Meeting Notes 102516 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

12 or someone else in her office to work with whichever Department is responsible to ensure that the resolution is carried out. It would then come back to the Board to approve the specifics of the education effort, and then it would go out through the lead Department. The Committee adopted the non-ordinance recommendation unanimously. The Committee then turned its attention back to (g). Mr. Kirkland proposed striking (g) completely, and leaving any further consideration of the firearms noise issue with the Board of Commissioners. The matter is too subjective for use to resolve, he said. Dr. Arvik wanted the Committee to address (g), and proposed that references in the draft to “unreasonably loud” be deleted. This would leave a mechanism for addressing “disturbing” noise, he said, where firearms noise is scaring people. Ms. Conti suggested that the clause also be deleted at the end of the definition of “disturbing:” “and being a type of sound which could be lessened or otherwise controlled by the maker without unduly restricting his conduct.” Mr. Tesoro said that he is not sure any amount of revision would salvage section (g), and that problematic words for him were “perceived,” “health,” and “safety.” By the time we get done there will be no (g) left, he said. Ms. Conti said that Dr. Arvik’s proposal was a nice compromise, to the extent that people’s objections to (g) were the inclusion of “unreasonably loud.” Mr. Tesoro said that even if “unreasonably loud” were deleted, there is no way to distinguish between disturbing noise from unreasonable shooting and disturbing noise from reasonable shooting. Ms. Conti said that she was feeling “fed up.”She said she was flabbergasted (happily) when Mr. Tilley proposed a solution to the noise issues. But we have not discussed alternatives to this prima facie option. We have not discussed distance, for example, to address noise although distance is includedin several local ordinances across the state. We set distance aside in our safety discussions because we said that the prohibition on a projectile crossing the property boundary to address safety was better than a distance provision. But that still leavesthe problem of people shooting on, say, one acre lots. You might be able to contain the projectile, but the noise may be disturbing because the shooter is engaged in unreasonable firearm activity so close to someone else’s house. This Committee is tasked with addressing the issue of noise, somehow. Here we are at the last meeting, at the last minute of the last meeting, and now we’re talking about something we had supposedly resolved, with one little tweak from Mr. Hunnell about an unrelated person. What are we doing here?? Mr. Tilley said that at the first meeting he said that the Committee could save itself a lot of problems by adopting the Lenoir County ordinance. The Committee did not want to do that, he said. Ms. Conti said that the whole gun community from the beginning had advocated for the Lenoir County ordinance. Well, she said, Lenoir doesn’t have anything in it that is going to solve the noise problem. You people said that Lenoir does not have any teeth in it, and the irony is that this is what we have wound up with. The draft ordinance with (g) removed is so indistinguishable from Lenoir that one would think that the whole Committee came in