Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
25 <br /> backstop you need in order to stop whatever kinds of rounds you are shooting. This ordinance is <br /> just a way to solidify what most of us is already doing. <br /> I have some problems with some of the definitions in item(g), he said. Who is going to decide if <br /> something is unreasonably loud? How do we weigh that? And why would "injures"be included <br /> in the definition of"disturbing" if we're talking about noise? How does "health" come into play <br /> if we're talking about noise? And we've already addressed the safety issue, so that doesn't need <br /> to be there. <br /> In reply to a question from Mr. Kirkland, Mr. Roberts said that he is not seeking any outcome or <br /> intent in particular through the language he provided to the Committee in the draft. The language <br /> came pretty much from Chatham County's ordinance, he said. We can change it however the <br /> Committee would like to change it. If you are not comfortable with any definition or any word in <br /> this section then it can be removed. I don't have any opinion of what the Committee's intent was, <br /> he said. <br /> Mr. Kirkland said that the noise provision is so open-ended that it makes too many situations <br /> possible where somebody's shooting would be restricted. For example, the definition of <br /> "disturbing" can be applied too broadly. "Peace" and"safety" in (g) are going to be based on <br /> who is making the complaint, what their comfort level is with gun use. If they are the kind of <br /> person who just does not like guns, then anytime somebody shoots a firearm the person will feel <br /> endangered. No matter how safe the shooting range is. <br /> Mr. Roberts said that he had two exchanges today about section (g). One was an email exchange <br /> and the other was a telephone call. In one exchange, he said, I had the opportunity to clarify that <br /> section(g) as it is written would only apply to two people and the law enforcement officer <br /> complaining about the same incident. Also, if a deputy issued a citation, then ultimately a judge <br /> would decide if a violation of the ordinance had occurred: whether the noise was unreasonably <br /> loud or disturbing. The judge would do so by putting himself in the position of a prudent person <br /> or a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities. That's a standard found in a lot of legal issues, <br /> even beyond this. The other conversation I had today helped to clarify that section(g) is the most <br /> vulnerable to being abused of the draft ordinance provisions. Neighborhood disagreements could <br /> be viewed as being resolvable by one or more neighbors by calling a deputy and utilizing section <br /> (g). So, on the one hand section(g) is legally enforceable using the reasonable person standard, <br /> and on the other hand it is subject to being abused more than any of the other provisions. <br /> Mr. Tilley agreed with Mr. Kirkland regarding support for sections (a)—(f). When the <br /> Committee was established, he said, it was for firearms safety. Noise was never mentioned. We <br /> were never charged to fix the noise problem. It just kind of evolved as we went on. We don't <br /> need to change (g), he said, we need to omit it. <br /> 6 <br />