Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
15 <br />people who violate the ordinance. Paragraphs (c) and (d) in the first draft are the same thing as <br />each other, and (e) and (f) are the same as each other. It would be more straight-forward to <br />combine these pairs each into onecategory. Second, one of the Committee members used the <br />phrase “statistically minimal” when talking about air gun risks. Realistically, looking at the <br />Sheriff’s data, this whole firearms safety issue is statistically minimal. It does not deserve all the <br />time and work you have put into it, and it does not deserve a new ordinance. The best <br />recommendation you can make to the Board of County Commissioners is that there is no need <br />for a firearms safety ordinance. <br />Chip Jonathan –Thanked the Committee for giving its time and putting in a lot of work. <br />Impressed with what the group is doing and confident that the Committee will come up with an <br />ordinance that makes sense to everyone. The Committee is being somewhat disingenuous when <br />it dismisses the risks from pellet guns, because you are using a 1929 description of what a <br />firearm is instead of definition appropriate to 2016. But that’s neither here nor there, because at <br />the end of the day you are going to put in an ordinance that makes sense. I’m surprised there isn’t <br />an ordinance of this type already on the books. <br />Ashley DeSilva –Asked how paragraph (f), which provides for the use of a conforming alcohol <br />screening device to measure blood alcohol, meshes with Chief Deputy Sykes’s statement during <br />the meeting that a deputy will ask individuals to take the breathalyzer test. It sounds like <br />individuals have to consent to a deputy’s request, but I’m not sure. While I do not think it is <br />unwise to have some kind of measure to allow an investigating officer to assess impairment, I <br />would not want anyone to read this ordinance and think that they have to consent to a <br />breathalyzer test unless it is required by law. [Chief Deputy Sykes responded that it is not <br />required by law].She also said it is good if the Committee actually has moved away from <br />Sunday restrictions as it appears from discussions toward the end of the meeting. She is <br />reminded of a regulatory tactic called “bootleggers and Baptists:” Baptists are happy when <br />alcohol sales are banned on Sundays, and the bootleggers also are happy because they get to sell <br />it on the black market. The people who are against shooting get to impose a restriction, while the <br />people who aren’t opposed to shooting are conceding ground to them. North Carolina has a lot of <br />Blue Laws that restrict activity on Sundays. I would personally like to see us move away from <br />that. Would the same people who are against shooting on Sunday be against early voting on <br />Sunday, for example? So I think there’s maybe some partisanship, she said. I encourage <br />everyone to keep the restrictions as reasonable as possible. <br />The meeting was adjourned at approximately 9:30 PM