Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
7 <br />Board of County Commissioners that they include projectiles shot from gas pressurized guns into <br />the restrictions we’ve been talking about. <br />Noting that few members of the Committee were in support of his proposal, Dr. Arvik said he <br />wanted to raise the issue at least so that people would come to understand that pellet guns could <br />have the equal power of a rifle. I know I’m not persuading the group, he said, but I want the <br />minutes to reflect that there is a viable and existing danger from these types of weapons. <br />Including pellet guns in our firearms safety ordinance would be a quick, easy way to make things <br />safer that is not going to harm anyone except those that use pellet guns irresponsibly, he said. <br />Mr. Hunnell said that the concern is legitimate –analogous to requiring carbon monoxide <br />monitors in homes as a public safety matter –but it is beyond the scope of this Committee. Ms. <br />Barksdale said that there are people who die from pellet guns, but that statistically it is minimal <br />compared to those who die from firearms. It is a gun, and it is a projectile, and it is dangerous, <br />she said. <br />The Committee then took a break. When it returned, the Committee continueddiscussing the <br />first draft of a Firearms Safety Ordinance. <br />Paragraph (h) <br />Ms. Conti endorsed the suggestion made by the observer Mr. Larry Roberts during the August 1 <br />meeting’s public comment period, that the property owner be held liable for errant projectiles <br />rather than the shooter. Mr. Kirkland took issue with the suggestion. When you own a hundred <br />acres, you don’t always know if someone is shooting without permission somewhere on your <br />power line easement, he said. You might hear the shots, but by the time you or law enforcement <br />is able to investigate the shooter might be gone. It might be moreacceptable a provision if the <br />property owner were allowing the errant shooting to occur, he said. Mr. Tesoro asked if <br />provisions regarding written permission to shoot on or onto another’s property were related to <br />this issue. Mr. Tilley said that since theshooter is the person who committed the act then the <br />shooter should be the one held responsible. Mr. Hunnell said that, by analogy, a driver who <br />causes damage is responsible for that damage, not the car owner. Mr. Kirkland said that the <br />shooter is responsible for any round that comes from the weaponhe or she fires. <br />Ms. Conti said that she understands these other perspectives, but wondered if a provision that <br />holds the property owner responsible would increase the vigilance of property owners over what <br />happens on their land. Mr. Hunnell said that while it is valid for each member of the Committee <br />to represent their own personal perspective,the Sheriff should have no responsibility for <br />enforcing against the persistent shooting in Ms. Conti’s neighborhoodbecause thegun range in <br />question is grandfathered under the NC Sport Shooting Range Protection statute.Ms. Conti said <br />that she is not talking about her neighborhood, and that the suggestion to hold property owners <br />liable came not from her but from the observer Mr. Larry Roberts at the previous Committee