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.
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