Browse
Search
Agenda - 12-05-2016 - 7-a - Recommendations of the Firearms Safety Committee
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
2010's
>
2016
>
Agenda - 12-05-2016 - Regular Mtg.
>
Agenda - 12-05-2016 - 7-a - Recommendations of the Firearms Safety Committee
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/30/2017 9:08:31 AM
Creation date
12/2/2016 8:44:13 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
12/5/2016
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
7a
Document Relationships
Minutes 12-05-2016
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Minutes - Approved\2010's\2016
ORD-2016-011 (Deferred) Amendment to the Orange County Code of Ordinances – Regulating the Discharge of Firearms
(Message)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Ordinances\Ordinance 2010-2019\2016
ORD-2016-046 Ordinance Amending Section. 24-3 - Regulating the Discharge of Firearms
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Ordinances\Ordinance 2010-2019\2016
RES-2016-078 Resolution Amending Chapter 24 of the OC Code of Ordinances - Discharge of Firearms
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Resolutions\2010-2019\2016
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
37
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
8 <br /> Wake County, 900 feet in Mecklenburg County, 500 yards in Cabarrus County, and yes, 500 feet <br /> in Lenoir County from various buildings and areas. <br /> This Committee never even discussed distance. And, it never discussed a reasonable size <br /> for property from which a person can shoot. And, it never discussed, what constitutes a <br /> reasonable berm, or how far the berm must be from a residence. The Committee never discussed <br /> what caliber of firearm can be fired on any given property or what kind of target can be used. We <br /> never talked about what hours of the day are reasonable for shooting, or why it is acceptable to <br /> regulate hunting on Sundays, but not recreational shooting. You may wonder why these issues <br /> were never addressed in any meaningful manner, but that has everything to do with the <br /> composition of the committee: six out of eight Committee members are part of the gun <br /> community. <br /> There was a lot of talk among Committee members about a distinction between "real" <br /> safety issues, and "perceived" safety issues. This line of thinking holds that if people are firing <br /> their guns responsibly, and there have been no deaths in Orange County, there should be no need <br /> to regulate shooting,just because another person has a feeling of being unsafe. But, this <br /> distinction is meaningless to the person who is hearing persistent shooting, when they don't <br /> know how far away the shooter(s) are, from what direction they are firing, what caliber they are <br /> shooting from what range, and how many errant rounds are being shot. For that person, safety is <br /> an issue that just as real as standing next to a person with a gun, and the noise that alarmed those <br /> folks in the first place is tied to safety for them. There should be a component for regulating <br /> noise in some ordinance. Even a speaker from the gun community remarked that the "the mission <br /> of this Committee is not about firearms restriction; it is about noise and safety." <br /> None of this has anything to do with the Second Amendment. As another observer said, <br /> "the Second Amendment gives you the right to bear arms; it does not give you the right to shoot <br /> them anytime, anywhere, anyhow you want." The reality of life in Orange County, after living <br /> here nearly thirty years, is that times have changed, like it or not. The 100 acre tract where your <br /> family has been shooting for decades has now been surrounded by people who moved to the <br /> county, for better or worse, to have some distance and peace. If there is a need for an ordinance <br /> now, the gun community can thank their less respectful shooters who use high-powered rifles <br /> and exploding targets as if they were toys. <br /> The gun community was given an opportunity to provide input into a proposed firearm <br /> safety and noise ordinance. Their answer to the BOCC is an ordinance that is designed to <br /> assuage the fears of the gun community that their Second Amendment freedom is being <br /> infringed, and that ordinance is meaningless. As presently drafted,the proposed ordinance would <br /> make it legal to shoot an automatic rifle on a quarter of an acre of land, at an exploding target, at <br /> 2:00 in the morning, into any berm that the shooter deems appropriate, 50 feet from an occupied <br /> dwelling, and to fire those rounds as long as the ammunition holds out. <br /> The non-shooting community has freedoms,too, like safety and peace. While this <br /> ordinance does little to restrict the freedom of the shooters, it does nothing to protect the <br /> freedoms of the non-shooters. I was apparently appointed to the Committee to represent the <br /> interests of the non-shooting community, and they are going to wonder what I was doing with <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.