Browse
Search
Meeting Notes 062216
OrangeCountyNC
>
BOCC Archives
>
Advisory Boards and Work Groups - Inactive
>
Firearms Safety Committee
>
Approved Meeting Notes
>
Meeting Notes 062216
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/10/2018 8:55:24 AM
Creation date
8/10/2018 8:55:11 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
20
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
19 <br />not conscientious. Please don’t have people who are not conversant in land <br />measurement or the technical aspects of firearms setting technical standards. The <br />guts of what we are trying to do is contain the projectile so that it doesn’t get onto <br />other people’s property. <br />Ashley DeSena –In late February/early March I took it upon myself, with other <br />citizens of Orange County, to circulate a petition that says if we have to have an <br />additional ordinance then we would like it to be modeled on the Lenoir County <br />ordinance. I would like to submit the petition, all the signatures we have collected <br />on it, and an attachment that is an edited version of the Lenoir County ordinance in <br />which I have substituted “Orange” for “Lenoir” to show people what the ordinance <br />would look like here. We collected hundreds of signatures in a week, without that <br />much effort and so quickly that I did not even get my husband’s signature; we <br />could have gotten more. A few hundred if not several hundred people who could <br />not be here tonight know of and are in favor of this type of ordinance, which tries <br />to address all the public safety issues. The only thing I did not see in the Lenoir <br />County ordinance that Committee members have said they are concerned about is <br />intoxicated shooting. There might be language already in here that could be <br />interpreted to address that, but I think it would be perfectly reasonable if you want <br />to work that into the ordinance. <br />Linda Galloway –Asked why “reckless endangerment” would not be a sufficient <br />existing principle to use to enforce against intoxicated shooting. If someone is on <br />their own property but acting in a way that would endanger someone off of their <br />property then why would that not be enough for a deputy to arrest them? I have <br />problems with drunks in our area, too. Also, lots of people on social media are <br />concerned about how much the facilitator is being paid. The amount --$125/hour – <br />saddens me. We have soldiersin Afghanistan;I have friends who are fighting <br />there. I’m blown away that this Committee is willing to sit here for two and a half <br />hours, and saddened that all you allthink that that is acceptable. I’m very <br />disappointed in the County for doing this.Shealso asked Commissioner McKee to <br />remindCommittee members that when they were picked to serve on the <br />Committee they were obligated to attend every meeting. <br />Lindsay Tapp–This looks like more of a noise problem than it is a gun problem. <br />It’s already illegal to shoot on someone else’s property without their permission. If <br />the projectile does not leave your property then it is not a safety problem, it is only <br />a noise problem. What difference does it make if the noise comes from a gun, a <br />chain saw, or a boom box? Seems to me we should be looking at this like it’s a <br />noise problem, not a gun problem.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.