19.03.2016 Views

1LwjabT

1LwjabT

1LwjabT

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

17<br />

1<br />

2<br />

3<br />

4<br />

5<br />

6<br />

7<br />

8<br />

9<br />

10<br />

11<br />

12<br />

13<br />

14<br />

15<br />

16<br />

17<br />

18<br />

19<br />

20<br />

21<br />

22<br />

23<br />

24<br />

25<br />

26<br />

27<br />

28<br />

29<br />

30<br />

31<br />

32<br />

33<br />

34<br />

35<br />

36<br />

37<br />

38<br />

39<br />

I paid for this land you didn't. I pay taxes to help you pay for yours.<br />

Rodney Davis<br />

Efland, NC<br />

Proud law-abiding tax payer and gun owner<br />

Another unenforceable, unneeded regulation to stifle the rights of the people. I never cease to<br />

be amazed at the worthless drivel that springs forth from those who believe their election gives<br />

them God like powers to dictate how others should conduct their daily activities.<br />

Orange County was once a good place to live but now it has become an over regulated and<br />

over taxed suburb of Chapel Hill.<br />

The time has come to say enough is enough. I am vehemently opposed to this proposed<br />

intrusion on my rights as a property owner. I do not need you to tell me how to conduct myself<br />

responsibly on my property regarding the discharge of firearms.<br />

Harold Dorsett<br />

Dear Orange County Commissioners,<br />

I am writing in regard to a current proposed Amendment, “Regulating the Discharge of<br />

Firearms.” Foremost and frankly, as a property owner and taxpayer in Orange County, I<br />

strongly oppose this amendment on virtually all aspects, and for good reasoning. As an avid<br />

shooter and sportsman I see this amendment as unnecessary, over reaching, and unwarranted<br />

in many ways.<br />

First, let me say that I am all for firearm safety and the practices of safe shooting. Any person<br />

who pick-ups a firearm, in my opinion, has immediately signed a binding contract that requires<br />

them to protect the safety of everyone and everything around them.<br />

To address this amendment, again I repeat, that I am strongly opposed, and for good<br />

reasoning. The requirements of this amendment will burden a large majority of shooters with its<br />

extremely cumbersome conditions. The amount of land required, under the approval of this<br />

amendment, will automatically prevent many from being able to shoot regularly on their own<br />

property, again their own property. Property that a person has worked hard for, paid taxes on,<br />

and incurred many types of expenses to maintain. That, to me, is overly restrictive.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!