1LwjabT
1LwjabT
1LwjabT
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.