Meeting Notes 080116 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

11 Containing the ProjectileMr. Tilley asked the Committee to consider the Lenoir County ordinance. An ordinance like this that simply requires the shooter to keep their projectiles on their property leaves it up to the shooter to figure out the best way to do that; there would be no need for specific back stop or berm requirements. Dr. Arvik said that the ordinance should define what a safe back stop is and require its use, because those elements would enable a deputy to enforce responsible shooting. Chief Sykes said that specific back stop or berm requirements actually would be difficult to enforce.Every responding officer does not know the difference between, for example, a .22 rifle and a 7mm Magnum. If we determine that a back stop is sufficient for a .22, but the next day the shooter is using a .30-30, or a .308, or a 7mm, then we’ll have a problem. We’ll be brought into the liability side of it. Officer Orr added that a berm requirement, say 30’ x 30’, might keep the property behind it safe but not necessarily the properties on each side; there would be no enforcement against projectiles going onto those other properties. But a simple prohibition against the projectile crossing the property line can be enforced directly. Mr. Hunnel said that the NRA has 20-30 pages extensively defining acceptable back stops, including those with roofs. Extensiverequirements would preclude individuals from shooting in their backyards without incurring great costs, he said. Mr. Kirkland said that a shooter should be allowed to choose the method by which the projectile is contained. A big log pile could work, or a pile of good old Orange County red dirt. We can’t legitimately say that is has to be manufactured and built in specific ways in order for it to be effective. The point is to keep that projectile on your property. We can make multiple recommendations as to the different means to do this,but we should not mandate the specific means. Mr. Tesoro wondered whether it would work to require an effective back stop without requiring any particular form of back stop. There was not an effective back stop in the situation described by Dr. Arvik at the June and July Committee meetings, he said. A general requirement for an effective back stop would have allowed the deputy to stop the shooter. Chief Sykes agreed that in that situation it would have been a clear cut violation if a general requirement for an effective back stop were in place at the time. An officer could write a report clearly describing that a shooter was using an AR-15 with a 1/8” piece of plywood; that was not a reasonable back stop, he said. The group agreed at 9:15 to hear from observers. Comments from Observers Michael Joerling –As difficult as it is to say, we’re trying through the development of this ordinance to address the people who don’t care. They are not like the people here who are responsible gun users. There may not be a lot we can do about this, some of the problems we just have to live with. But those are the people we have to worry about. We wouldn’t have to be here if people respected each other’s peace and quiet and privacy and were aware of what is in the direction they are shooting. We’re all gun owners and like to shoot, and nobody wants to give up anything, but I have neighbors who are not gun owners and I have to respect them. They’re hoping they can have a peaceful weekend, and occasionally they do not. I’ve sometimes had to go to a shooter and ask them to stop, but I won’t do it again because now I feel threatened. Those are thepeople we are trying to corral. That’s the toughest bunch.