1LwjabT

12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
Dan Axson said he is an avid hunter and shooter. He said to a lot of people target
practice means training, and one needs to train for the type of environment in which one might
find oneself. He said if problems do arise, the Sheriff’s office will typically show up, and thus he
sees no reason for an ordinance. He said there are many turkey shoots in the county that
serve as fundraisers and believes this ordinance will take away these positive community
events. He also noted children involved with Future Farmers of America may be adversely
affected by this ordinance. He referred to the required signage and said he does not want to
advertise that he has firearms. He said if the ordinance goes through, he is greatly concerned
what else may be taken away from the citizens.
Darin Knapp read the following email:
Chairman McKee and members of the Board,
Thank you all for the opportunity to be present tonight and for the opportunity to speak. My wife
and I are here in support of tabling the proposed gun ordinance and to suggest that the Board
re-evaluates the motivations behind this initiative and uses that re-evaluation to guide the
course of any follow-on initiative. Having read the documents surrounding this issue, and
having long considered the customs and traditions of our rural neighbors and farmers, some of
whom are gun enthusiasts, it appears clear to me that this discussion is being led from a
narrow place despite having over-reaching implications that would unfairly restrict the private
use of land by a large constituency of our County. Nowhere in the documentation on this
proposed ordinance could I find meaningful reference to the healthy traditions that surround
shooting sports or about how regular target shooting makes for a hunter who has solid
command of guns and is thus safer to him or herself or others. One doesn’t have to be a gun
enthusiast to respect those who are.
Perceptions and reality need parsed out here, particularly with regard to the safety concerns
and discomfort of some that have apparently arisen as a consequence of others enjoying their
hobbies and honing their skills on their private land. What exactly are the perceived threats that
seem to motivate discussions here? What evidence is there? Will perceived threats, instead of
actual threats, rule the day? How many bullet holes have we counted? How many citizens
have been killed or injured by a gun hobbyist target practicing on their own nearby land?
Compare that number to all the other well-documented threats that citizens face and put the
issue in perspective. I think it’s helpful to remember that the term “gun enthusiast” does not
translate into “criminal.”
There can be little doubt that the motivation behind this proposal arises in part from a fear of the
sound of a gunshot, regardless of how far away it is or how unjustified this fear is. Of all the
sounds that one may hear out in the county, a gunshot is not typically top of the decibel list.
These are not the things we want Sheriff Blackwood and his deputies focusing their time,
energy, and tax dollars on.
Without a meaningful and proven risk due to gun hobbyists exercising their rights on their own
lands, why does this proposed ordinance exist? I can only conclude that the ordinance lacks a
sound rationale and was proposed without full consideration of its negative impact on our
community. I hope that future efforts, if any, on this issue will be solidly grounded in real data
and inclusive input. As it stands, it is my opinion and that of many others that this proposal
needs major overhaul, if not scrapped altogether.
Again, thank you for your time.