Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
11 <br />In reply to a question from Dr. Arvik, Mr. Roberts reiterated from the previous meeting his <br />expectation that the Board of County Commissioners will have a work session before the end of <br />the year to review the County noise ordinance. Dr. Arvik suggested that this Committee <br />recommend to the Board that firearms noise be considered when the Board takesup that review. <br />But 150 yards is not enough distance to protect against firearms noise, he said. What is enough <br />would depend upon the caliber and the direction one is shooting. <br />Mr. Kirkland said that removal of the firearms exemption from the noise ordinance could <br />effectively shut down all shooting in Orange County. If we also add restrictions on distance <br />and/or time and day to a firearms safety ordinance, then we would be putting shooters in double <br />jeopardy. Either the firearms exemption needs to stay inthe noise ordinance while we put other <br />restrictions in place to get the noise under control, or we need to know now that we are going to <br />recommend removal of the firearms exemption from the noise ordinance. Mr. Roberts said that if <br />the firearms exemption were removed from the noise ordinance then most shooting in Orange <br />County would indeed be affected, but it would not apply to existing gun ranges because of the <br />preemptions in theNC Sport Shooting Range Protection Act. Ms. Conti said that distance <br />restrictions would address both noise and safety concerns. Mr. Hunnell said that there is a <br />relation across distance, caliber, and direction. As a courtesy to my neighbor, he said, whenI <br />shoot on some mornings I’ll run my tractor to muffle the noise from my shooting. Mr. Kirkland <br />acknowledged that Mr. Hunnell is a responsible neighbor, but expressed concerns about shooters <br />who are not so courteous. The reality is that a shooter can be ahalf mile away from a <br />neighborhood, and somebody is going to hear that noise, he said. If the firearms exemption is <br />taken out of the noise ordinance, then that leaves the shooter wide open for prosecution. Mr. <br />Hunnell said that he can hear people shootingrepetitively on Sunday mornings who are located <br />more than a mile away. Firearms noise is unique, said Mr. Kirkland, so we need something <br />unique pertaining to firearms. A generalized approach that depends on meters, for example, is <br />not going to work for firearms. Why not include an approach to noise in the firearms ordinance, <br />and leave the firearms exemption in the noise ordinance?Ms. Conti agreed: the noise ordinance <br />is very specific and talks about noise control in terms of decibels, making it difficult or <br />impossible to apply to firearms noise. I don’t think it would help simply to lift the firearms <br />exemption from the noise ordinance, she said. Dr. Arvik said that the two ordinances –firearms <br />safety and the general noise ordinance –should not be at cross purposes regarding firearms <br />noise. Mr. Tilley said that firearms noise could be addressed in the firearms safety ordinance <br />through distance or time, while the exemption from the decibel approach remains in the noise <br />ordinance. They would not be at cross purposes, he said, but I don’t want to spend time <br />developing the distance and time restrictions here if later on the Board of Commissioners is <br />going to remove the firearms exemption from the noise ordinance. Mr. Roberts said that distance <br />restrictions could be put into a firearms safety ordinance while maintaining the firearms <br />exemption from the decibel restrictions in the noise ordinance.