Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
3 <br />criminal activity, he said. I think we have addressed the safety issues through common sense, <br />like “don’t shoot projectiles if you don’t know where they are going.” I think the Committee has <br />done a great job at addressing that. It seems like the noise is the big remaining issue. I think that <br />is where we start to infringe on Second Amendment rights. <br />Dr. Arvik said that a right to keep and bear arms exists, but not necessarily a right to use them as <br />they have been used.I disagree with two things, he said. First, the report that there has only been <br />five gun related safety violations in the county. The first time we met I told you about one that <br />was flagrant, wanton, and reckless. We’ve addressed all that. But I want to make sure we don’t <br />leave this thing without giving law enforcement the ability to evaluate from their training and <br />take action to stop those kindsof activities. There has been egregious use of firearms. We are <br />blessed that nobody has been hurt. But that does not mean if we don’t act properly that it won’t <br />happen. That’s why we are here. We are not here to stop you from shooting on your own <br />property. We are here to keep people safe. And I think we are well on our way toward doing that. <br />Mr. Hunnell said thatthe Committee already has addressed safety. Noise is the only point of <br />contention at this point, he said. Dr. Arvik replied that law enforcement needs the training and <br />the tools to address safety issues. Mr. Hunnell agreed. <br />Ms. Barksdale said that there have been a lot more than five firearms safety incidents. In my <br />office I have heard and continue to hear many more issues than that. They are just not within the <br />parameters of this Committee to address. There is a whole lot more gun violence that happens. <br />The things I deal with in my counseling practice have to be dealt with through the State and <br />federal government. <br />Evaluation of Second Draft Firearms Safety Ordinance(I) <br />The group reviewed the 9/29/2016 version of a draft of an ordinance developed by JohnRoberts <br />fromearlier Committee discussions. <br />Mr. Hunnell suggested that paragraphs (f) and (g) be consolidated. Someone made that <br />suggestion at our last meeting, he said. The two paragraphs say the same thing, he said, that you <br />cannot drink and shoot. Itwould be simpler to combine them, he said, rather than to have a lot of <br />different stipulations in the ordinance. Mr. Roberts said that paragraph (f) is a zero tolerance <br />provision while (g) is a measurement provision. They can be combined into a single paragraph, <br />he said, but I don’t know that it would make it easier for anyone to interpret or enforce. The <br />facilitator asked if anyone would object to combining the paragraphs, there was no opposition to <br />Mr. Hunnell’s proposal, and so the group agreed to make that revision. <br />Referencing paragraphs (h) and (i), Mr. Tesoro said he did not understand how “nothing in this <br />Section shall be construed as prohibiting the discharge of a firearm” while at the same time under