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.

26<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 />

40<br />

41<br />

42<br />

43<br />

44<br />

45<br />

46<br />

47<br />

48<br />

49<br />

50<br />

The backstop requirements are a good start, but leave a *lot* to be interpreted later. As it<br />

reads it sounds ridiculously restrictive, but its all in the interpretation. Surely there are industry<br />

standards for shooting ranges you could reference?<br />

The 300-foot rule is reasonable. The 1000-foot rule is asinine. In a worst case scenario, with<br />

"structures" at every property line, a person would have to be shooting in the dead center of a<br />

90 acre square parcel to meet the guidelines. That makes no sense. Why require 1000<br />

*behind* where the person is shooting? If its all about noise, thats addressed in the time of day<br />

restrictions above. If its about bullet safely, 1000 feet behind the shooter makes no sense.<br />

1000 feet in front of the shooter makes sense if they do not have an adequate backstop. If they<br />

have a backstop as described in the proposed ordinance, 1000 is overkill.<br />

Have fun tonight!<br />

Bob Johnson<br />

Owner, Madurobob's Luthiery<br />

madurobob.com<br />

facebook.com/MadurobobsLuthiery<br />

I am completely in agreement with the proposed firearms ordinance. Every year I have to sit by<br />

while our neighbors fire at birds and bird shot rains down on the roof of our house. I don't care if<br />

he does it on his own property but I shouldn't have to tolerate it on mine.<br />

Robin Royster<br />

Commissioners:<br />

Please allow me to comment on the agenda item regarding discharge of firearms. I feel that<br />

this amendment as proposed is a heavy-handed answer to a local problem. As a landowner<br />

and a part-time shooter, my normal target range is into a natural steep hill. This provides<br />

a more than adequate backstop and a partial noise buffer. In my situation, and I suspect in<br />

other persons as well, this section of property is close to one property line. If this amendment is<br />

adopted as proposed, the fifty or so shots that I fire annually will become a criminal offense<br />

while not causing any harm or disturbance. I urge you to table this proposal until you have<br />

more information and citizen input.<br />

Sincerely,<br />

David Lewis<br />

801 Arthur Minnis Rd<br />

Hillsborough, N. C. 27278<br />

919-929-8230<br />

My name is Roy Coe. I was raised here in Orange County, but moved away after high school.<br />

I spent 23 years in the military (17 years overseas and I'm Viet Nam Combat Veteran) and then<br />

26 years working in the Space Agency, NASA. For the last 19 years, I had to work in the State<br />

of California because of my NASA job and endure some of the toughest gun laws in the

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!