Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
6 <br />backstop you need in order to stop whatever kinds ofrounds you are shooting. This ordinance is <br />just a way to solidify what most of us is already doing. <br />I have some problems with some of the definitions in item (g), he said. Who is going to decide if <br />something is unreasonably loud? How do we weigh that? And why would “injures” be included <br />in the definition of “disturbing” if we’re talking about noise? How does “health” come into play <br />if we’re talking about noise? And we’ve already addressed the safety issue, so that doesn’t need <br />to be there. <br />In reply to a question from Mr. Kirkland, Mr. Roberts said that he is not seeking any outcome or <br />intent in particular through the language he provided to the Committee in the draft. The language <br />came pretty much from Chatham County’s ordinance, he said. We can change ithowever the <br />Committee would like to change it. If you are not comfortable with any definition or any word in <br />this section then it can be removed. I don’t have any opinion of what the Committee’s intent was, <br />he said. <br />Mr. Kirkland said that the noise provision is so open-endedthat it makes too many situations <br />possible where somebody’s shootingwould be restricted. For example, the definition of <br />“disturbing” can be applied too broadly. “Peace” and “safety” in (g) are going to be based on <br />who is making the complaint, what their comfort level is with gun use. If they are the kind of <br />person who just does not like guns, then anytime somebody shoots a firearm the person will feel <br />endangered. No matter how safe the shooting range is. <br />Mr. Roberts said that he had two exchanges today about section (g). One was an email exchange <br />and the other was a telephone call. In one exchange, he said, I had the opportunity to clarify that <br />section (g) as it is written would only apply to two people and the law enforcement officer <br />complaining about the same incident.Also, if a deputy issued a citation, then ultimately a judge <br />would decide if a violation of the ordinance had occurred: whether the noise was unreasonably <br />loud or disturbing. The judge would do so by putting himself in the position of a prudent person <br />or a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities. That’s a standard found in a lot of legal issues, <br />even beyond this. The other conversation I had today helped to clarify that section (g) is the most <br />vulnerable to being abusedof the draft ordinance provisions. Neighborhood disagreements could <br />be viewed as being resolvable by one or more neighbors by calling a deputy and utilizing section <br />(g). So, on the one hand section (g) is legally enforceable using the reasonable person standard, <br />and on the other hand it is subject to being abused more than any of the other provisions. <br />Mr. Tilley agreed with Mr. Kirkland regarding support for sections (a) –(f). When the <br />Committee was established, he said, it was for firearms safety. Noise was never mentioned. We <br />were never charged to fix the noise problem. It just kind of evolved as we went on. We don’t <br />need to change (g), he said, we need to omit it.