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

Browse Search

23 feel that you are entitled to investigate. I have put up No Trespassing signs, which people ignore, and I have spoken to them to ensure that it does not happen again. I do what I can to ensure that I and all my people are going to be safe. I handle every one of my shooters. As a CCH instructor I make sure that my students know how to shoot before they leave. I take the extra time to do that. But it's true, they might not all do that. I know casual shooters, but I am not a casual shooter. I'll be the first one to jump into somebody's business and say, "You need to be more careful," or "You need to make sure you have that." But I do it in a friendly way. Not in a manner that's ungoverned. I do it in a common sense way, which we all know is not all that common. I don't understand when people say gunfire sounds dangerous, because a barking dog sounds dangerous to me, rap music sounds dangerous; we can't go by what sounds dangerous. A gun can be dangerous in the wrong hands, but that is not what this Committee is here to address. The draft is telling me what I can and cannot do, on land that has been in my family's hands for generations. That offends me. It offends me that this is your business when I'm not hurting you, not placing you in danger. Even though you perceive it that way. I'm helping countless women. I have brand new shooters. Women who have never picked up a gun. By the time we're done they are empowered, they are confident in their abilities. And I encourage them: this is where it starts, and this is where it stops. A formal range is expensive, and a lot of these ladies are not going to do it. So they will carry a handgun, licensed by the State of North Carolina, by whatever County they are in, without training if you put severe limitations on them. Andy [last name?]— Thanked Committee for taking the time to listen to meeting observers' comments. Is concerned that language in section(g) addressing noise is arbitrary and ambiguous, and potentially limits what he can do on his own property. Prefers to shoot at a gun club, because everything already is set up there, but sometimes likes to shoot on his own 10-acres. I can build a berm, I can comply with that part, but has had experiences with neighbors about the noise from his shooting. I have alerted them that I was going to shoot, and it was not received well. They have a problem with the noise. I'm afraid that the ambiguous language in the draft ordinance if it were passed into law could be abused by people who just don't want others to shoot. Riley Rusky—Thanked the Committee for all the hard work it has done. But you have worked for a solution to a non-existing problem. When all is said and done, this is no different from your very first meeting, when the data presented by the various police departments showed there is no problem to be solved here about firearms safety. There just aren't the incidents. So you devolved to the issue of noise, and ended up with a very incomprehensible way to determine how shooting is too noisy. I don't understand it, and I don't know if anyone else can understand it. I don't see how you can enforce it in a fair and consistent manner. I see in the draft that you still want to maintain the compounding of errors so you can maximize the penalties to anybody who does make a mistake and gets caught. I think that is absolutely wrong. You're splitting it up into little segments so you can fine people on each different item. C'mon folks: treat people decently and 4