Agenda - 12-05-2016 - 7-a - Recommendations of the Firearms Safety Committee

Browse Search

21 Statutes. If there is a problem with the General Statutes then we should fix them, but we do not need to pile regulations upon the statutes. Additionally, a lot of people who live in the rural area know that in such areas people are going to hunt, engage in sports shooting, etc. It's like living near the airport and complaining about the sound of the airplanes. I bought my house knowing it was near a railroad line. I don't complain. If you live in the rural area then sometimes guns will go off. If they are not shooting at you then don't worry. And if it keeps going late at night, then there is a General Statute for that. Chad Resnik—Noted that there are no time restrictions in the definition of"unreasonably loud." Explained that all firearms create noise within the range of 164-169 decibels. What is different across situations is the amount of time that the firearm stays at that peak noise. For example, the peak millisecond of sound pressure for a .50 rifle stays at that higher level. Anything moving at rate sufficient to create a supersonic crack will usually create noise in the range of 164-169 decibels. So, the noise is the same except for the length of time it is sustained. Asked who will decide whether or not the length of time is unreasonable or inappropriate. I bought the 18 acres I live on so that I could shoot. I shoot far away from others. I own a suppressor company. I shoot at night. I want to be sure that if the County is going to impose restrictions that, first, the restrictions can be followed and, second, I can understand them so I'm not that dude everyone hates. Said he wants to follow the rules, but needs a plain English definition of"disturbing" in order to do so, as opposed to what he is reading in the draft ordinance, especially the last part, "being a type of sound which could be lessened or otherwise controlled by the maker without unduly restricting his conduct." Is it the intention that people use suppressors? I can't tell. My other concern is, given the ease with which people are able to obtain a CCH permit— and this is not going to make me popular-- that we have people who cannot shoot. I am a Department of Defense sniper instructor, doing a lot of work with elite Special Forces groups. I am the sniper instructor for the NC Tactical Officers Association. I and another person, a Chapel Hill officer, are the only ones certified to go onto a military range, and so help to make the Association's SWAT Competition possible. I am a Concealed Carry Handgun instructor. The state requires that I teach you to clean your gun but not how to carry your gun safely. The draft ordinance limits the avenues people have to train on their own property on their own time. We're not going to change the fact that people are carrying concealed handguns, but we can try not to obstruct their ability to do it safely. The current draft ordinance is much better than the earlier version; this one is less horrible. I understand the concerns completely. I don't like having people outside of my back window shooting. I don't like it now hearing others shoot at the distance I'm hearing it, and I would not like it if they were closer to me. We are moving down the right path. I was under the impression that this is a gun safety committee, not a regulate-how-guns-are-used committee. There is a reason the Second Amendment is second only to the rights to speech,press,petition, assembly, and religion. It is an unalienable right the Creator gave us. We're not having a discussion about whether or not I can have a gun. Right now we are arguing whether or not I can shoot it on my property. I think that there is some middle ground here. We really have to take 2