Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
31 <br /> or someone else in her office to work with whichever Department is responsible to ensure that <br /> the resolution is carried out. It would then come back to the Board to approve the specifics of the <br /> education effort, and then it would go out through the lead Department. The Committee adopted <br /> the non-ordinance recommendation unanimously. <br /> The Committee then turned its attention back to (g). Mr. Kirkland proposed striking (g) <br /> completely, and leaving any further consideration of the firearms noise issue with the Board of <br /> Commissioners. The matter is too subjective for use to resolve, he said. Dr. Arvik wanted the <br /> Committee to address (g), and proposed that references in the draft to "unreasonably loud"be <br /> deleted. This would leave a mechanism for addressing "disturbing"noise, he said, where <br /> firearms noise is scaring people. Ms. Conti suggested that the clause also be deleted at the end of <br /> the definition of"disturbing:" "and being a type of sound which could be lessened or otherwise <br /> controlled by the maker without unduly restricting his conduct." Mr. Tesoro said that he is not <br /> sure any amount of revision would salvage section (g), and that problematic words for him were <br /> "perceived," "health," and "safety."By the time we get done there will be no (g) left, he said. <br /> Ms. Conti said that Dr. Arvik's proposal was a nice compromise, to the extent that people's <br /> objections to (g) were the inclusion of"unreasonably loud."Mr. Tesoro said that even if <br /> "unreasonably loud"were deleted, there is no way to distinguish between disturbing noise from <br /> unreasonable shooting and disturbing noise from reasonable shooting. <br /> Ms. Conti said that she was feeling "fed up." She said she was flabbergasted (happily)when Mr. <br /> Tilley proposed a solution to the noise issues. But we have not discussed alternatives to this <br /> prima facie option. We have not discussed distance, for example, to address noise although <br /> distance is included in several local ordinances across the state. We set distance aside in our <br /> safety discussions because we said that the prohibition on a projectile crossing the property <br /> boundary to address safety was better than a distance provision. But that still leaves the problem <br /> of people shooting on, say, one acre lots. You might be able to contain the projectile, but the <br /> noise may be disturbing because the shooter is engaged in unreasonable firearm activity so close <br /> to someone else's house. This Committee is tasked with addressing the issue of noise, somehow. <br /> Here we are at the last meeting, at the last minute of the last meeting, and now we're talking <br /> about something we had supposedly resolved, with one little tweak from Mr. Hunnell about an <br /> unrelated person. What are we doing here?? <br /> Mr. Tilley said that at the first meeting he said that the Committee could save itself a lot of <br /> problems by adopting the Lenoir County ordinance. The Committee did not want to do that, he <br /> said. Ms. Conti said that the whole gun community from the beginning had advocated for the <br /> Lenoir County ordinance. Well, she said, Lenoir doesn't have anything in it that is going to solve <br /> the noise problem. You people said that Lenoir does not have any teeth in it, and the irony is that <br /> this is what we have wound up with. The draft ordinance with(g)removed is so <br /> indistinguishable from Lenoir that one would think that the whole Committee came in <br /> 12 <br />