directions of law enforcement officers;
(4) By law enforcement officers acting in the line of duty or during official law
enforcement related training;
(5)By members of the armed forces acting in the line of duty;
(6)At historical ceremonial or commemoration functions held for such purpose provided
in no event shall live ammunition be used or discharged; or
(7)At school sanctioned instructional or recreational activities intended to further the use
of safe firearms practices.
Section 4: Violations and Penalties
(a)Any person violating any provision of this part shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and subject
to a fine of not more than $500 and/or imprisonment for not more than thirty(30) days. Violators
may be subject to a civil penalty of$500 per violation to be recovered in the nature of debt if not
paid within (30) days.
(b) In addition to the provisions of(a) of this section, the county may enforce this ordinance by
any one or more of the remedies authorized by G.S. 153A-123.
Orange County Recreational Gun Regulation Petition
Henderson County Sheriff Page 1 of 4
12
Q Sheriff 100 North Grove Street,He
I Henderson County Noise Ordinance
Noise Ordinance
Pamphlet
Chapter 125 of the Henderson County Code is hereby amended by striking the same.
A new Chapter 125A of the Henderson County Code is ordained,as follows:
Chapter 125A: NOISE
Sec.125A-1.Authority,title.
This Chapter is hereby adopted under the power and authority granted to counties by
N.C.G.S,
153A-121 and N.C.G.S. 153A-133,and shall be known and may be cited as the
"Henderson
County Noise Ordinance."
Sec. 125A-2 Jurisdiction.
This chapter shall apply to all unincorporated areas of Henderson County and to those
incorporated areas of any city or town specifically requesting Its enforcement by
Henderson
County upon the consent of the Henderson County Board of Commissioners.(In
making such a
request,the city or town must comply with the requirements of N.C.G,S. 153A-122.)
Sec. 125A-3 Loud and disturbing noise.
(A)Subject to the provisions of this section,it is prohibited In Henderson County to
create,
cause or allow the continuance of any unreasonably loud,disturbing noise. Noise of
such
character,intensity and duration as to be detrimental to the health,safety or welfare
of any
reasonable person of ordinary firmness and sensibilities In the vicinity is prohibited. For
the
purposes of this section,the following definitions shall apply:
(1)Unreasonably Loud.Noise which is substantially incompatible with the time and
location where created to the extent that it creates an actual or imminent interference
with peace
and good order.
(2)Disturbing.Noise which is perceived by a person of ordinary firmness and
sensibilities as interrupting the normal peace and calm of the area,
In determining whether a noise is unreasonably loud and disturbing,the following
factors
incident to such noise are to be considered:Time of day;proximity to residential
structures;
whether the noise is recurrent,intermittent or constant; the volume and intensity;
whether the
noise has been enhanced in volume or range by any type of mechanical means; the
nature and
zoning of the area;whether the noise Is related to the normal operation of a business
or other
labor activity or is the result of some use for individual purposes;and whether the
noise is
subject to being controlled without unreasonable effort or expense to the creator
thereof.
(8)The following acts,among others,are declared to be loud and disturbing in
violation of
this section if they annoy or disturb the quiet,comfort or repose of any reasonable
person of
ordinary firmness and sensibilities In the vicinity where created,caused,or continued,
but this
enumeration shall not be deemed to be exclusive.
(1)The use of any loud,boisterous or raucous language,yelling,or shouting,whether
or not amplified.
(2)The congregation of persons at and participation In any party or gathering of
people
from which noise emanates of a sufficient volume or of such nature as to disturb the
peace,quiet
and comfort of any reasonable person of ordinary firmness and sensibilities in the
vicinity,
http://www.hendersoncountync.org/sheriff/noise ordinance.html R/1/71)16
Henderson County Sheriff Page 2 of 4
13
(3)The keeping,owning,possessing,harboring or controlling of any animal or bird
which barks, bays,yelps, howls,cries,squawks or makes any other unreasonably loud
disturbing noise continuously or incessantly for a period of 10 minutes or Intermittently
for a
period of 30 minutes or more thereby causing a noise disturbance.
(4)The playing of any radio,television,phonograph,drum,musical instrument,or
sound production, reproduction or amplification equipment in such manner or with
such volume,
particularly during the hours between 11:00 p.m.and 7:00 a.m.,so as to annoy or
disturb the
peace,quiet,comfort or repose of any person of ordinary firmness and sensibilities in
the
vicinity.
(5)The playing of any radio,cassette player,compact disc,or other similar device for
production or reproduction of sound located in or on any motor vehicle on a public
street,
highway,within a public vehicular area,within the motor vehicular area of any public
or private
parking lot or park or on the premises of a private residence in any unreasonably loud
or
disturbing manner as defined above.
(6)The Intentional sounding of any horn or signal device on any automobile,
motorcycle,bus or other vehicle except as a danger signal or as required by law,so as
to create
any unreasonably loud or disturbing noise as defined above,or the sounding of such a
device for
an unnecessary and,or the sounding of such a device for an unreasonable period of
time.
(7)The operation of any automobile,motorcycle or other vehicle,or remote control
model vehicle in such a manner as to create loud grating,grinding, rattling,screeching
of tires, or
other unreasonably loud or disturbing noise.
(8)The repair, rebuilding or testing of any motor vehicle,particularly during the hours
between 11:00 p.m.and 7:00 a.m. which creates unreasonably loud and disturbing
noises.
(9)Operating or permitting the operation of any motor vehicle or motorcycle not
equipped with a muffler or other device in good working order so as to effectively
prevent loud
or explosive noises there from,or which has its muffler-exhaust or other noise control
equipment
removed,altered or maintained in such disrepair as to create unreasonably loud and
disturbing
noises,
(10)Operating or permitting the operation of any motor vehicle or motorcycle that
engages in jackrabbit starts,spinning tires, racing engines,or other operations which
create
unreasonably loud and disturbing noises.
(11)The creation of any excessive noise on any street adjacent to any school,
institution
of learning,library or sanitarium,or court while the same is in session,or adjacent to
any
hospital or any church during services,which unreasonably interferes with the working
of such
institution.
(12)The firing,shooting or discharging of any firearm for the sole purpose of making
noise or disturbance.
Sec. 125A-4 Exceptions.
(A)The following uses and activities,among others,are not governed by and shall be
exempt
from the noise ordinance set forth in this chapter,It is expressly provided,however,
that the
following enumeration shall not be deemed or considered exclusive,and any activity
that is not
expressly prohibited as set forth in Section 125A-3 shall be exempt from this chapter.
(1)Noise made by dogs while they are being lawfully used for hunting or taking
wildlife,and noise made by dogs during the course of lawful training by hunters,
pursuant to
N.C.G.S.Chapter 113.
(2)Noise associated with or resulting from the normal operations of any facility that is
properly licensed by the North Carolina Department of Agriculture,Veterinary Division,
as a
boarding kennel, pet shop or dealer,in accordance with the North Carolina Animal
Welfare Act
(N.C.G.S.Chapter 19A-20 et seq.),as may be amended,or from any animal shelter
that is
operated by Henderson County.
http://www.hendersoncountync.org/sheriff/noise ordinance.html R/1/ant c
Henderson County Sheriff Page 3 of 4
14
(3) Noise associated with any legal operations of any firearms club,or association
legally established.
(4) Noise caused by the discharge of firearms by law enforcement officers in the
performance of their official duties or during the course of official firearms training.
(5)Noise resulting from farming operations,including but not limited to noises
generated by machinery, equipment and farm animals.
(6) Noise associated with any event held in recognition of a community celebration of
national,state or county events or public festivals.
(7) Noise associated with any public or private school activity or camp activity(defined
as any function or activity approved by or generally associated with any recognized
public or
private camp for children accredited by the American Camp Association, but not
including
activities associated with campgrounds available to the public for overnight camping),
except
that it shall be unlawful for any person to use any unreasonably loud,disturbing,
boisterous,
raucous language or shouting in violent or offensive manner while attending such
activities.
(8) Noise associated with the chimes or bells of businesses,schools,camps or religious
institutions in the daytime hours, provided that they operate for no more than 10
minutes in any
hour.
(9) Non-amplified crowd noise resulting from activities by student,government,camp
or community groups.
(10)Noise associated with or resulting from operations of any construction,
commercial,
industrial or agricultural activities or operations,except for electronically amplified
sound and
acts prohibited by Section 125A-3.
(8)If any exceptions stated in this Chapter would limit obligation, limit liability or
eliminate
either an obligation or a liability,the person who would benefit from the application of
the
exception shall have the burden of proving that the exception applies and that the
terms of the
exception have been met.
Sec. 125A-5 Noise Complaint Procedure
In the event any person has reasonable grounds for believing that any provision of this
Chapter is
being violated, he may make a report thereof to the Henderson County Sheriff's
Department,
which shall investigate the alleged violation.If any such investigation reveals a
violation,the
investigating deputy has the authority to cause a written complaint to be made,and
may obtain
criminal process for violation thereof, may issue a citation for a civil penalty,and may
obtain
other enforcement measure as allowed In this Chapter.Criminal process for violation of
this
Chapter may only be obtained by personnel from the Henderson County Sheriff's
Department,
Sec. 125A-6 Violations and penalties,enforcement.
This chapter shall be enforced in accordance with any and all of the provisions of N.C.
Gen.Stat.
§153A-123,and of Article II of Chapter I of the Henderson County Code.
In the case of second or subsequent violations of Sec. 125A-3(b)(3),any animal which
upon
investigation by deputy Sheriff is found to be creating the noise which causes the
violation of
Sec. 125A-3(b)(3) may in the discretion of such deputy be impounded by the Sheriff's
Department and confined in the county animal shelter in a humane manner until the
next
business day for the shelter.The owner of such animal may redeem the animal upon
payment of
applicable fees. If the animal is not redeemed within five days of impoundment,then
such
animal may be offered for adoption or destroyed in a humane manner pursuant to
Section 66A-
14 of the Henderson County Code. Impoundment of such an animal shall not relieve
the owner
thereof from any penalty,civil or criminal,which may be imposed for violation of this
chapter.
Any Deputy Sheriff of Henderson County,having first investigated this matter pursuant
to Sec.
125A-5, may obtain criminal process for violation of this Chapter.A violation of any
noise
http://www.hendersoncountync.org/sheriff/noise ordinance.html R/1/7016
Henderson County Sheriff Page 4 of 4
15
ordinance provision shall constitute a class 3 misdemeanor,and may be punished by
fine in the
discretion of the Court,up to a maximum of Five Hundred Dollars($500.00)per
offense.
Henderson County Sheriff's Office
100 North Grove Street I Hendersonville, North Carolina 28792
Phone: 828-697-4596
EMERGENCY: 911
Administration Hours: Monday-Friday 8:00am-5:00pm
http://www.hendersoncountync.org/sheriff/noise ordinance.htm1 Q/1 P7n1
16
�una.
0 N 0
d MECKLENBURG COUNTY FIREARMS ORDINANCE
%rH cnno4
SECTION 1.Preamble Page 2
SECTION 2.Discharge Distance Page 2
SECTION 3. Discharge Prohibited Page 2
SECTION 4. Discharge around Domestic Livestock Page 2
SECTION 5.Weapons around Children Page 2
SECTION 6,Automatic Mode Page 3
SECTION 7.Exemptions Page 3
SECTION S.Hunting Page 3
SECTION 9.Definitions Page 3 ;
SECTION 10.Penalty Page 3
SECTION 11. Enforcement Page 3
SECTION 12.Severability Page 4
SECTION 13.Applicability, Page 4
SECTION 14. Repealed Page 4
SECTION 15.Effective Date Page 4
1
17
gUng
i 4.. UG
t
MECKLENBURG COUNTY FIREARMS ORDINANCE
ir
o
WHEREAS, Chapter 1052 of the 1955 North Carolina Session Laws authorizes the Board of County
Commissioners of Mecklenburg County to adopt ordinances "governing the indiscriminate shooting of firearms
around or about residences, settlements or thickly-populated areas of Mecklenburg County"; and
WHEREAS, G.S. 153A-121 allows a County by ordinance to define, regulate, prohibit, or abate acts,
omissions or conditions detrimental to the safety or welfare of its citizens; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of this Ordinance is to protect the public safety by regulating the indiscriminate
shooting of firearms within the unincorporated areas of Mecklenburg County; now, therefore,
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Commissioners of Mecklenburg County:
SECTION 1.Each person discharging a firearm is responsible for exhibiting reasonable regard for the safety
and property of other persons and for discharging the firearm in such a manner as to assure that all projectiles
come to rest safely within the boundary or boundaries of the property or properties on which the person is
authorized to be shooting.
SECTION 2. Except as provided in Section 7,it shall be unlawful for any person to discharge a firearm
within 900 feet of any of the following:
(a) A dwelling house;
(b) A school;
{c) A church;
(d) Any other type of building, while occupied;
(e) A public or private park or recreation area;
(f) Any other type of public gathering place.
SECTION 3.1t shall be unlawful for any person to discharge a firearm in such a way as will result in the
projectile,therefrom passing across a sidewalk, or across a highway, street, or other public vehicular area.
SECTION 4. It shall be unlawful for any person to discharge a firearm within 900 feet of any domestic
livestock not belonging to him unless such person has on his person written permission for such activity from the
owner of the,livestock.
SECTION 5. It shall be unlawful for any person, being a parent or guardian of, or standing in loco parentis
to, any child under twelve (12)years of age, to permit such child to have possession or custody of, or use in any
manner whatsoever, any firearm,whether such firearm is loaded or is not loaded without direct, active adult
supervision of the child at all times the child is holding the firearm.It shall be unlawful for any person being a
parent or guardian of,or standing in loco parentis to, any child between twelve (12) years of age and fifteen ( .5)
years of age, to permit such child to discharge a firearm without direct, active adult supervision of the child at all
times the child is firing the firearm unless that child has passed a Hunter Safety Course or similarly recognized
course in firearms safety.
2
18
SECTION 6,It shall be unlawful for any person to fire any firearm in a fully automatic mode except on a firing
range operated by a recognized gun club or law enforcement agency,which firing range is substantially in
accordance with specifications promulgated by the National Rifle Association or by an equivalent nationally
recognized firearms safety authority for the firing of a fully automatic firearm of the type and caliber being fired.
Such person firing a firearm in a fully automatic mode must have on his person the necessary documentation
showing that the firearm is properly registered with the federal government and that the person has the proper
federal license to possess such firearm.
SECTION 7.Section 2 of this Ordinance shall not apply to any of the following:
(a) A person discharging a shotgun with any type of shot or load except"slugs," provided that the
shooter is 500 feet or more from any of the types of places or structures listed in Section 2(a)-(f).
(b) A rifle,pistol, skeet or trap range, operated by a recognized gun club or by a law enforcement
agency,which firing range is substantially in accordance with specifications promulgated by the
National Rifle Association or by an equivalent nationally recognized firearms safety authority for
the type and caliber of firearms being fired, except as provided in Section 6 above;
(c) a person target shooting on his own property (or on another's property if he has on his person written
permission for the activity from the owner of the property) exhibiting reasonable regard for the safety
and property of other persons(i)if such person is using a backstop substantially in accordance with
specifications promulgated by the National Rifle Association or any equivalent nationally recognized
firearms safety organization for the type and caliber of firearms being fired, and (ii) if such personihas
on his person written permission for such activity from all persons owning any of the types of places or
structures listed in Section 2(a)-(f)which are located within 900 feet of the target shooting activity;;
(d) a person hunting on his own property (oron another's property if he has onhis person written
permission for the activity from the owner of the property)exhibiting reasonable regard forthesaf4ty
andproperty of other persons if such person hasonhis person written permission for suchactivity from
all persons owning any of the types of places or structures listed in Section 2(a)-(f)which are located
within 900 feet of the hunting activity;
(e) law enforcement officers or members of the armed forces discharging firearms in the line of duty
(provided that Section 1 of this Ordinance shall also not apply to such an activity);
(f) persons discharging firearms for the purpose of shooting or killing any dangerous animal or reptile;
(g) person discharging a firearm in self-defense (provided that Section 1 of this Ordinance shall also
not apply to such an activity).
SECTION 8. The provisions of this Ordinance shall apply to all persons engaged in hunting as regulated ,
by Subchapter III of Chapter 113 of the North Carolina General Statutes, or similar successor statutes.
SECTION 9. The term "firearm" is defined as any weapon or similar instrument from which shot, shells,
bullets, or similar projectiles are discharged by means of the explosion of gunpowder.
SECTION 10. The violation of any provision of this Ordinance shall be a misdemeanor and may be
punishable by a fine of not more than FIFTY DOLLARS ($50.00)or imprisonment for not more than THIRTY
(30)days.
SECTION 11. North Carolina Wildlife officers(WildlifeProtectors)are authorized to enforce the
provisions of this Ordinance.
3
19
SECTION 12. It is hereby declared to be the intention of the Board that the sections, paragraphs, sentences,
clauses and phrases of this Ordinance are severable and that if any phrase, clause, sentence, paragraph or section
of this Ordinance shall be declared unconstitutional or invalid by the valid judgment or decree of any court of
competent jurisdiction, such unconstitutionality or invalidity shall not affect any remaining phrases, clauses,
sentences, paragraphs,and sections of this Ordinance, as the same would have been enacted by the Board withput
incorporation in this Ordinance of any such unconstitutional or invalid phrase, clause, sentence, paragraph, or
section.
SECTION 13.This Ordinance shall apply to all unincorporated areas of Mecklenburg County.
SECTION 14.The "Resolution Relative to the Indiscriminate Shooting of Firearms in Those Sections of
Mecklenburg County Which Lie Outside of the City Limits of the City of Charlotte and Outside of the Town Limits
of any Other City or Town in Said County" is hereby repealed.
SECTION 15,This Ordinance shall be effective:upon its adoption except with respect to turkey shoots
conducted during 1988 pursuant to Section 3134 of the Mecklenburg County Zoning Ordinance.
Adopted the 7th day of November, 1988.
Amended on the 5th day of December, 1988.
Amended on the 19th day of December, 1988.
' c
For more information contact Tyrone Wade
980-314-2908 ITyroneC.Wade @MecklenburgCountyNC.Gov
4
20
Attachment 5
November 3, 2016
Meeting Notes
Orange County Firearms Safety Committee
Tuesday, October 25, 2016
John M. Link, Jr. Government Services Center, downstairs meeting room
200 South Cameron Street, Hillsborough
Attendees
• Committee members appointed by the Board of Commissioners: Jon Arvik, Roxanne
Barksdale, Sara Conti, Keith Kirkland, Vince Tesoro, Greg Tilley, and Keith Webster. [Jack
Hunnell was not present]
• Liaisons to the Board of Commissioners: Commissioners Earl McKee. [Barry Jacobs was
not present]
• Resource persons designated by the Board of Commissioners: Travis Myren, Deputy County
Manager; Forrest Orr,NC Wildlife Officer; John Roberts, Orange County Attorney; and
Jamie Sykes, Chief Deputy, Orange County Sheriff's Office.
• Facilitator: Andy Sachs, Dispute Settlement Center
• There were about 20 observers.
Convene
After introductions and adoption of the proposed desired outcomes and agenda for the meeting,
the Committee accepted the proposed notes from the October 17 meeting.
Comments from Observers
This meeting was planned as the final one for the Committee. Comments from observers were
taken at the start of the meeting, as opposed to at the end, so that the Committee could
incorporate any good ideas raised by observers this evening into its decision making.
John Landreth—Asked if there will be a break during the meeting. Reiterated his interest in
seeing a time limit within which firearms noise complaints under the ordinance could be raised.
For example, if neighbors raised a firearms noise complaint in October and then again in March,
then that should not count as two separate complaints. Offered that sixty days might be
reasonable, but not ninety days. Asked when the Committee's recommendations would be
considered by the Board of County Commissioners.
David Carter - Is a Concealed Carry Handgun instructor,NRA pistol instructor, firearms safety
instructor, and an avid shooter. Asked why everyone has to suffer if only one or two people have
complaints about firearms noise. The General Statutes of North Carolina have provisions through
which such complaints can be handled. If problems are not being handled in accordance with the
General Statutes, then there is a problem with the law's enforcement, not with the General
1
21
Statutes. If there is a problem with the General Statutes then we should fix them, but we do not
need to pile regulations upon the statutes. Additionally, a lot of people who live in the rural area
know that in such areas people are going to hunt, engage in sports shooting, etc. It's like living
near the airport and complaining about the sound of the airplanes. I bought my house knowing it
was near a railroad line. I don't complain. If you live in the rural area then sometimes guns will
go off. If they are not shooting at you then don't worry. And if it keeps going late at night, then
there is a General Statute for that.
Chad Resnik—Noted that there are no time restrictions in the definition of"unreasonably loud."
Explained that all firearms create noise within the range of 164-169 decibels. What is different
across situations is the amount of time that the firearm stays at that peak noise. For example, the
peak millisecond of sound pressure for a .50 rifle stays at that higher level. Anything moving at
rate sufficient to create a supersonic crack will usually create noise in the range of 164-169
decibels. So, the noise is the same except for the length of time it is sustained. Asked who will
decide whether or not the length of time is unreasonable or inappropriate. I bought the 18 acres I
live on so that I could shoot. I shoot far away from others. I own a suppressor company. I shoot
at night. I want to be sure that if the County is going to impose restrictions that, first, the
restrictions can be followed and, second, I can understand them so I'm not that dude everyone
hates. Said he wants to follow the rules, but needs a plain English definition of"disturbing" in
order to do so, as opposed to what he is reading in the draft ordinance, especially the last part,
"being a type of sound which could be lessened or otherwise controlled by the maker without
unduly restricting his conduct." Is it the intention that people use suppressors? I can't tell. My
other concern is, given the ease with which people are able to obtain a CCH permit— and this is
not going to make me popular-- that we have people who cannot shoot. I am a Department of
Defense sniper instructor, doing a lot of work with elite Special Forces groups. I am the sniper
instructor for the NC Tactical Officers Association. I and another person, a Chapel Hill officer,
are the only ones certified to go onto a military range, and so help to make the Association's
SWAT Competition possible. I am a Concealed Carry Handgun instructor. The state requires that
I teach you to clean your gun but not how to carry your gun safely. The draft ordinance limits the
avenues people have to train on their own property on their own time. We're not going to change
the fact that people are carrying concealed handguns, but we can try not to obstruct their ability
to do it safely. The current draft ordinance is much better than the earlier version; this one is less
horrible. I understand the concerns completely. I don't like having people outside of my back
window shooting. I don't like it now hearing others shoot at the distance I'm hearing it, and I
would not like it if they were closer to me. We are moving down the right path. I was under the
impression that this is a gun safety committee, not a regulate-how-guns-are-used committee.
There is a reason the Second Amendment is second only to the rights to speech,press,petition,
assembly, and religion. It is an unalienable right the Creator gave us. We're not having a
discussion about whether or not I can have a gun. Right now we are arguing whether or not I can
shoot it on my property. I think that there is some middle ground here. We really have to take
2
22
care of all sides. When can we have the dialogue, so that I can ask questions and better
understand what is in this draft ordinance? One thing I learned from calling JAG and other
attorneys is that if we start to restrict the amount of training to a point that it becomes much more
difficult for an individual to fire here, then, well, there's shift that occurs when you move from
white light to putting thermal or night vision on top of a rifle; if you don't let me zero that, and I
make a mistake, then there a potential for Orange County itself to incur some culpability in the
event of a problem.
Joshua [last name?]—First saw the Committee's product yesterday on social media, as he works
60-70 hours per week and is taking care of his family. Appreciates everyone's time and efforts,
and knows that everyone has good intentions here. Is confused by what he is reading in the draft.
The name of the committee is Firearms Safety Committee. Maybe it's like legislation in
Washington, where it is called one thing and another thing comes out of it. The only thing I'm
seeing of any use with regard to safety is the requirement that projectiles be kept on the shooter's
property, unless you have written permission from the other property owner. At the Board of
Commissioner's meeting when the earlier proposal was being discussed, Charles Blackwood said
pretty clearly that all errant rounds wind up in court; he proposed a rhetorical question as to
whether or not there is a need for an ordinance for the lawful shooting of firearms; he said, "I
don't know that there is." So, what are we doing here? Is this the firearm tranquility committee?
So people can take a nap on their hammock on Sunday afternoon? The majority of what is in the
draft ordinance is unnecessary. I don't believe that the real intent is safety. I don't know what it
is, and I would like some clarification.
Daniel Patterson—Is Committee member Roxanne Barksdale's husband. Thanked the
Committee for all the time it is spending on its work. The final draft contains some pretty modest
proposals. I don't see them infringing on anybody's Second Amendment rights or ability to shoot
on their own property. My neighbor has a gun and if he wants to shoot it then that's fine. I do
have a problem if a bullet comes onto my property, breaks my window, shoots my dog or shoots
me. I don't think it is unreasonable to restrict that. I don't think it's reasonable for someone to be
shooting an AR-15 at 2:00 in the morning. These are common sense regulations. It all comes
down to being a good neighbor and a responsible gun owner. That's not asking too much.
Jennifer Merritt Depew— Is an NRA firearms instructor, range safety officer, Concealed Carry
Handgun instructor— one of the few females in this business. Attended the Committee's first
meeting and heard a lot of concern about noise, that firearms sound dangerous. Firearms are
dangerous, and there are laws in place to address errant rounds. If, God forbid, a window gets
shot out then that's already addressed under existing law. I'm kind when I shoot: I don't have to
let my neighbors know that I'm shooting but I do inform the ones that I know who care. I also
have had trespassers come onto my property to see what I am doing, which is bizarre to me that
someone would walk up upon an active shooter. I don't understand that kind of entitlement, to
3
23
feel that you are entitled to investigate. I have put up No Trespassing signs, which people ignore,
and I have spoken to them to ensure that it does not happen again. I do what I can to ensure that I
and all my people are going to be safe. I handle every one of my shooters. As a CCH instructor I
make sure that my students know how to shoot before they leave. I take the extra time to do that.
But it's true, they might not all do that. I know casual shooters, but I am not a casual shooter. I'll
be the first one to jump into somebody's business and say, "You need to be more careful," or
"You need to make sure you have that." But I do it in a friendly way. Not in a manner that's
ungoverned. I do it in a common sense way, which we all know is not all that common. I don't
understand when people say gunfire sounds dangerous, because a barking dog sounds dangerous
to me, rap music sounds dangerous; we can't go by what sounds dangerous. A gun can be
dangerous in the wrong hands, but that is not what this Committee is here to address. The draft is
telling me what I can and cannot do, on land that has been in my family's hands for generations.
That offends me. It offends me that this is your business when I'm not hurting you, not placing
you in danger. Even though you perceive it that way. I'm helping countless women. I have brand
new shooters. Women who have never picked up a gun. By the time we're done they are
empowered, they are confident in their abilities. And I encourage them: this is where it starts,
and this is where it stops. A formal range is expensive, and a lot of these ladies are not going to
do it. So they will carry a handgun, licensed by the State of North Carolina, by whatever County
they are in, without training if you put severe limitations on them.
Andy [last name?]— Thanked Committee for taking the time to listen to meeting observers'
comments. Is concerned that language in section(g) addressing noise is arbitrary and ambiguous,
and potentially limits what he can do on his own property. Prefers to shoot at a gun club, because
everything already is set up there, but sometimes likes to shoot on his own 10-acres. I can build a
berm, I can comply with that part, but has had experiences with neighbors about the noise from
his shooting. I have alerted them that I was going to shoot, and it was not received well. They
have a problem with the noise. I'm afraid that the ambiguous language in the draft ordinance if it
were passed into law could be abused by people who just don't want others to shoot.
Riley Rusky—Thanked the Committee for all the hard work it has done. But you have worked
for a solution to a non-existing problem. When all is said and done, this is no different from your
very first meeting, when the data presented by the various police departments showed there is no
problem to be solved here about firearms safety. There just aren't the incidents. So you devolved
to the issue of noise, and ended up with a very incomprehensible way to determine how shooting
is too noisy. I don't understand it, and I don't know if anyone else can understand it. I don't see
how you can enforce it in a fair and consistent manner. I see in the draft that you still want to
maintain the compounding of errors so you can maximize the penalties to anybody who does
make a mistake and gets caught. I think that is absolutely wrong. You're splitting it up into little
segments so you can fine people on each different item. C'mon folks: treat people decently and
4
24
honestly. Don't play games with these fines. You've worked very hard, you've come up with a
solution that is in search of a problem. And you really ought to quit right where you are at.
Becky Ceartas—Is Executive Director of North Carolinians Against Gun Violence. Thanked the
Committee for the opportunity to speak about the important work it is doing. Her organization's
attention is in helping communities in North Carolina share fact-based information and advocate
for preventing gun violence. Thanked the Board of Commissioners and the Committee for
joining other counties in paying attention to the role of guns in North Carolina communities. The
draft ordinance achieves a good balance in protecting the rights of all citizens of Orange County,
those that own guns and those that don't. Looks forward to seeing the Committee's
recommendations before the full Board of County Commissioners.
Roy Coe—Asked if there is a way for people to receive a warning from law enforcement officers
before being given a$500 fine. Said that Orange County's current noise ordinance (Article III)
imposes a$100 fine for violations but allows for warnings. Also, had been a Search and Rescue
volunteer with a Sheriff's Department in California for 19 years and observed that some deputies
are not pro-Second Amendment. Concerned that if two civilians make a firearms noise complaint
as provided for under the draft ordinance then that sort of deputy will be quick to issue a
violation. And we know if you get a violation then where ever you are shooting you will be shut
down. You will never be able to shoot there again. I'm not picking on deputies, but I know there
are some that are that way.
Committee Recommendations to the Board of Commissioners
After a quick break, the Committee turned its attention to developing its recommendations.
Mr. Kirkland noted that there is a lot of discussion on social media asking why the Committee is
going forward with an ordinance. I said earlier in the process that I did not think we have a
problem. As I began to think about how liberal Orange County is, I concluded that if citizens did
not do something now, then in six months or two years there would be another document created
by the Commissioners which we would not be able to have any input on. So I appreciate that the
Commissioners have given us this opportunity now to work on these issues. The draft ordinance
is not perfect--we have some work to do—but that is why we are here now with this document.
At least we have some input now that we might not have in a few months or a couple of years
down the road.
He added that no reasonable person would be opposed to items (a)— (f) in the draft ordinance.
These provisions are the same things we have been doing our entire lives in Orange County. We
have not had that many situations where someone has been injured by errant rounds, because we
have practiced responsible shooting. We're just putting that on paper now. We're simply saying
you can shoot all you want, but just keep that round contained. You can use whatever type of
5
25
backstop you need in order to stop whatever kinds of rounds you are shooting. This ordinance is
just a way to solidify what most of us is already doing.
I have some problems with some of the definitions in item(g), he said. Who is going to decide if
something is unreasonably loud? How do we weigh that? And why would "injures"be included
in the definition of"disturbing" if we're talking about noise? How does "health" come into play
if we're talking about noise? And we've already addressed the safety issue, so that doesn't need
to be there.
In reply to a question from Mr. Kirkland, Mr. Roberts said that he is not seeking any outcome or
intent in particular through the language he provided to the Committee in the draft. The language
came pretty much from Chatham County's ordinance, he said. We can change it however the
Committee would like to change it. If you are not comfortable with any definition or any word in
this section then it can be removed. I don't have any opinion of what the Committee's intent was,
he said.
Mr. Kirkland said that the noise provision is so open-ended that it makes too many situations
possible where somebody's shooting would be restricted. For example, the definition of
"disturbing" can be applied too broadly. "Peace" and"safety" in (g) are going to be based on
who is making the complaint, what their comfort level is with gun use. If they are the kind of
person who just does not like guns, then anytime somebody shoots a firearm the person will feel
endangered. No matter how safe the shooting range is.
Mr. Roberts said that he had two exchanges today about section (g). One was an email exchange
and the other was a telephone call. In one exchange, he said, I had the opportunity to clarify that
section(g) as it is written would only apply to two people and the law enforcement officer
complaining about the same incident. Also, if a deputy issued a citation, then ultimately a judge
would decide if a violation of the ordinance had occurred: whether the noise was unreasonably
loud or disturbing. The judge would do so by putting himself in the position of a prudent person
or a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities. That's a standard found in a lot of legal issues,
even beyond this. The other conversation I had today helped to clarify that section(g) is the most
vulnerable to being abused of the draft ordinance provisions. Neighborhood disagreements could
be viewed as being resolvable by one or more neighbors by calling a deputy and utilizing section
(g). So, on the one hand section(g) is legally enforceable using the reasonable person standard,
and on the other hand it is subject to being abused more than any of the other provisions.
Mr. Tilley agreed with Mr. Kirkland regarding support for sections (a)—(f). When the
Committee was established, he said, it was for firearms safety. Noise was never mentioned. We
were never charged to fix the noise problem. It just kind of evolved as we went on. We don't
need to change (g), he said, we need to omit it.
6
26
Dr. Arvik asked how—without(g) -- law enforcement or a neighbor would know that somebody
is shooting improperly. How would we know a situation exists where there is a likelihood of an
errant bullet? Dr. Arvik reiterated the situation he witnessed in May, where a trained individual
was on his own property shooting into crushed rock toward a neighborhood less than 100 yards
away. Law enforcement had nothing it could use to stop that man from shooting. Section(g)
would give law enforcement the ability to say, "I received the noise complaint, heard the
shooting myself, investigated further, determined that the situation was not right, and intervened
to stop the shooter before injury or damage occurred." The only reason the deputy would know
about the shooter was the noise, so you can't separate the noise complaint from the incident.
Mr. Tilley said that if sections (c) and(e)had been in force during that situation in May then the
law enforcement officers could have intervened to stop the shooter. Section (g)would not have
been needed, he said. A neighbor can hear shooting, call 911, and get an investigation into the
safety of the situation without section(g).
Dr. Arvik said that if a neighbor or law enforcement officer does not hear an errant shot, then the
only sound will be when that bullet strikes a person or someone else's property. That's too late,
he said. Something has to trigger that phone call. That is why we need section (g), and training
for the deputies, which Deputy Chief Sykes has assured me is happening, he said.
Ms. Barksdale said that she likes having the two civilian complainants as necessary complements
to the law enforcement officer in section (g). It's unfair to have the law enforcement officer as
the sole person making the complaint about the noise.
Mr. Tesoro said that(g) is far too subjective to be enforceable or fair. It leaves too much up to
the discretion of neighbors, especially nasty neighbors. I see no reason why, if someone sees a
dangerous situation as Dr. Arvik did, you need an ordinance with a noise provision to stop the
shooter. Dr. Arvik replied that he had heard the shooting before he saw it. Mr. Tesoro said that if
you hear gun fire you can call 911 and get a response even without(g) in the ordinance.
In reply to a question from Mr. Tesoro, Chief Deputy Sykes said— off the top of his head -- that
his office responded to something along the lines of 450 calls regarding gun shots throughout the
year in 2012. Don't hold me to that number, he said. But we responded to the report of gun fire
and investigated. Dr. Arvik replied that in May he called 911 three times, and had to argue with
the operator to get somebody to come out while the shooting was taking place. It wasn't so bad
when he was shooting a .22 pistol. But then he pulled out an AR-15 .223. The deputy said it was
only a .22, and he had no authority to stop the shooter because the shooter was on his own
private land. It was a Saturday afternoon and he was shooting into my neighborhood where there
were 7 preschoolers running around. I want something that will give law enforcement the
7
27
authority to go to that man and say, "you are in violation of something." It's unacceptable that
he could not do anything in that situation. I had to tell the third officer that if he didn't stop the
shooter that I would. What do you think the shooter's attitude is going to be after three officers
did nothing and I go down there?
Chief Deputy Sykes said he has responded in his 20 year career to over a thousand gunshot calls.
The most frustrating thing for me is to tell a complainant that there is nothing we can do. They
look at me like I'm an alien: what do you mean there is nothing you can do? I know Dr. Arvik
experienced that in May when we responded to his calls. There was nothing we could do. But if
this draft ordinance had been in force at the time, and we saw the insufficient backstop and a
man with a .223 shooting toward your neighborhood, then we would have had teeth to do
something. Dr. Arvik added that the ordinance also would require the County to provide the
deputies with the training necessary to make the necessary judgments. Chief Deputy Sykes said
no, that such training does not exist for law enforcement. Mr. Webster and I have searched for
that across the state, he said, and it does not exist.
Everybody in law enforcement had a background in firearms when I started in 1995, he said.
Now we're seeing a younger generation enter law enforcement that has grown up in homes
without firearms. We're having to train them. We're having to send them to urban rifle school
and to firearms safety courses. And we're having to provide remedial firearms instruction in our
basic law enforcement training. We want everyone to be safe, so it is our responsibility as leaders
in the Sheriff's Office, to convey the information the guys in the street need to make the
necessary judgments. I don't know who responded to Dr. Arvik's calls in May, he said, whether
they were State Troopers or Sheriff's Deputies. But what Dr. Arvik says he heard from those
officers is the same information I have given officers for 20 years: "If he's on his own property
then I can't do anything."
Dr. Arvik said he wants law enforcement to have the authority it needs to stop people from doing
stupid things with guns. Mr. Tilley said that if the Board of Commissioners adopts section(c),
even without the noise part, then law enforcement would have that authority. Mr. Webster said
that law enforcement does not need (g) to investigate a firearm noise complaint; they will come
out if you call and say you're hearing gunshots and are concerned about it. If these other
provisions, (a)—(f), are in place then after the deputies get there from the noise complaint they
will have the teeth to do something if there is an inadequate backstop. They don't need (g) to do
their job.
Dr. Arvik said that if the shooter had suppressed his gun, and if there were no noise, then the
shooter could have been there all day shooting into crushed rock toward the neighborhood. An
AR-15, 4,000 feet per second! The officer investigated whether it was an appropriate place to
shoot, and determined that it was, and so he couldn't do anything about it. The whole reason we
8
28
are here is to give law enforcement and the County the ability to stop that sort of thing from
happening. If that makes it inconvenient for shooters then we have to accept it. I'm a shooter.
I'm an NRA instructor. I don't want anybody hurt, and I don't want anything done to restrict
anybody's right to shoot. But I want to be sure there are negative consequences to them if they
shoot improperly.
Ms. Conti said there is nothing law enforcement can enforce with regard to a noise violation
when it comes to firearms. A citizen can call and law enforcement can come to the scene, but
once law enforcement arrives it does not have the teeth to enforce anything with respect to noise.
We have talked about danger and perceived danger, she said, but that's a meaningless
distinction. When I talk about a person hearing unreasonable shooting I am not talking about
hearing someone shooting with their kids, skeet, ducks, dove, targets --none of that is
unreasonable. That is what living in the country is about. I'm taking about the kind of shooting
that really is frightening, where you don't know how far away they are, or how many people
there are, or what direction they are shooting in, or what caliber they are shooting. Those are the
situations that cause reasonable people to be afraid. They perceive danger, and they don't feel
safe. So to the extent that we are here to address safety, their not feeling safe from hearing
irresponsible shooting is within this Committee's charge.
Things have changed, she said. Living in the country has changed. For all the generations who
have been shooting responsibly in the country all these years, still some people are abusing that
right. They are shooting assault rifles into exploding targets and they are treating guns like toys.
I'm not talking about the people who have bought houses out here and are surprised by the
shooting, like those living next to an airport and are surprised by the planes. I have been living in
the country a long time. It's different now. We have a noise problem because of the people
abusing their right to shoot, and there is nothing in Orange County that gives law enforcement
the authority to do anything about that problem.
Maybe the solution is for the Board of Commissioners to take up the noise issue, she said. It
would be easy enough to lift the firearms exemption from the noise ordinance. But we're here to
address firearms safety, and to the extent that people are not feeling safe when they hear firearms
noise I think it is hard to separate noise from this ordinance. We're not here to talk about the
Second Amendment, she added. Nobody on this Committee is challenging anybody's right to
bear arms. At the same time, none of us have the right to shoot anywhere, anytime, anyhow.
In reply to a question from Mr. Tesoro, Ms. Conti said that, although it is difficult, we can
differentiate between noise from unreasonable shooting and noise from reasonable shooting by
giving the investigating officer the authority to make that distinction. She noted that Mr. Tilley
had introduced the prima facie clause in section(g). If we require two complainants and then an
9
29
officer to make the determination with regard to the reasonableness of the noise, she said, then
that noise will not be the legitimate kind of shooting activity we're all talking about here. If there
are a lot of shooters coming from who-knows-where, firing in who-knows-what direction, then
that's the kind of noise that's unreasonable and needs to be stopped. We're not talking about
normal shooting. I know what normal shooting is. I live in the country. It happens every day.
This is different, and you know it when you hear it.
The facilitator suggested that each member of the Committee express an opinion about keeping
(g) in the group's recommendations. Should we spend our time trying to improve (g), or should
be take it out entirely? Mr. Tilley, noting that Mr. Hunnell was not present this evening, said that
the group should not take any binding votes until all the Committee members are present. Mr.
Tesoro agreed. Dr. Arvik said that the group cannot wait for Mr. Hunnell to return, since this is
supposed to be the Committee's final meeting. Mr. Tesoro said that he had been asked by Mr.
Hunnell to let the Committee know that Mr. Hunnell [Tesoro now reading from an email] does
"not support the noise clause but suggests that language be added that the two parties not be
related and be from the neighborhood affected." The facilitator noted that the group's ground
rules contain a quorum rule (to make a decision no fewer than six members must be present) and
a decision rule (two more than half of the members present must be in agreement). With seven
members present, he said, we have a quorum this evening and six members are needed for a
decision tonight.
The group agreed to take a non-binding poll on whether to keep (g) or continue working on it.
• Mr. Kirkland—Does not support(g) as it is written, and does not know what kind of time is
available for the Committee to try to improve it.
• Ms. Conti—Feels strongly that there needs to be a noise component to the ordinance if an
ordinance is the result of this Committee.
• Mr. Webster—Does not support(g), and thinks the noise issue should be deferred to the
Board of Commissioners for resolution in the context of the County's noise ordinance.
• Mr. Tilley— The Committee is not commissioned to work on the noise ordinance. We've
done an excellent job at addressing safety through (a)—(f). Noise does not need to be in the
safety ordinance.
• Ms. Barksdale—Likes parts of(g), because it gives teeth to law enforcement. Wish it could
be part of(c), maybe through some further discussion by the Committee.
• Mr. Tesoro—I don't support(g) at all. Agree that we have developed a substantial gun safety
ordinance—that is not needed, because we do not have a safety problem— and I am willing to
move forward with the draft ordinance without(g).
• Dr. Arvik—Proposed a modification of(g), because if a noise provision is not included then
we have wasted a lot of people's time and money.
10
30
The facilitator observed that 4 of the 7 members present this evening were willing to continue
working to try to improve (g): Kirland, Conti, Barksdale, and Arvik. He suggested that(g)be set
aside temporarily and asked if there were any other provisions in the draft ordinance that any
Committee member wanted to address.
Mr. Tesoro asked the group to reconsider section(i), noting that during the observers' comments
period this evening Mr. Rusky had raised a concern about each violation of the ordinance being a
separate penalty. I know we discussed this at length, he said, but it's excessive to penalize a
person for violating each section of the ordinance. Mr. Tilley, referencing comments made by
Mr. Coe during the observers' comment period, asked if any other County ordinances allow law
enforcement to give warnings instead of citations. Mr. Roberts said that law enforcement officers
are always free to give a warning. It need not be specified in an ordinance, he said. Chief Deputy
Sykes agreed. Commissioner McKee reminded the group that he had stated in one or more
earlier meetings that the Board of Commissioners generally does not look favorably upon"piling
up"fines. We've pulled fines out of ordinances dealing with animal control, he said. I won't
predict the vote of the Board, but I and other members of the Board have not been in favor of
multiplying fines. It could be handled by saying a violation of any provision of this Section or
Sections shall be guilty of a Class III misdemeanor punishable by a fine of up to $500. Mr. Tilley
noted that the draft already says "up to."
Mr. Webster said that he originally had proposed the multiple-penalty provision, but he did not
have an issue with removing it now. Mr. Tilley asked, if the multiple violation provision were
eliminated, whether a violation of the ordinance on one week would be considered a separate
penalty from another violation the next week. Commissioner McKee and Mr. Webster said that
those would be separate violations. All agreed to revise the draft by removing references to each
violation being a separate penalty. Mr. Roberts volunteered to distribute a revised draft to the
Committee.
The Committee took a short break, and then turned its attention to a draft recommendation
developed by the facilitator from the Committee's discussion on October 17 regarding voluntary
community education on firearms safety, the so-called"non-ordinance"recommendation.
Commissioner McKee said that he is interested in supporting good relationships between
neighbors. Efforts to educate the community, if done right, will help develop those relationships
but if done wrong could damage relationships. Mr. Tesoro asked who would lead the charge on
the implementing the recommendation. Mr. Roberts said that if the Board accepts the
recommendation then it would direct staff to proceed. The Manager's Office would probably
take the lead to make sure it was getting done, and the Board would send the recommendation to
the Health Director and Director of the Department of Social Services for implementation.
Commissioner McKee said that whatever resolutions the Board passes is generally handed to
staff with unspecified directions to "make it happen." The Manager would delegate to Mr. Myren
11
31
or someone else in her office to work with whichever Department is responsible to ensure that
the resolution is carried out. It would then come back to the Board to approve the specifics of the
education effort, and then it would go out through the lead Department. The Committee adopted
the non-ordinance recommendation unanimously.
The Committee then turned its attention back to (g). Mr. Kirkland proposed striking (g)
completely, and leaving any further consideration of the firearms noise issue with the Board of
Commissioners. The matter is too subjective for use to resolve, he said. Dr. Arvik wanted the
Committee to address (g), and proposed that references in the draft to "unreasonably loud"be
deleted. This would leave a mechanism for addressing "disturbing"noise, he said, where
firearms noise is scaring people. Ms. Conti suggested that the clause also be deleted at the end of
the definition of"disturbing:" "and being a type of sound which could be lessened or otherwise
controlled by the maker without unduly restricting his conduct." Mr. Tesoro said that he is not
sure any amount of revision would salvage section (g), and that problematic words for him were
"perceived," "health," and "safety."By the time we get done there will be no (g) left, he said.
Ms. Conti said that Dr. Arvik's proposal was a nice compromise, to the extent that people's
objections to (g) were the inclusion of"unreasonably loud."Mr. Tesoro said that even if
"unreasonably loud"were deleted, there is no way to distinguish between disturbing noise from
unreasonable shooting and disturbing noise from reasonable shooting.
Ms. Conti said that she was feeling "fed up." She said she was flabbergasted (happily)when Mr.
Tilley proposed a solution to the noise issues. But we have not discussed alternatives to this
prima facie option. We have not discussed distance, for example, to address noise although
distance is included in several local ordinances across the state. We set distance aside in our
safety discussions because we said that the prohibition on a projectile crossing the property
boundary to address safety was better than a distance provision. But that still leaves the problem
of people shooting on, say, one acre lots. You might be able to contain the projectile, but the
noise may be disturbing because the shooter is engaged in unreasonable firearm activity so close
to someone else's house. This Committee is tasked with addressing the issue of noise, somehow.
Here we are at the last meeting, at the last minute of the last meeting, and now we're talking
about something we had supposedly resolved, with one little tweak from Mr. Hunnell about an
unrelated person. What are we doing here??
Mr. Tilley said that at the first meeting he said that the Committee could save itself a lot of
problems by adopting the Lenoir County ordinance. The Committee did not want to do that, he
said. Ms. Conti said that the whole gun community from the beginning had advocated for the
Lenoir County ordinance. Well, she said, Lenoir doesn't have anything in it that is going to solve
the noise problem. You people said that Lenoir does not have any teeth in it, and the irony is that
this is what we have wound up with. The draft ordinance with(g)removed is so
indistinguishable from Lenoir that one would think that the whole Committee came in
12
32
advocating for Lenoir. Section(g) is the one thing that provides some teeth and distinguishes our
ordinance from Lenoir. I'm reminded, she said, of a woman who stood in front of us at the end of
the previous meeting and asked if we have talked about issues that we have never even broached:
time of day, shooting at night, distance from structures, how much land must you own before
you can shoot, what is sustained shooting, what's a safe berm, how far must a berm be from a
structure.
Mr. Tesoro and Mr. Tilley said that the Committee had indeed talked about all those issues.
Maybe, said Ms. Conti, maybe somebody just mentioned that issue. But we never discussed it,
and it certainly never got incorporated into the draft ordinance that is in front of us now. What is
in front of us now is practically useless to people who are not shooters in this community. I
believe this Committee was created because of the blow back that came from the regulations that
were proposed by some other governmental entity, to try to assuage the concerns in the gun
community that their freedom was being impinged upon. There are other people in the county
who have freedoms that are just as important as those. I don't think we have begun to address the
freedoms of the non-shooting community. I'm embarrassed now because I realize I was
appointed to this Committee to represent the interests of those people, and I feel like I have failed
them miserably. So, for all the freedoms in this room, your freedoms as shooters have not been
infringed one bit by this ordinance. We have gone through this whole process just to protect the
rights of the shooter. Now, how about you address just for one second the rights—which are
equally as important—of the non-shooters? There is one paragraph in this ordinance that
addresses the rights of the non-shooters, and now we're about to get rid of it. After having spun
our wheels for months now. We could have done this at the start by saying, "Let's just do Lenoir
County."
In reply to a question from the facilitator, Ms. Conti said she had no idea how to satisfy the needs
of non-shooters who are disturbed by the noise from unreasonable firearm activity while at the
same time satisfying the needs of responsible shooters who do not want infringements upon their
freedom to shoot. If we lose (g) from the ordinance, the facilitator said, it is because we as a
Committee could not figure out how to mutually satisfy those two sets of interests. It is OK if we
are at that point, he said, to recognize it and let it fall to the Board of County Commissioners to
try to figure it out. The Committee would have more control over the solution if it had a good
recommendation, but we need a substantive idea. If Dr. Arvik's proposal to eliminate
"unreasonably loud" is insufficient then let's keep hacking at it, he said, unless you all have
decided that we are done. I don't want you to be done out of frustration. I want you to be done
from an intelligent decision that we cannot come up with a solution at this time with this group
of seven people who are here tonight.
Dr. Arvik said that we have failed if neighbors are disturbed by the location and time of
somebody's shooting. We haven't given Chief Deputy Sykes any tools for dealing with that. If
13
33
we just let people shoot whenever they want and where ever they want then we have failed.
Shoot at the right place at the right time. Night time is not the right time, unless it is at the right
place: if you got access to 18 acres on which you can shoot in the middle of the night then go
ahead. As long as you are not bothering your neighbors. If"loud" is problematic to the
Committee then let's take it out, but if shooting is disturbing to one's neighbors then that
shooting is wrong, and should not be allowed. The first thing that happens when a gun goes off is
that the non-shooters start worrying. Responsible shooters also worry if another person's
shooting is at the wrong time in the wrong place. We worry more than the non-shooters do.
So, (g)needs to stay, said Dr. Arvik. I would propose that the definition of disturbing become (g)
(1) and that portions of(1)be incorporated into the definition of disturbing: "consider or find
substantially incompatible with the time and location to the extent...". I want to get time and
location in there, he said. If you are shooting at the wrong time and the wrong place you are
violating the regulation. Citizens cannot determine what that is. Law enforcement can make the
determination. And law enforcement needs to be trained to be able to do that. The Chief Deputy
says that we don't have a training program for that. Then let's talk to the BOCC to direct them to
begin that training, and give them the resources to do it.
Ms. Barksdale said that she does not want to discount that some people are alarmed by loud
gunfire. Maybe the word to use in the ordinance is "alarming." To discount the people who are
alarmed by loud gunfire and do not want to be around it is as discounting as discounting the
people who want to be around it. There needs to be an investigation if somebody is alarmed. And
I like having the two civilians and the one law enforcement officer all involved in establishing
what is alarming.
Chief Deputy Sykes said that if somebody calls and says they are alarmed by their neighbor's
shooting because they do not what is going on, then certainly we can respond and investigate
what type of shooting is occurring. If it violated (a) through (f), and we could not come to a
conclusion using conflict resolution between the neighbors, then we would have teeth to charge
the shooter. Ms. Barksdale said that she cares about the ordinance being enforceable, and if it is
enforceable without(g)— even though the three-person provision is in(g) -- then she could
support an ordinance that excluded(g). Yes, said the Chief Deputy, if we find a violation under
(a)— (f) then we can enforce under those provisions.
Dr. Arvik says that nothing under(a)— (f)would allow the Sheriff's Office to enforce against a
person shooting in the wrong place or at the wrong time. If we could pull those concepts from (g)
somewhere into (a)—(f) then we would be giving the deputies the tools they need to address
disturbing or alarming shooting. Reasonably intelligent and prudent people who are bothered by
shooting—not because it is loud, but because it is occurring at the wrong place or the wrong time
14
34
-- should have their needs addressed. If it's not in here then the whole thing falls apart; we're
back to the Lenoir ordinance, which is a useless piece of paper.
Mr. Tesoro asked where the noise part of the Committee mandate comes from. When I filled out
my application, it said"Firearms Safety Committee." Commissioner McKee read from the
BOCC's March 1, 2016 agenda abstract, which includes noise in the Committee charge. It also is
repeated on May 17, he said, in the charge when we appointed the Committee.
Mr. Tesoro said that the Committee tried to define "sustained" at an earlier meeting but was not
able to do so. Other words, like "alarming" and"disturbing" all come back to perception, he said.
I don't think we can answer that. Ms. Conti explained that the "reasonable person standard"is a
valid legal standard through which those terms can be defined.
The facilitator said that the Committee appeared to be at the point where it has consensus on an
ordinance that contains (a)—(f) and a non-ordinance recommendation regarding community
education on firearms safety, but that it does not have consensus on any revision to (g). The
Board of Commissioners can read the meeting notes for background, he said, and individuals on
the Committee can write or speak to them about the different perspectives they have regarding
noise. He suggested a vote on recommending an ordinance that excludes (g) and the non-
ordinance recommendation.
Commissioner McKee said that in the end the decision comes back to the Board of
Commissioners. Our Board does not have to adhere to any recommendation or it can adhere to
every recommendation or it can add other things if we decide to. You all have done some good
work. I understand it when Ms. Conti says that without(g) the Committee has wasted it's time,
but I do not think the Committee has wasted its time. I can guarantee that every Commissioner
has read every minute that has come out of this four month conversation. We created this
Committee to get input from a group of people who were not the focal points of that meeting in
February. We wanted an extended conversation in our community, outside of our Board, to get
some recommendations. If the recommendations come back(a)—(f) then we will consider it. If
they come back with (g) included then we'll consider it. I can't tell you what the Board might or
might not do.
I would recommend that you not let the hunt for the perfect interfere with the possible, he said.
From what I see, (a)—(f) gives law enforcement some teeth. I understand the noise issue. I don't
know that I agree that the noise issue is absolutely critical to the Sheriff's ability to respond to a
call and, if they get out there and see a person shooting into a pile of rock or at a six-inch
diameter tree, they have some means of doing something. Back in May when they responded to
Dr. Arvik's call they didn't have anything; if(a)— (f)passes then they will have something. Do
we have a perfect document tonight?No. Will we have a perfect document after the Board of
15
35
Commissioners finishes with this? No. I can't guarantee or predict what the Board will pass or
even if it will pass anything at all. But I would ask that you not feel like you wasted your time,
because you haven't, because every Board member is following this discussion and lots of
people in the community are following this discussion too. We had 200 people at the meeting
back in February. I can guarantee you even if you complete your work tonight that this is not the
end of the discussion. The current Board and/or a future Board will address this issue again.
Don't let the hunt for the perfect interfere with the possible.
Dr. Arvik then proposed, "looking for unanimity," that(g)be struck from the draft ordinance,
and that individual members be allowed to submit minority reports. The group voted, and
decided 6-1 (Ms. Conti the one nay vote) to recommend to the Board of Commissioners the draft
ordinance minus (g) and with the revisions to (i) agreed upon earlier in the meeting.
Commissioner McKee thanked the Committee for making a very hard decision, and reminded it
that the conversation is not over.
Evaluation of the Committee Process
The facilitator invited Committee members, resource persons, and the Board's liaison to reflect
on what worked well in the Committee process, what did not work so well, what they have
learned, what was challenging, and any advice they might want to give to the BOCC or to the
facilitator for setting up and conducting future committees. Each person took a turn and shared
some thoughts, as follows:
• Commissioner McKee—I'm proud of the Committee. This process has informed our Board,
even the fact that there was dissention. This is what I wanted to see: a discussion, and not
necessarily a polite discussion, where people are at, what people's opinions are. For me, the
process worked.
• Mr. Myren—I hope we were able to support the Committee adequately with the research we
provided. John Roberts did a great job. The format worked well in general.
• Dr. Arvik—I've been involved in lots of committees like this on different subjects, and the
thing that impressed me most is that the facilitator didn't let this run away. Not once. I
appreciate that very much. Now, I didn't get everything I wanted out of this, but I got a
discussion on everything. Other members might not have liked to have had the discussion,
but it needed to come out, and it did come out. And I appreciate that.
• Mr. Roberts—I'll make these changes tonight and send out a final copy to everyone. I'll talk
with the two Commissioners who served as liaisons to the Committee to find out when they
want this item to come to the full Board; when I know I'll let you all know. The process here
seemed to be efficient, and discussed a lot of subject matter that was of concern to people; I
think that is a good thing.
• Mr. Tesoro—I appreciate that we had a facilitator. That was key for any of this working,
given the diverse group. I feel we made great progress. I feel we addressed safety. It's not
16
36
perfect, and I don't think it is ever going to be perfect. But I feel that we accomplished
something.
• Ms. Barksdale—We worked hard. I hope it's helpful to the Commissioners, because they are
where it comes down. I appreciate what they do. I also appreciate the experts we had access
to in this process. It made a difference to me to be able to call on them and to know what they
had to say. I also appreciate the facilitation. I felt safe to say what I needed to say. This is an
issue that can be hot on both ends. I appreciate all the work Mr. Roberts has done for us,
preparing drafts and revising and revising again. It's been a good experience for me and I
hope it will be helpful.
• Mr. Tilley— I appreciate the expertise we got from Officer On and Chief Deputy Sykes, and
from Mr. Roberts, Mr. Myren, Commissioner McKee, and Commissioner Jacobs. Thanks to
the two Commissioner liaisons for helping us guide this. The facilitator did a great job
keeping us in line and where we needed to be. I also have to get this off my chest: I was open
when we first were talking about noise issues, but after I was told that the reason Ms. Conti
was here was because she had a problem with a neighbor's shooting range, I felt undermined.
I felt deceived by that and think that she should not have even attempted to be on this
Committee.
• Mr. Webster—I like that everybody on the Committee had a voice. Everybody had an
opportunity to speak their mind. We did it respectfully. Even when it got a little heated, the
facilitator checked us and brought down the temperature so that we could make an educated
decision. The decision is not perfect, but they never are. It's a living, breathing thing. It will
revolve. As Commissioner McKee said,people will continue to discuss this. But I liked the
process. It is the first time I have been on a County committee. I appreciate the County
providing the experts for us. We made an enormous amount of progress. We are not going to
please everybody. There are going to be folks mad on each end of the spectrum. But as long
as we make the majority happy then we have accomplished a good thing.
• Chief Deputy Sykes— This was a tough topic. With input from everyone who's been
watching us and concerned about the outcome, we had people on both ends of the spectrum.
Everyone did a good job of coming to the middle; that's where you solve problems. I don't
think it's perfect. But I think the recommendation to the Commissioners is a good starting
point. Even if the only thing that comes out of the Commissioners' decision making is our
recommendations, for the Sheriff's Office in responding to these calls at least we will not
have to tell the people living in this county that there is nothing we can do. I think everyone
should give themselves another round of applause for that, because that is going to make a lot
of people feel better.
• Ms. Conti—I would like to thank the County Commissioners for addressing this issue. I
would encourage the Board to revisit some of the issues that were raised but not addressed
adequately.
• Mr. Kirkland—I came into this Committee knowing that we would not make everyone
happy, because this is a hot topic issue; it may be very political in some ways. But as a
17
37
beginning it has turned out pretty well. I feel that the job unfortunately is unfinished, and I
have an issue with leaving a job unfinished and not knowing the full outcome. I appreciate
the County Commissioners giving us the opportunity to come together to talk about these
issues. I think that their commitment to and understanding of some of the things we talked
about will get us a type of ordinance that will be beneficial to the whole community. I guess I
will have to step away from this now, although I feel like I'm leaving something hanging out
there and the job is unfinished. But under the circumstances and with some of the difficulties
we had we have to leave it at that.
• Officer On- One of the stories I shared with some of you at the first meeting was of a lady
who was absolutely opposed to her daughter going to a Girl Scout meeting and coming to our
pellet range. She was scared of the noise, she was scared of firearms in general. And now she
is one of the first ladies to come up wanting to shoot every year at the pellet range. I'm not
that involved in the County ordinance; I won't be enforcing it. But some of these non-
ordinance recommendations do include something I do have to offer: collaborating with the
Wildlife Commission for education, especially for young people. You have my full support
for anything that I can personally or my agency can do to encourage that.
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 9:35 PM
18