1LwjabT

22
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
merely to limit the rights of people like myself to safely enjoy an occasional round of target
shooting with my family/friends on my own private property.
The regulations are in many cases excessive. I will provide three examples, although I think the
entire amendment needs to be rewritten and clarified. First, the construction of a backstop 15
feet high and 30 feet deep is not necessary except for even the most powerful centerfire rifles,
(not to mention it may not be a good idea to use steel); the cost of such a backstop would allow
only the relatively wealthy to meet the requirement. Second, the posting of signs every 100 feet
is not necessary, as trespassing on private property is already prohibited; thus it is unclear what
the purpose of this part of the amendment would serve except to be a burden on anyone trying
to fulfill the requirements. Posting of signs on any property large enough to qualify for shooting
would not only be expensive, but in my neighborhood, would be unsightly, as almost everyone
shoots occasionally. And posting signs in the middle of farmland bordered by other farmland is
just a waste of time and money. I should also point out that I think this and many other pieces of
this amendment are essentially unenforceable. Finally, the blanket restriction of shooting
between 10:00 am and 6:00 pm, and the restriction of shooting to 2 days/month have no logical
or legal justification. We do not restrict golfers to only enjoy their hobby two days a month, nor
do we prohibit motorcycles, dirt bikes, and other noisy, equally dangerous activities to certain
hours. I work full time during the week, and according to this amendment, if I was to practice a
few rounds of target shooting with my .22 caliber rifle on 3 or 4 Sat. mornings, I could be
sentenced to 30 days in prison. Really? I do not think this was the initial intent of this
amendment, but it is the way the amendment currently reads.
In conclusion, I think there are many issues raised by this amendment. Instead of rushing to
pass a hastily designed piece of legislation that will be subjected to many challenges, I suggest
the board address each issue separately and carefully. In my reading of the amendment, those
issues would be the operation of a business in a residential area, reasonable safety
issues/concerns, and perhaps a noise restriction.
Based on the above, and many other issues I am sure others will raise, I respectfully urge you
to NOT approve this amendment until sufficient time has been allowed for the amendment to be
publicized, discussed in public forums, and studied carefully by legal experts.
While I would appreciate a written response outlining your thoughts on this matter, I also plan
on being in attendance at the meeting tonight to see how my concerns about this amendment
are addressed.
Sincerely,
Lawrence E. Ostrowski
Hurdle Mills, NC
All members of the Orange County Board of Commissioners, might I suggest an alternative
from what appears a punitive approach, e.g., forbidding, to an economic approach!
Using the material from the NRA's Shooting Range Services
(http://range.nra.org/sourcebook.aspx) or similar guidance from the National Shooting Sports
Foundation, to ensure your new ordinance guidelines meet some semblance of standardization,
thus assuring those wishing to engage in firearm range activities do so following established
proven standards ~ citizens/corp failure to do so are then sanctioned and subject to punitive
activities, as warranted.