Minutes 02-16-2016 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

12 if he meets one of ten items, one meets the ordinance. He said this is a difficult ordinance to read and understand. He agreed that the backstop issue is excessive. He said he has 50 acres and would require 100 signs. He said he wonders how signage will be enforced, and the purpose of it on portions of land where shooting does not occur. He said he finds the signs to be an unfunded mandate; and if the County desires signs, the County should provide them. He said there are many inconsistencies in this ordinance. He said if some people did complain, how are the rights of one side balanced with the rights of the other side. He does not agree with a hunting committee but rather asks the BOCC to vote the ordinance down. Dan Axson said he is an avid hunter and shooter. He said to a lot of people target practice means training, and one needs to train for the type of environment in which one might find oneself. He said if problems do arise, the Sheriff's office will typically show up, and thus he sees no reason for an ordinance. He said there are many turkey shoots in the county that serve as fundraisers and believes this ordinance will take away these positive community events. He also noted children involved with Future Farmers of America may be adversely affected by this ordinance. He referred to the required signage and said he does not want to advertise that he has firearms. He said if the ordinance goes through, he is greatly concerned what else may be taken away from the citizens. Darin Knapp read the following email: Chairman McKee and members of the Board, Thank you all for the opportunity to be present tonight and for the opportunity to speak. My wife and I are here in support of tabling the proposed gun ordinance and to suggest that the Board re-evaluates the motivations behind this initiative and uses that re-evaluation to guide the course of any follow-on initiative. Having read the documents surrounding this issue, and having long considered the customs and traditions of our rural neighbors and farmers, some of whom are gun enthusiasts, it appears clear to me that this discussion is being led from a narrow place despite having over-reaching implications that would unfairly restrict the private use of land by a large constituency of our County. Nowhere in the documentation on this proposed ordinance could I find meaningful reference to the healthy traditions that surround shooting sports or about how regular target shooting makes for a hunter who has solid command of guns and is thus safer to him or herself or others. One doesn't have to be a gun enthusiast to respect those who are. Perceptions and reality need parsed out here, particularly with regard to the safety concerns and discomfort of some that have apparently arisen as a consequence of others enjoying their hobbies and honing their skills on their private land. What exactly are the perceived threats that seem to motivate discussions here? What evidence is there? Will perceived threats, instead of actual threats, rule the day? How many bullet holes have we counted? How many citizens have been killed or injured by a gun hobbyist target practicing on their own nearby land? Compare that number to all the other well-documented threats that citizens face and put the issue in perspective. I think it's helpful to remember that the term "gun enthusiast" does not translate into "criminal." There can be little doubt that the motivation behind this proposal arises in part from a fear of the sound of a gunshot, regardless of how far away it is or how unjustified this fear is. Of all the sounds that one may hear out in the county, a gunshot is not typically top of the decibel list. These are not the things we want Sheriff Blackwood and his deputies focusing their time, energy, and tax dollars on.