Agenda - 03-22-2016 - 6-a - Minutes

Browse Search

20 1 Where I'm going with this is, if the county is going to require that I erect and maintain said 2 signs, of a certain type, in a certain manner, for the protection of others, then will the county 3 step in and protect me from civil and criminal lawsuits in the event of an injury or death? In 4 other words, since the county is requiring me as a land owner and shooter to do this, then it 5 seems only logical that the county has removed my responsibility and liability for injury or death 6 (criminal and civil) due to firearm activity. Since the property is clearly marked (by county 7 regulation) then the argument of "I didn't see it," by a Trespasser should thereby be null and 8 void, as the county has recommended, required, and concluded that this is more than adequate 9 to prevent wrongful injury or death to those unknowing of the discharge of firearms on said 10 property. That in turn, puts a tremendous legal burden on the county if something like this 11 should occur. 12 In addition, this amendment could potentially and inadvertently pave the way for further 13 amendments that incorporate even more cumbersome restrictions. As I stated earlier, for me 14 and many others, it is very foreseeable the installment of an inspection process for backstops 15 or properties where private landowners shoot on a regular basis (see previous paragraph and 16 apply accordingly). Could this amendment lead into further restrictions on shooting times and 17 dates? No shooting on certain holidays? Noise ordinance restrictions? Excessive calls to law 18 enforcement for perceived violations? In many ways, this amendment seems to burden the 19 average land owner and shooter with requirements that aren't even as strict as they are for 20 currently operated for-profit shooting ranges, according to the existing regulations. 21 22 With those things said, let me attempt to reason through the perceived need for such a 23 restrictive amendment. In my mind I can foresee where the perceived need for this amendment 24 came from. Likely a "backyard shooter" or shooters who are constantly and recklessly engaging 25 in the unsafe discharging of firearms, likely, in an area of higher population density. No shock 26 there, I've seen it myself and was simply left to shake my head at the complete ignorance and 27 stupidity of such actions. With the proposal of this amendment, and this sort of situation, my 28 thoughts take off into how the county could deal with this type of situation without restricting the 29 rights of so many others. We have all seen too many times in the history of legislation, where 30 good intentions with a law often restrict many that it was never intended to affect. Why let the 31 actions of a few"bad apples spoil it for the rest of us," one could ask. So I question the county 32 about such a situation with the laws and tools that is already has available to it. If someone 33 were constantly shooting, in close proximity, to others at "all hours of the night", wouldn't that 34 constitute as a noise violation? Could someone who engaged in this sort of behavior, for 35 valueless reasons, be considered to be disturbing the peace? Especially if it is something that 36 happens in a regular manner and easily definable as a deliberately harassing gesture. If 37 someone is shooting in an unsafe manner (firing on to someone else's property or discharging 38 a firearm without means for ensuring the safety of others), wouldn't that be considered reckless 39 endangerment or better yet criminal negligence? Surely both carry a higher penalty and fine 40 than a simple misdemeanor, which I would much rather see someone charged with for this type 41 of behavior. As I repeat, any person who pick-ups a firearm, in my opinion, has immediately 42 signed a binding contract that requires them to protect the safety of everyone and everything 43 around them. I mean that in a literal sense. Any responsible shooter knows several things right 44 off the bat; treat every firearm as if it were loaded, keep 45