Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
23 <br /> merely to limit the rights of people like myself to safely enjoy an occasional round of target <br /> shooting with my family/friends on my own private property. <br /> The regulations are in many cases excessive. I will provide three examples, although I think <br /> the entire amendment needs to be rewritten and clarified. First, the construction of a backstop <br /> 15 feet high and 30 feet deep is not necessary except for even the most powerful centerfire <br /> rifles, (not to mention it may not be a good idea to use steel); the cost of such a backstop <br /> would allow only the relatively wealthy to meet the requirement. Second, the posting of signs <br /> every 100 feet is not necessary, as trespassing on private property is already prohibited; thus it <br /> is unclear what the purpose of this part of the amendment would serve except to be a burden <br /> on anyone trying to fulfill the requirements. Posting of signs on any property large enough to <br /> qualify for shooting would not only be expensive, but in my neighborhood, would be unsightly, <br /> as almost everyone shoots occasionally. And posting signs in the middle of farmland bordered <br /> by other farmland is just a waste of time and money. I should also point out that I think this and <br /> many other pieces of this amendment are essentially unenforceable. Finally, the blanket <br /> restriction of shooting between 10:00 am and 6:00 pm, and the restriction of shooting to 2 <br /> days/month have no logical or legal justification. We do not restrict golfers to only enjoy their <br /> hobby two days a month, nor do we prohibit motorcycles, dirt bikes, and other noisy, equally <br /> dangerous activities to certain hours. I work full time during the week, and according to this <br /> amendment, if I was to practice a few rounds of target shooting with my .22 caliber rifle on 3 or <br /> 4 Sat. mornings, I could be sentenced to 30 days in prison. Really? I do not think this was the <br /> initial intent of this amendment, but it is the way the amendment currently reads. <br /> In conclusion, I think there are many issues raised by this amendment. Instead of rushing to <br /> pass a hastily designed piece of legislation that will be subjected to many challenges, I suggest <br /> the board address each issue separately and carefully. In my reading of the amendment, those <br /> issues would be the operation of a business in a residential area, reasonable safety <br /> issues/concerns, and perhaps a noise restriction. <br /> Based on the above, and many other issues I am sure others will raise, I respectfully urge you <br /> to NOT approve this amendment until sufficient time has been allowed for the amendment to <br /> be publicized, discussed in public forums, and studied carefully by legal experts. <br /> While I would appreciate a written response outlining your thoughts on this matter, I also plan <br /> on being in attendance at the meeting tonight to see how my concerns about this amendment <br /> are addressed. <br /> Sincerely, <br /> Lawrence E. Ostrowski <br /> Hurdle Mills, NC <br /> All members of the Orange County Board of Commissioners, might I suggest an alternative <br /> from what appears a punitive approach, e.g., forbidding, to an economic approach! <br /> Using the material from the NRA's Shooting Range Services <br /> (http://range.nra.org/sourcebook.aspx) or similar guidance from the National Shooting Sports <br /> Foundation, to ensure your new ordinance guidelines meet some semblance of <br /> standardization, thus assuring those wishing to engage in firearm range activities do so <br /> following established proven standards - citizens/corp failure to do so are then sanctioned and <br /> subject to punitive activities, as warranted. <br />