Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
7 <br />person could discharge a firearm undersuch a prohibition. Mr. Roberts said that Mr. Tesoro had <br />a point with regard to “unnecessary.” I really don’t know what that means, he said. However, <br />while unreasonably loud and disturbing is subjective, he added, reasonable people can make that <br />determination. The “reasonable person standard” is a legitimate legal standard, he said. <br />Mr. Hunnell said that speed limits are enforceable because they are based on numbers. Although <br />I am not a lawyer, he said, a subjective standard based only what your neighbors say would not <br />stand up in court. It would depend on how much money you have to fight it and how many <br />citizens would get behind it. Chief Deputy Sykes said that Mr. Hunnell “hit the nail on the head.” <br />The officer’s involvement has to be the deciding factor, he said, so that the subjective standard is <br />not left up only to what the neighbor say. The officer has to go to court to testify as to the <br />existence of the factors that led him to determine that the noise was unreasonably loud and <br />disturbing. But that is the last resort. We are going to try to work it out without having to go to <br />court. I expect that we’re going to enforce paragraph (h) only where there is long, drawn out <br />antagonism between neighbors; it’s not going to be a person sighting his rifle or shooting with <br />his grandson. We are not going to pull this out on the first 911 call we get about a person <br />shooting. Mr. Tesoro said that he trusted the people in this room to be reasonable, but was <br />concerned about the use of paragraph (h) beyond that. <br />In reply to a question from the facilitator, Mr. Tesoro said thatremoval of “unnecessary” from <br />paragraph (h), consistent with Mr. Robert’s earlier statement about that word, would be a change <br />in the right direction. No Committeemember objected to that change, and so it was agreed. <br />Mr. Tesoro asked Committee members to define “unreasonably loud.” Members pointed him to <br />(h) (1) in the draft, which defines that phrase. Mr. Kirkland said that a law enforcement officer <br />always should be involved in making the determination of what is “unreasonably loud.” He also <br />said that in these times when more people are unfamiliar with firearms, it is more likely that a <br />neighbor will hear gun fire and be disturbed by it. Mr. Tesoro said that firearms have been <br />excluded from the County’s noise ordinance because it is so difficult to arrive at a fair and <br />reasonable solution to such noise complaints. Dr. Arvik said that the definitions under (h) offer a <br />fair and reasonable solution, and Mr. Tesoro said he disagreed. Mr. Webster said that an <br />unreasonable noise, to him,is exemplified by some YouTube videos showing guys trying to find <br />the point at which their firearms will melt down. They lay out 15 or 20 magazines and fire them <br />in rapid succession. It’s not unloading two 15-roundmagazines, because for what I do for a <br />living we have quick magazine changes. If I roll up on a scene and I hear 100 or 200 rounds back <br />to back to back, then to me that might be unreasonable. Mr. Tesoro said that a guy with four sons <br />taking turns, each ofwhom has a 9mm with two clips, would be shooting 90 rounds. But, said <br />Mr. Webster, you would be done in about 5 minutes. Even if they were not shooting fast, he said, <br />and it took more time for the five people to empty their two clips, it would not be unreasonable if <br />those were the facts. I don’t think all the deputies and all the neighbors would say that, said Mr.