Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
10 <br />firearm.” Mr. Roberts called Mr. Tesoro’s attention to the colon at the end of that phrase, which <br />is followed by the only four specific situations where the ordinance would not prohibit the <br />discharge of a firearm.The first three situations are exempted from local authority under state <br />law. The fourth was included at the direction of this Committeewhile recognizing that state law <br />also exempts existing shooting ranges from new nuisance ordinances. <br />In reply to a question from Mr. Tilley, Mr. Roberts said that “shooting range” under (i)(4) would <br />apply to private, personal, public, or commercialranges. It would not apply to just anybackyard <br />in which someone sets up a target, however, because the area must be for the controlled practice <br />of safely discharging firearms. State statute says that a sportsshooting range is an area created, <br />maintained,and operated for target practice; that’s not throwing a target up on a tree. This <br />ordinance would apply to something like that. <br />Mr. Roberts said that he consulted with Officer Orr (who not present this evening) on the sports <br />shooting range exemption and both agreed that while existing ranges would be exempt from <br />paragraph (h) under state statute, no such exemption existed under state law for the other <br />provisions in the draft ordinance. Although the Committee said last time that it wanted to exempt <br />shooting ranges, we wondered why anyone would want to have impaired shooters on shooting <br />ranges. That is why I added the caveat that (i) (4) shall only apply to subsection (h). <br />Mr. Webster said that firearms and impairing substances do not mix. If (i)(4) allows people at <br />shooting ranges to use impairing substances then it should be removed. I feel pretty strongly <br />about this, he said. Mr. Hunnell said that the caveat suggested by Mr. Robertswould enable the <br />County to enforce against impaired shooters on shooting ranges. Dr. Arvik said it would be more <br />straightforward to eliminate (i)(4) completely. Ms. Barksdale agreed. Mr. Kirkland said the <br />paragraph is irrelevant, and so should be eliminated. The Committee voted 6-1 (Mr. Hunnell <br />opposed; Mr. Tesoro temporarily had left the meeting) to remove (i)(4). <br />Ms. Conti suggested that the written permission under paragraph (e) be notarized, to prevent <br />shooters from misrepresenting their permission. Mr. Tilley said that the law enforcement officer <br />simply can ask the landowner if the written permission is valid. Mr. Hunnell said that the state <br />already has a written permission rule in existence, and it does not require notarization. I use an <br />email from my neighbor, which would stand up in court, to prove that I have permission to hunt <br />on his land, he said.Mr. Webster said that written permission could be verified with a phone call <br />to the landowner. Mr. Tilley said that a notarization requirement would make it much more <br />difficult for a shooter to gain permission. Ms. Conti said that she did not think she was gaining <br />sufficient support for her proposal, and so withdrew it.