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

Browse Search

26 Dr. Arvik asked how—without(g) -- law enforcement or a neighbor would know that somebody is shooting improperly. How would we know a situation exists where there is a likelihood of an errant bullet? Dr. Arvik reiterated the situation he witnessed in May, where a trained individual was on his own property shooting into crushed rock toward a neighborhood less than 100 yards away. Law enforcement had nothing it could use to stop that man from shooting. Section(g) would give law enforcement the ability to say, "I received the noise complaint, heard the shooting myself, investigated further, determined that the situation was not right, and intervened to stop the shooter before injury or damage occurred." The only reason the deputy would know about the shooter was the noise, so you can't separate the noise complaint from the incident. Mr. Tilley said that if sections (c) and(e)had been in force during that situation in May then the law enforcement officers could have intervened to stop the shooter. Section (g)would not have been needed, he said. A neighbor can hear shooting, call 911, and get an investigation into the safety of the situation without section(g). Dr. Arvik said that if a neighbor or law enforcement officer does not hear an errant shot, then the only sound will be when that bullet strikes a person or someone else's property. That's too late, he said. Something has to trigger that phone call. That is why we need section (g), and training for the deputies, which Deputy Chief Sykes has assured me is happening, he said. Ms. Barksdale said that she likes having the two civilian complainants as necessary complements to the law enforcement officer in section (g). It's unfair to have the law enforcement officer as the sole person making the complaint about the noise. Mr. Tesoro said that(g) is far too subjective to be enforceable or fair. It leaves too much up to the discretion of neighbors, especially nasty neighbors. I see no reason why, if someone sees a dangerous situation as Dr. Arvik did, you need an ordinance with a noise provision to stop the shooter. Dr. Arvik replied that he had heard the shooting before he saw it. Mr. Tesoro said that if you hear gun fire you can call 911 and get a response even without(g) in the ordinance. In reply to a question from Mr. Tesoro, Chief Deputy Sykes said— off the top of his head -- that his office responded to something along the lines of 450 calls regarding gun shots throughout the year in 2012. Don't hold me to that number, he said. But we responded to the report of gun fire and investigated. Dr. Arvik replied that in May he called 911 three times, and had to argue with the operator to get somebody to come out while the shooting was taking place. It wasn't so bad when he was shooting a .22 pistol. But then he pulled out an AR-15 .223. The deputy said it was only a .22, and he had no authority to stop the shooter because the shooter was on his own private land. It was a Saturday afternoon and he was shooting into my neighborhood where there were 7 preschoolers running around. I want something that will give law enforcement the 7