Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
8 <br />meeting. We are here because the citizens of Orange County perceive a firearm safety problem, <br />she said. We are not here because of the problem in my neighborhood. She asked Mr. Hunnell to <br />stop saying that her interest in serving on the Committee, and that the reason for the Committee <br />itself, is based on that neighborhood problem because, she said, it is not true. I am not talking <br />about another problem other than the one I’m raising now, which is in the interestof all the <br />citizens of Orange County. If Larry Roberts were here now then he could explain why he too <br />thinks his idea is spectacular. I only said that I think it is a fine idea. But everyone else has said <br />no, so let’s move on, she said. Mr. Hunnell replied that he had invited Larry Roberts to attend <br />again tonight, but only ten minutes in advance of leavingand he was unavailable. Ms. Conti said <br />that she had found Larry Roberts to be articulate and appreciated his comments. <br />In reply to a question from Commissioner Jacobs, the County Attorney Mr. John Roberts said <br />that the draft ordinance as written now does not imply that the Board could impose a fine under <br />$500. The authorizing State statute says that a fine for a Class III misdemeanor is $50 unless a <br />Board sets a higher level up to $500. Commissioner Jacobs suggested that the ordinance set the <br />penalty at “up to” $500 to give the Board discretion. The Board is not going to be inclined to fine <br />someone $500 right off the bat, especially if the violator says that the fine would be a financial <br />hardship, and/or that the violation was unintentional, or if the damages or actual threat were <br />minimal, he said. In reply to a question from Mr. Tesoro, Mr. Roberts said that violators could be <br />fined $500 for each paragraph that they contravene, for example as much as $2,000 for violating <br />(c), (d), (e), and (f). Dr. Arvik said that the Committee’s intention at the previous meeting was to <br />impose a strong financial disincentive to violating the ordinance. Commissioner McKee said that <br />the Board has been reluctant in other circumstances to impose heavy fines and generally is <br />adamant against imposing jail time for Class III misdemeanors. Mr. Tilley said that the <br />Committee could recommend the penalty as it is written in the first draft, and the Board can <br />choose different language in the ordinance it adopts. The Committeetook a straw poll in which <br />five of the members present were in favor of changing the language to “up to $500” to give the <br />Board flexibility, and two were in favor of setting the penalty at $500. <br />Paragraphs (e) and (f) <br />Mr. Tilley suggested removing paragraph (f). If under paragraph (e) a deputy is able to ascertain <br />consumption of an impairing substance in any way –seeing it, smelling it --then why do we <br />needto specify the use of a breathalyzer in (f), he asked? Chief Deputy Sykes said in reply to <br />another question from Mr. Tilley that a deputy cannot order a person to take a breathalyzer test <br />unless theperson is driving a vehicle. Mr. Roberts explained that he had consulted with Chief <br />Deputy Sykes in preparing these paragraphs. The two paragraphs are intended to address two <br />different kinds of situations, he said. One is a zero tolerance situation, while the other is evidence <br />of impairment through a breath-measuring device. Maybe he cannot force someone to blow into <br />a device or maybe he can –I do not know, said Mr. Roberts --but he certainly can imply that he <br />can require it in order to convince someone to do it. Chief Deputy Sykes said that a deputy can