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

Browse Search

29 officer to make the determination with regard to the reasonableness of the noise, she said, then that noise will not be the legitimate kind of shooting activity we're all talking about here. If there are a lot of shooters coming from who-knows-where, firing in who-knows-what direction, then that's the kind of noise that's unreasonable and needs to be stopped. We're not talking about normal shooting. I know what normal shooting is. I live in the country. It happens every day. This is different, and you know it when you hear it. The facilitator suggested that each member of the Committee express an opinion about keeping (g) in the group's recommendations. Should we spend our time trying to improve (g), or should be take it out entirely? Mr. Tilley, noting that Mr. Hunnell was not present this evening, said that the group should not take any binding votes until all the Committee members are present. Mr. Tesoro agreed. Dr. Arvik said that the group cannot wait for Mr. Hunnell to return, since this is supposed to be the Committee's final meeting. Mr. Tesoro said that he had been asked by Mr. Hunnell to let the Committee know that Mr. Hunnell [Tesoro now reading from an email] does "not support the noise clause but suggests that language be added that the two parties not be related and be from the neighborhood affected." The facilitator noted that the group's ground rules contain a quorum rule (to make a decision no fewer than six members must be present) and a decision rule (two more than half of the members present must be in agreement). With seven members present, he said, we have a quorum this evening and six members are needed for a decision tonight. The group agreed to take a non-binding poll on whether to keep (g) or continue working on it. • Mr. Kirkland—Does not support(g) as it is written, and does not know what kind of time is available for the Committee to try to improve it. • Ms. Conti—Feels strongly that there needs to be a noise component to the ordinance if an ordinance is the result of this Committee. • Mr. Webster—Does not support(g), and thinks the noise issue should be deferred to the Board of Commissioners for resolution in the context of the County's noise ordinance. • Mr. Tilley— The Committee is not commissioned to work on the noise ordinance. We've done an excellent job at addressing safety through (a)—(f). Noise does not need to be in the safety ordinance. • Ms. Barksdale—Likes parts of(g), because it gives teeth to law enforcement. Wish it could be part of(c), maybe through some further discussion by the Committee. • Mr. Tesoro—I don't support(g) at all. Agree that we have developed a substantial gun safety ordinance—that is not needed, because we do not have a safety problem— and I am willing to move forward with the draft ordinance without(g). • Dr. Arvik—Proposed a modification of(g), because if a noise provision is not included then we have wasted a lot of people's time and money. 10