HomeMy WebLinkAboutMeeting Notes 0823161
Approved Meeting Notes
Adopted by the Committee October 17, 2016
Orange County Firearms Safety Committee
Tuesday, August 23, 2016
John M. Link, Jr. Government Services Center, downstairs meeting room
200 South Cameron Street, Hillsborough
Attendees
x Committee members appointed by the Board of Commissioners: Jon Arvik, Roxanne
Barksdale, Sara Conti, Jack Hunnell, Keith Kirkland, Vince Tesoro, and Greg Tilley. [Keith
Webster, absent].
x Liaisonsto the Board of Commissioner: Commissioners Earl McKee and Barry Jacobs
x Resource persons designated by the Board of Commissioners: Travis Myren, Deputy County
Manager; Forrest Orr, Wildlife Officer, NC Wildlife Resources Commission; John L.
Roberts, Orange County Attorney; Jamie Sykes, Chief Deputy, Orange County Sheriff’s
Office.
x Facilitator: Andy Sachs, Dispute Settlement Center.
x There were 4 observers.
Convene
After introductions and adoption of the proposed desired outcomes and agenda for the meeting,
the Committee accepted the proposed notes from the August 1 meeting.
Draft Firearms Safety Ordinance
The group reviewed the first draft of an ordinance developed by County Attorney John Roberts
based on earlier Committee discussions. Mr. Tilley thanked Mr. Roberts for preparing the draft,
saying that the draft is helpful, thoughtful, well put together, and close to what he thinks is
needed. Ms. Barksdale also expressed her appreciation to Mr. Roberts.
Paragraphs(c)and (d)
Mr. Kirkland said he did not know how the Committee could be any clearer about the need for
an effective backstop without going into specific, numerical details. The draft is simple and easy
to understand, he said.
Mr. Hunnell said that he is opposed to the requirement that all backstops be “designed and
constructed.”A hunter lines up a deer with a natural back drop that will catch the projectile if the
shooter misses, he said. In addition, if I am shooting clay pigeons then the shot is only going to
travel about a hundred yards.Mr. Roberts suggested that an allowance for an effective natural
barrier be added (but not something like shooting into a tree, he said) and Mr. Hunnell agreed.
Officer Orr said that paragraph (g) (1) exempts certain kinds of huntingfrom the backstop
requirement
2
Mr. Tesoro said that a constructed backstop is not needed for shooting at clay pigeons because
the targets are up in the air. Mr. Tilley suggested that the first sentence be removed from
paragraph (c), so that the requirement simply would be that shooters not “discharge a firearm
carelessly or heedlessly in wanton disregard for the safety of others.” Mr. Tesoro agreed, and
asked if the terms --careless, heedless and in wanton disregard --could be enforced. Mr.
Roberts said that it would be up to the responding officer to determine whether a shooter is
actingin those ways, whether someone’s life, health, or safety are put in danger by the actions of
the shooter.Chief Deputy Sykes agreed.
Ms. Conti said that if the Committee were interested in an enforceable standard for a constructed
backstopthen it might consider the language from Section 7 (c) of the Mecklenberg County
Firearms Ordinance which says that backstops should be “substantially in accordance with
specifications promulgated by the National Rifle Association or any equivalent nationally
recognizedfirearms safety organization for the type and caliber of firearms being fired…”.
People have taken issue with the County putting excessive particulars into ordinance, she said,
but if we simply reference the NRA’s specifications then we would have an authoritative
standard. Mr. Hunnell said that the NRA’s guidelines are for ranges. He offered to share those
guidelines.Ms. Conti said that she did not need to see the guidelines.
In reply to a question from Mr. Hunnell, Officer Orr suggested that paragraph (g) (1) be revised
so that there would be no backstop requirement for hunting at all. We already have prohibitions
on negligent discharge for hunters in state statute, he said.
Mr. Hunnell recalled that Ms. Conti had suggested in an earlier meeting that the state hunting
laws be used as a reference for the County’s firearms safetyordinance. Ms. Conti said she was
interested specifically in the state hunting law’s Sunday limitation. State hunting law prohibits
hunting with a firearm between 9:30 am and 12:30 pm on Sundays, she explained, and prohibits
hunting all day on Sunday with a firearm within 500 yards of certain structures. If that makes
sense for hunting with a firearm on Sunday, then maybe that makessense for using a firearmfor
any purpose on Sunday.
Mr. Tesoro asked the group to consider the language in Section 10 (H) of the Harnett County
Firearms Discharge Ordinance, which says that it is unlawful for any person to discharge a
firearm “Without a backstop or other method of containment that will adequately contain the
projectile to the property upon which it was discharged.” A person shooting at clay pigeons with
a shotgun or BB’s well within, say, a 30-acre parcel would be in compliance because those
projectiles would fall within those 30-acres. Ms. Conti said that the distance travelled by a
projectile depends on the caliber of the projectile. Mr. Hunnell said that beyond caliber the
potential for a projectile to cross a property boundary also dependsupon the direction the firearm
3
is pointed.A hunter in a tree stand is pointing down and so even a high caliber bullet is unlikely
to go very far, he said. Ms. Conti said that a property must be big enough to contain the projectile
for the caliber that is being used.
Mr. Tilley said that he agreed with Ms. Conti’s point regarding the need to contain the projectile
on the property for whatever caliber is being used. My house sits on 12-acres, he said, and I can
shoot any caliber from my front porch straight out towards Highway 54 without that bullet
leaving my property because the land slopes upward and will capture the projectile before it gets
to the boundary. We would not need a constructed backstop to keep the projectile on my
property because of the topography, he said.
Chief Deputy Sykes said that it is problematic for law enforcement to evaluate a bermor
backstop. He said that the revision proposed earlier in the meeting to delete the first sentence
from paragraph (c) sufficiently assigns responsibility for keeping a projectile on a shooter’s
property.
Mr. Hunnell asked that a provision be added allowing a projectile to cross a property line when a
shooter has permission from the adjacent property owner.
Ms. Barksdale proposed that language in paragraph (c) reflect the language in paragraph (d) so
that it simply would say, “It is unlawful for any person to discharge a firearm carelessly or
heedlessly in wanton disregard for the safety of others.” Mr. Tilley, Mr. Tesoro, and Mr. Hunnell
said that they liked that.
In reply to a question fromCommissioner Jacobs, Mr. Roberts explained that “wanton disregard”
means a reckless or careless manner. Commissioner Jacobs asked if under the draft language a
shooter can discharge a firearm in disregard for the safety of others as long as they do not doso
wantonly. Mr. Roberts said that “wonton” can be removed if the Committee gives that direction.
Ms. Conti said the draft language is so vague as to be unconstitutional. What is careless,
heedless, and wanton disregard, she asked? What’s needed is a standard for making that
determination, she said, such as “in the discretion of a law enforcement officer.” Mr. Roberts
said that there is plenty of case law to support the constitutionality of the wording in the first
draft. Motor vehicle statutes use careless and reckless and those laws are enforced successfully
and upheld by courts every week all across the state thousands of times, he said. The analogy
from motor vehicles to firearms is validin that we can discern what the careless and reckless use
is of any tool. I don’t have any position on whether the Committee changes this language, he
added, but I am comfortable with it as it is.The phrase “careless and reckless” is already defined
in North Carolina law.
4
Chief Deputy Sykes said the officer on the scene will use the facts they encounter to inform their
discretion. If a person is shooting toward Highway 54 but into a bank of land that’s capturing the
bullet, then the officer can conclude that the shooting is safe under an ordinance that allows for
aneffective, natural backstop. If it were flat land in a direct line of sight toward the highway,
then that would be in violation of that type of ordinance. The existence of the ordinance gives us
the authority to act if we see a violation, and we would notneed “in the discretion of law
enforcement” to do so. Dr. Arvik said that he has had the experience of seeing law enforcement
officers unable to act when a neighbor was shooting unsafely.I need assurance that the Sheriff’s
deputies are going to get the proper training about what is safe and clear authority that they can
make that decision in the moment. Right now I do not believe they can make that determination.
Mr. Tilley said that right now –and back when Dr. Arvik witnessed the unsafe shooter –thereis
noCounty ordinance the Sheriff’s Office can use to exert such authority. Passage of an ordinance
as the group has been discussing will give theSheriff authority, he said. Dr. Arvik said that law
enforcement has the authority and the responsibility tostop dangerous behavior, whether we
have an ordinance or not. In reply to a question from Deputy Chief Sykes, Dr. Arvik said that he
did not know if the law enforcement officers who did not stop the unsafe shooter were State
Troopers or Orange County deputies. Mr. Roberts said that he is not aware of any existing
ordinance that gives law enforcement authority to stop the discharge of firearms in
unincorporated Orange County other than for discharges into an occupied dwelling or at a
person.
Mr. Tesoro said that it is too difficult for law enforcement to ascertain compliance with specific
standards for a backstop; that is why none of the ordinances we have reviewed from all the other
counties in North Carolina have avoided such standards. The Harnett County ordinance does a
good job at saying what we want: that you have to stop the bullet however it is that you do it.
Ms. Conti said that Mecklenberg County cites specifications promulgated by the NRA; it is a
legitimate authority in this contextand it gives law enforcement something tangible to work
with, she said. Mr. Hunnell said that it is too expensive for ordinary people to construct
backstops according to the NRA specifications; those specifications are for shooting ranges, he
said. Ms. Conti said no,that the Mecklenberg County ordinance uses the NRA specifications for
“a person target shooting on his own property.” Mr. Tilley said that the NRA specifications do
not sound like a practical solution. Ms. Conti said that she would want to seethe specifications
for herself, and highlighted the Mecklenberg County language associating a backstop with “the
type and caliber of firearms being fired.” Mr. Hunnell agreed that the backstop should be
appropriate for the type and caliber of firearms being fired. Mr. Kirkland proposed that
paragraph (c) read, “It is unlawful for any person to discharge a firearm except into a natural or
constructed backstop sufficient to stop the projectile.” The allowance would be for natural or
constructed backstops, he said.
5
In reply to a question from Mr. Tesoro, Mr. Kirland said that “distance” would be the natural
container for shotgun use. In reply to a question from Mr. Tesoro regarding skeet and trap –in
which shooters aim into the air, making natural or constructed backstops impractical --Mr.
Roberts said that a sentence could be added to exempt skeet or trap from paragraph (c). Ms.
Barksdale asked what protections would exist for the neighbors of shooters on small lots. The
shot will leave the property, shesaid. Mr. Tilley said that if shot lands on an adjoining property,
paragraph (d) of the draft ordinance would be violated and so law enforcement would have the
authority to intervene. That makes me feel better, said Ms. Barksdale. Mr. Tilley, Mr. Tesoro,
and Mr. Hunnell said that they liked Mr. Kirkland’s proposal. Ms. Conti said that she could
accept it. Hearing no objections to Mr. Kirland proposal, Mr. Roberts agreed to incorporate that
suggestion into the next draft ordinance.
Mr. Roberts asked if the Committee wanted to remove “wanton” from the draft ordinance, and
there appeared to be consensus to do so.
Regarding paragraph(d),Mr. Hunnellreiterated his proposed that a provision be added allowing
a projectile to cross a property line when a shooter has permission from the adjacent property
owner. Mr. Kirkland said it would be problematic to require permission from a neighbor to shoot
on one’s own property, especially owners of large tracts whose neighbors are, for example, a half
mile away.
Paragraph (b)
Dr. Arvik proposed that “pressurized gas” be added to the types of propellants (currently,
ignition of gunpowder or by other explosive reaction) under the definition of firearm. There are
some pellet guns that are at least as powerful as a .22 rifle, he said. In reply to Mr. Hunnell’s
observation that cross-bows are equally dangerous, Dr. Arvik said that he is not proposing that
cross-bowsbe added to the definition of firearms.
Dr. Arvik said that some pellet guns can expel at 1400 feet per second, which is analogous to the
power of a rifle.
Mr. Hunnell said that the propellant in a firearm always is a gas. Dr. Arvik said that the draft
ordinance says “explosive” gas and that he is proposing that “pressurized gas” be included; if we
delete “explosive” then that would be OK with me, he said.
Mr. Tilley, Mr. Tesoro, and Mr. Kirkland said that they do not consider a pellet gun to be a
firearm. You can shoot a pellet gun within any of the municipal limits said Mr. Tilley. The range
of a .22 caliber pellet gun is short: 45-50 yards maximum, he added. Although Mr. Tesoro said
that a pellet gun is like a BB gun, Dr. Arvik said that a pellet gun is not the same as a BB gun.
Mr. Tesoro (reading from something online) said that under Section 921 (a) (3) of the federal
6
Gun Control Act, air guns are excluded from the definition of firearms --unless they are
manufactured with the frames or receivers of an actual firearm --because they use compressed
air and not an explosive to propel a projectile.
In reply to a question, Mr. Roberts said that the draft ordinance would not prohibit a projectile
from a pellet gun from crossing a property line, for example under paragraph (d), because the
definition of a firearm under the draft does not include pellet guns. Mr. Tilley said that he would
expect there to be other ordinances under which a shooter of a pellet gun who causes property
damage would be held responsible. Deputy Chief Sykes said that there were.
Commissioner McKee said that Dr. Arvik’s point is a good one about the velocity of a projectile
that is propelled by a pressured gas. My expectation for this Committee is that we would work
with the general understanding of the problems and possibilities. I don’t think the general public
would consider a pellet gun or a BB gun to be a firearm. I was worried a few minutes ago that
the conversation was searching for the perfect solution at the expense of what’s possible, he said.
Cross-bows have range and power and can project bullets, but we don’t want to go there. Nor do
we want to go to arrows. I would think that we might want to stay within the general
understanding of what firearms are: pistols, rifles, and shotguns.
Commissioner Jacobs read from something online: “North Carolina prohibits any person from
causing, encouraging, or aiding a minor who is less than 18 years old to possess or carry,
whether openly or concealed any BB gun, stun gun, air rifle, or air pistol. North Carolina has no
other law regarding non-powder guns.” The federal law does not include pressured gas guns in
its definition of firearms, he said, and North Carolina only restricts minors from using these
guns. If we defined firearms in the way Dr. Arvik is proposing, he said, we would be going
beyond what’s generally contemplated in the law right now.
Dr. Arvik agreed that as the current definition stands a pellet gun is not a firearm. I want us to
rethink that, he said, given therisk posed by the more powerful typesof pellet guns.Imagine a
13-year kid gets a pellet gun for Christmas, he said. He gets no training, and walks down the
street shooting at anything he feels like shooting. I call the Sheriff’s Office. What can they do?
Chief Deputy Sykes said that if property were damaged then a deputy could take out a juvenile
petition for damage to property. If he were hunting then he would be in violation of the state
hunting laws. A referral could be made to social services if we thought the child’s parenting were
at fault. Ms. Barksdale said the adult who aided the young person to obtain the gun would be in
violation of the state law that Commissioner Jacobs had just cited. Dr. Arvik said that this sort of
thing happens repeatedly, and if there is no law or ordinance against it then there should be. Do
we have to wait until someone is shotbefore we do something? Given the damage that pellet
guns can do, we have the authority and the responsibility as a Committee to recommend to the
7
Board of County Commissioners that they include projectiles shot from gas pressurized guns into
the restrictions we’ve been talking about.
Noting that few members of the Committee were in support of his proposal, Dr. Arvik said he
wanted to raise the issue at least so that people would come to understand that pellet guns could
have the equal power of a rifle. I know I’m not persuading the group, he said, but I want the
minutes to reflect that there is a viable and existing danger from these types of weapons.
Including pellet guns in our firearms safety ordinance would be a quick, easy way to make things
safer that is not going to harm anyone except those that use pellet guns irresponsibly, he said.
Mr. Hunnell said that the concern is legitimate –analogous to requiring carbon monoxide
monitors in homes as a public safety matter –but it is beyond the scope of this Committee. Ms.
Barksdale said that there are people who die from pellet guns, but that statistically it is minimal
compared to those who die from firearms. It is a gun, and it is a projectile, and it is dangerous,
she said.
The Committee then took a break. When it returned, the Committee continueddiscussing the
first draft of a Firearms Safety Ordinance.
Paragraph (h)
Ms. Conti endorsed the suggestion made by the observer Mr. Larry Roberts during the August 1
meeting’s public comment period, that the property owner be held liable for errant projectiles
rather than the shooter. Mr. Kirkland took issue with the suggestion. When you own a hundred
acres, you don’t always know if someone is shooting without permission somewhere on your
power line easement, he said. You might hear the shots, but by the time you or law enforcement
is able to investigate the shooter might be gone. It might be moreacceptable a provision if the
property owner were allowing the errant shooting to occur, he said. Mr. Tesoro asked if
provisions regarding written permission to shoot on or onto another’s property were related to
this issue. Mr. Tilley said that since theshooter is the person who committed the act then the
shooter should be the one held responsible. Mr. Hunnell said that, by analogy, a driver who
causes damage is responsible for that damage, not the car owner. Mr. Kirkland said that the
shooter is responsible for any round that comes from the weaponhe or she fires.
Ms. Conti said that she understands these other perspectives, but wondered if a provision that
holds the property owner responsible would increase the vigilance of property owners over what
happens on their land. Mr. Hunnell said that while it is valid for each member of the Committee
to represent their own personal perspective,the Sheriff should have no responsibility for
enforcing against the persistent shooting in Ms. Conti’s neighborhoodbecause thegun range in
question is grandfathered under the NC Sport Shooting Range Protection statute.Ms. Conti said
that she is not talking about her neighborhood, and that the suggestion to hold property owners
liable came not from her but from the observer Mr. Larry Roberts at the previous Committee
8
meeting. We are here because the citizens of Orange County perceive a firearm safety problem,
she said. We are not here because of the problem in my neighborhood. She asked Mr. Hunnell to
stop saying that her interest in serving on the Committee, and that the reason for the Committee
itself, is based on that neighborhood problem because, she said, it is not true. I am not talking
about another problem other than the one I’m raising now, which is in the interestof all the
citizens of Orange County. If Larry Roberts were here now then he could explain why he too
thinks his idea is spectacular. I only said that I think it is a fine idea. But everyone else has said
no, so let’s move on, she said. Mr. Hunnell replied that he had invited Larry Roberts to attend
again tonight, but only ten minutes in advance of leavingand he was unavailable. Ms. Conti said
that she had found Larry Roberts to be articulate and appreciated his comments.
In reply to a question from Commissioner Jacobs, the County Attorney Mr. John Roberts said
that the draft ordinance as written now does not imply that the Board could impose a fine under
$500. The authorizing State statute says that a fine for a Class III misdemeanor is $50 unless a
Board sets a higher level up to $500. Commissioner Jacobs suggested that the ordinance set the
penalty at “up to” $500 to give the Board discretion. The Board is not going to be inclined to fine
someone $500 right off the bat, especially if the violator says that the fine would be a financial
hardship, and/or that the violation was unintentional, or if the damages or actual threat were
minimal, he said. In reply to a question from Mr. Tesoro, Mr. Roberts said that violators could be
fined $500 for each paragraph that they contravene, for example as much as $2,000 for violating
(c), (d), (e), and (f). Dr. Arvik said that the Committee’s intention at the previous meeting was to
impose a strong financial disincentive to violating the ordinance. Commissioner McKee said that
the Board has been reluctant in other circumstances to impose heavy fines and generally is
adamant against imposing jail time for Class III misdemeanors. Mr. Tilley said that the
Committee could recommend the penalty as it is written in the first draft, and the Board can
choose different language in the ordinance it adopts. The Committeetook a straw poll in which
five of the members present were in favor of changing the language to “up to $500” to give the
Board flexibility, and two were in favor of setting the penalty at $500.
Paragraphs (e) and (f)
Mr. Tilley suggested removing paragraph (f). If under paragraph (e) a deputy is able to ascertain
consumption of an impairing substance in any way –seeing it, smelling it --then why do we
needto specify the use of a breathalyzer in (f), he asked? Chief Deputy Sykes said in reply to
another question from Mr. Tilley that a deputy cannot order a person to take a breathalyzer test
unless theperson is driving a vehicle. Mr. Roberts explained that he had consulted with Chief
Deputy Sykes in preparing these paragraphs. The two paragraphs are intended to address two
different kinds of situations, he said. One is a zero tolerance situation, while the other is evidence
of impairment through a breath-measuring device. Maybe he cannot force someone to blow into
a device or maybe he can –I do not know, said Mr. Roberts --but he certainly can imply that he
can require it in order to convince someone to do it. Chief Deputy Sykes said that a deputy can
9
ask aperson to take a breathalyzer test but cannot force the person to do so. We can prove that a
person was drinking using the facts we are faced with: what’s visible, what’s apparent, the
condition of the shooter, everything that can be articulated. Ms. Barksdale added that a deputy
can go by the behavior of the person. Mr. Hunnell reiterated his support for a zero tolerance
against impaired shooting, but asked how a deputy would determine that shooter enjoying a beer
after completing a shooting session was not in violation. Chief Deputy Sykes said that the
shooter’s explanation would be part of the facts used by the deputy. If you say you’re done
shooting and that you were not drinking before you finished, and we have no reason to think
otherwise, then we will take you at your word.
Noise: Time and/or Distance Restrictions
Mr. Tilley expressed support for adding a time restriction such as is found in the state hunting
law. Mr. Kirkland said that he would be in favor of that as well. Sunday traditionally has been a
day of peace and rest and football, he said, no matter what one’s religion.If we mirrored the
hunting rules then we could give some solace to people to enjoy their Sunday morningwithout
hearing shooting. Ms. Conti said that it does not seem unreasonable, if we already cannot hunt on
Sunday mornings nor in proximity to a residence or house of worshipduring the rest of the day,
to extend that restriction to non-hunting discharges of firearms. Mr. Tilley said that he would be
in favor of extendingthe Sunday prohibition to 6 am –1 pm in order to create a quiet time, and
between 11pm and 6am for all seven days of the week. A lot of people are concerned about the
noise, he said, and most hunters are not going to be shooting between 11pm and 6am. Mr. Tesoro
agreed with having a time limit, but suggested language from other counties’ ordinances
prohibiting shooting an hour or two before sun up and one or two hours after dark. He went on to
share a perspective he was hearing from friends, not necessarily one he agrees with, that all
mornings all week should be quiet. And what about all our neighbors who go to church on
Wednesday nights? Can we respect the quiet for those times too? Mr. Kirkland said that we can
accommodate a few but not all of our neighbors who would like a little more quiet. Ms.
Barksdale said that she agreed with having some time limits. Sunday morning is arbitrary and
traditional, she said. There are plenty of religions that worship at times other than Sunday
mornings, and I feel comfortable choosing Sunday mornings for this ordinance because that is
when a majority of our community would most appreciate the quiet time. Dr. Arvik said he
agreed with both the sunrise/sunset-based restrictions and the Sunday morning restriction. Mr.
Hunnell said that he would prefer quiet zones –reasonable distances, perhaps 500 yards, around
buildings of interest such as houses of worship, schools, day care centers, etc. in which shooting
would be prohibited so that the noise does not bother them. At the same time, I would not like to
restrict a person who works six days a week from shooting a .22 in his backyard with his kids on
a Sunday morning when that might be the only day he’s free to do that. A distance restriction is
more easily enforced than a time restriction, he added. Ms. Conti said that the distance or time
restriction might have its traditional origins in religion, but that today the community’s interest is
in the right tohave some peaceful time. The hunting regulations gave us the idea to do this, and
10
so I would keep the restrictions tied to that context rather than replace the Sunday time and
distance restrictions with distance restrictions only. She reiterated that the hunting restrictions are
on Sundays only, between 9:30 am and 12 Noon, and in proximity to a residence or house of
worship.
However, she added, I also would be in favor of distance restrictions such as in the Lenoir
County ordinance, to avoid noise impacts on residential neighbors.She proposed adding
“residence” to the list of places from which a discharge of a firearm is prohibited within 500 feet
under the Lenoir County ordinance: school, church, daycare, playground, park, recreation area,
or other type of public gathering place. Commissioner Jacobs echoed Mr. Hunnell’s preference
for the term “house of worship” to replace “church.”
In reply to questions from Mr. Tesoro, Chief Deputy Sykes said that time restrictions are
enforceable. However, he said, when we get the call at 2:00 am about sustained shooting then it
is not likely we are going to find anyone when we show up and try to locate the shooter. If we
get a call at 12:59 pm on a Sunday afternoon where an ordinance prohibits shooting between 6
am and 1pm, then we’ll respond and deal with the situation intelligently without being so precise
about whose watch says exactly what time, he said.
Mr. Hunnell posited the situations of asurgeon or airline pilot who have non-traditional work
schedules. They might need to sleep in on Tuesday mornings instead of Sundays. I have a
neighbor who works for IBM and does installations at work in the middle of the night. This is
not North Carolina 1929, it is 2016. Our communities are more dynamic and diverse. Distances
from residences or schools, etc. provides for the peaceful home life we’re all trying to get to, for
everyone. Mr. Tilley asked if the distance would be for all week long. Mr. Hunnell said that it
would. Mr. Tilley asked if 500 yards were a realistic enough distance from one’s neighbors to
allow most people to shoot on their own property. If that is important, said Mr. Hunnell, then we
would need to come up with a shorter distance, say, 250 yards.
Mr. Tesoro said that he had seen somewhere a provision for a minimum lot size requirement,
maybe 10,000 square feet, or maybe it is distance from the point of discharge to a property line,
below which a shooter would need to get permission from their neighbors to shoot. Ms. Conti
said that that provision isin the Harnett County ordinance.
In reply to a question from Commissioner Jacobs, Mr. Roberts said that Orange County prohibits
hunting within 150 yards of any local, state or federal government structure. Commissioner
Jacobs suggested that the group look at that as an existing standard for Orange County which
might be extended to non-hunting shooting and other types of land uses (residences, etc.).
11
In reply to a question from Dr. Arvik, Mr. Roberts reiterated from the previous meeting his
expectation that the Board of County Commissioners will have a work session before the end of
the year to review the County noise ordinance. Dr. Arvik suggested that this Committee
recommend to the Board that firearms noise be considered when the Board takesup that review.
But 150 yards is not enough distance to protect against firearms noise, he said. What is enough
would depend upon the caliber and the direction one is shooting.
Mr. Kirkland said that removal of the firearms exemption from the noise ordinance could
effectively shut down all shooting in Orange County. If we also add restrictions on distance
and/or time and day to a firearms safety ordinance, then we would be putting shooters in double
jeopardy. Either the firearms exemption needs to stay inthe noise ordinance while we put other
restrictions in place to get the noise under control, or we need to know now that we are going to
recommend removal of the firearms exemption from the noise ordinance. Mr. Roberts said that if
the firearms exemption were removed from the noise ordinance then most shooting in Orange
County would indeed be affected, but it would not apply to existing gun ranges because of the
preemptions in theNC Sport Shooting Range Protection Act. Ms. Conti said that distance
restrictions would address both noise and safety concerns. Mr. Hunnell said that there is a
relation across distance, caliber, and direction. As a courtesy to my neighbor, he said, whenI
shoot on some mornings I’ll run my tractor to muffle the noise from my shooting. Mr. Kirkland
acknowledged that Mr. Hunnell is a responsible neighbor, but expressed concerns about shooters
who are not so courteous. The reality is that a shooter can be ahalf mile away from a
neighborhood, and somebody is going to hear that noise, he said. If the firearms exemption is
taken out of the noise ordinance, then that leaves the shooter wide open for prosecution. Mr.
Hunnell said that he can hear people shootingrepetitively on Sunday mornings who are located
more than a mile away. Firearms noise is unique, said Mr. Kirkland, so we need something
unique pertaining to firearms. A generalized approach that depends on meters, for example, is
not going to work for firearms. Why not include an approach to noise in the firearms ordinance,
and leave the firearms exemption in the noise ordinance?Ms. Conti agreed: the noise ordinance
is very specific and talks about noise control in terms of decibels, making it difficult or
impossible to apply to firearms noise. I don’t think it would help simply to lift the firearms
exemption from the noise ordinance, she said. Dr. Arvik said that the two ordinances –firearms
safety and the general noise ordinance –should not be at cross purposes regarding firearms
noise. Mr. Tilley said that firearms noise could be addressed in the firearms safety ordinance
through distance or time, while the exemption from the decibel approach remains in the noise
ordinance. They would not be at cross purposes, he said, but I don’t want to spend time
developing the distance and time restrictions here if later on the Board of Commissioners is
going to remove the firearms exemption from the noise ordinance. Mr. Roberts said that distance
restrictions could be put into a firearms safety ordinance while maintaining the firearms
exemption from the decibel restrictions in the noise ordinance.
12
In reply to a question from Mr. Tilley, Commissioner McKee said that he did not envision the
Board of Commissioners removing the firearms exemption from the noise ordinance.I don’t
think we have defined how the noise ordinance is going to come back to us for review, he said.
Mr. Roberts said that one Commissioner has asked that the noise ordinance come back for a
work session review, but there has been no determination as to how or when that would happen.
Commissioner Jacobs said that it has been an ongoing discussion with Michael Harvey over the
years. The only place it might relate to firearms is to consider the part ofthe Buncombe County
ordinance that talks about “unreasonably loud, disturbing, and unnecessary noise,” and the
associated definitions of those terms. For some people, that would related to ad hoc firing ranges
where shooting is taking place for sustained periods of time and is intrusiveto neighbors because
of the noise. That is the only thing I can think of that has come up in this context, he said. I am
impressed that the Buncombe ordinance has tried to address this, because that is one of the main
concerns we have ever heard in the last ten years, other than hunting deer with dogs across other
people’s property. So that is the only issue relating to firearms that might conceivably come up if
the Board has a noise ordinance work session, but even if that happens it is also likely to
generate discussion about whether the language in the Buncombe ordinance is too vague or too
broad and whether the firearms noise issue already has been addressed by this group. I guess we
will find out when we get there.
Ms. Conti said that if lifting the exemption from the noise ordinance would make it difficult or
impossible for any shooting to take place in Orange County then instead maybe some of the
language from the Buncombe County ordinance could be incorporated into the firearms safety
ordinance. She asked Mr. Roberts to consider incorporating some of the Buncombe language
into his second draft. Mr. Kirkland agreed.
Mr. Tesoro asked if the firearms safety ordinance could state that the firearms exemption will
remain in the general noise ordinance even if the safety ordinance has distance and/or time
restrictions to address noise. The existing noise ordinance does not apply to guns, said Mr.
Roberts, and it will not be affected by what we do here on the safety ordinance.In reply to a
follow-up question from Mr. Tesoro, Mr. Roberts said that if the firearms exemption were lifted
from the existing noise ordinance and, for example, the Buncombe County language were
incorporated into the firearms safety ordinance, then an enforcement officer would have two
avenues to approach a firearms noise complaint. Mr. Tilley called that “double jeopardy.” The
facilitator asked if the Committee could recommend that the firearms exemption not be removed
from the County noise ordinance while also recommending distance and/or Buncombe County-
like language dealing with firearms noise for the firearms safety ordinance. Mr. Tesoro, Mr.
Kirkland, and Ms. Conti said that they liked that option.
Mr. Tilley referenced the definition of “unreasonably loud” from the Chatham County noise
ordinance: “Noise which is substantially incompatible with the time and location where created
13
to the extent that it interferes with peace or good order.” I also think we should add the prima
facie part, he said: “…a duly-authorized law enforcement officer shall be prima facie evidence
that the sound is unreasonably loud and disturbing. Sound emission decibel measurements shall
not be required for establishment of a prima facie case.” This covers everything we need to
cover, he said, and you don’t need a time limit or a distance limit. Ms. Conti agreed: it is like
Deputy Chief Sykes going out to determine what is wanton and reckless, she said. If he has the
discretion to determine what is wanton and reckless, which we have decided he does, then he can
certainly determine this. It makes perfect sense. Mr. Tilley added: if your neighbors are OK with
you shooting then you won’t have a problem. Nobody is going to complain.
Ms. Barksdale asked for Chief Deputy Sykes’ opinion about the use of an officer’s discretion to
enforce against firearms noise using language such as is in the Buncombe or Chatham
ordinances. He said that evidence of sustained shooting will be evidence of a violation. If you
have one neighbor calling about somebody they are not getting along with, then we are going to
weigh that. If you have every neighbor surrounding that shooter calling then that also is weighed.
Mr. Tilley noted that the Chatham County ordinance allows for “The complaints of two or more
persons who have heard the noise, at least one of whom resides in a different home from the
other complaining person or persons…” as prima facie evidence that the sound is unreasonably
loud and disturbing.
Mr. Hunnell said that the parameters of the noise problem appear to be repetitive noise, but we
also need to consider the type of weapon, the direction that the weapon is discharged, and the
distance from the complaining neighbor. It is complex and difficult for a deputy to make a
determination without some really tight standards. Mr. Kirkland said that in complex and
difficult situations he would be comfortable relying on the professional discretion of a law
enforcement officer. It is not practical for us to make rules for noise covering all the different
types of weapons, he said. Ultimately it will fall to the law enforcement officer on the scene to
make that judgment call. Mr. Hunnell recalled that the observer at the previous meeting, Mr.
Larry Roberts, had described a situation where a neighbor complained that Mr. Roberts was
shooting in an unsafe manner. A deputy came out, and it was determined that he was not
shooting in an unsafe manner. Still, the neighbor perceived that the situation was unsafe. Mr.
Tilley recalled that Larry Roberts had then talked with his neighbors and resolved their concerns.
Mr. Tilley said that the Chatham County noise ordinance provides some protection against the
kind of neighborwho complains about everything, by requiring at least two people for a prima
facie case; we can say at least three in Orange County if we want to. Mr. Hunnell said it would
be helpful to see excerpts from the ordinances that were referenced in tonight’s meeting.
Commissioner Jacobs noted that some are concerned that the Board of County Commissioners
would attempt to use the noise ordinance to prohibit the use of firearms. I do not think that will
14
happen, he said, but I would suggest that if theCommittee recommended a revision of the
County noise ordinance along the lines of the Buncombe or Chatham ordinances that it also
recommend explicitly that no other revisions to the noise ordinance be made that would restrict
the use of firearms. The recommendation would not bind the Commissioners, but it will show
this group’s intent to preserve the firearms exemption from the decibel provisions while also
addressing firearms noise.
Paragraph (g)
Mr. Hunnell asked that afourth provision be added to paragraph (g): that nothing in the firearms
safety ordinance be construed to prohibit the discharge of a firearm “When used pursuant to the
State of North Carolina definition of a gun shooting range.” Mr. Roberts said he understood the
proposaland would look into it.
In reply to a question from Dr. Arvik, Mr. Roberts said “in defense of person” under (g) 2 comes
from North Carolina law. To me, that says defending yourself or someone else in your household
or someone else that you are related to; but I can’t give you a specific definition, he said. Dr.
Arvik asked if a specific definition could be provided, because some individuals with concealed
carry permits are interested in being able to protect other people beyond the three categories
suggested by Mr. Roberts. Mr. Roberts said that he was not sure he could do that. Dr. Arvik
asked if Mr. Roberts could provide follow-up information related only to using a firearm to
defend other persons.
Mr. Tilley asked if the Committee had agreed earlier to revising (g) 1. The facilitator recalled
that Mr. Roberts agreed to provide language in a second draft to accommodate Officer Orr’s
suggestion that the ordinance have a more expansive hunting exemption.
Discussion Wrap Up
The facilitator reminded the group that its next meeting will be on Monday, October 17. Prior to
the meeting Mr. Roberts will distribute a second draft ordinance. At the meeting, the Committee
will evaluate the second draft as the Committee did tonight with the first draft. We might be able
to wrap up our work by October 25, the meeting we have scheduled for after the 17th, he said.
The facilitator noted that the Committee also should allow itself some time to discuss guidelines
and training for law enforcement, and any other non-ordinance recommendations the Committee
might want to make.
Comments from Observers
Riley Rusky –Has read all of the meeting minutes and sees that the Committee has done a lot of
work. Believes in “keeping it simple.” The proposed ordinance really only has two categories.
Theeffort to expand it to four is an effort to vindictively increase the fines and penalties for
15
people who violate the ordinance. Paragraphs (c) and (d) in the first draft are the same thing as
each other, and (e) and (f) are the same as each other. It would be more straight-forward to
combine these pairs each into onecategory. Second, one of the Committee members used the
phrase “statistically minimal” when talking about air gun risks. Realistically, looking at the
Sheriff’s data, this whole firearms safety issue is statistically minimal. It does not deserve all the
time and work you have put into it, and it does not deserve a new ordinance. The best
recommendation you can make to the Board of County Commissioners is that there is no need
for a firearms safety ordinance.
Chip Jonathan –Thanked the Committee for giving its time and putting in a lot of work.
Impressed with what the group is doing and confident that the Committee will come up with an
ordinance that makes sense to everyone. The Committee is being somewhat disingenuous when
it dismisses the risks from pellet guns, because you are using a 1929 description of what a
firearm is instead of definition appropriate to 2016. But that’s neither here nor there, because at
the end of the day you are going to put in an ordinance that makes sense. I’m surprised there isn’t
an ordinance of this type already on the books.
Ashley DeSilva –Asked how paragraph (f), which provides for the use of a conforming alcohol
screening device to measure blood alcohol, meshes with Chief Deputy Sykes’s statement during
the meeting that a deputy will ask individuals to take the breathalyzer test. It sounds like
individuals have to consent to a deputy’s request, but I’m not sure. While I do not think it is
unwise to have some kind of measure to allow an investigating officer to assess impairment, I
would not want anyone to read this ordinance and think that they have to consent to a
breathalyzer test unless it is required by law. [Chief Deputy Sykes responded that it is not
required by law].She also said it is good if the Committee actually has moved away from
Sunday restrictions as it appears from discussions toward the end of the meeting. She is
reminded of a regulatory tactic called “bootleggers and Baptists:” Baptists are happy when
alcohol sales are banned on Sundays, and the bootleggers also are happy because they get to sell
it on the black market. The people who are against shooting get to impose a restriction, while the
people who aren’t opposed to shooting are conceding ground to them. North Carolina has a lot of
Blue Laws that restrict activity on Sundays. I would personally like to see us move away from
that. Would the same people who are against shooting on Sunday be against early voting on
Sunday, for example? So I think there’s maybe some partisanship, she said. I encourage
everyone to keep the restrictions as reasonable as possible.
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 9:30 PM