1LwjabT

44
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
I have suggested they share with you their opposition as complaining on Facebook is not a way
to get their opinion through.
I do wish to express my opinion about the proposed ordinance. Full disclosure I am a gun
owner and I enjoy shooting. I do agree with the premise of some of the proposal, I do think
some of it is excessive.
I agree to the following points under 24-3 (c) 1, 2, 3, 9 and 10.
While I can agree to the premise of the following sections of 24-3 (c) I think that possibly it can
be misconstrued since the wording is vague those sections are 7 and 8.
Under 24-3 (c) section 5. I can see that this shouldn't be an issue if it happens on an large
parcel of property, but if the property is smaller I can definitely support. What size should be
the limit? I'm not totally sure. Maybe putting a distance requirement on this provision.
I do believe that under 24-3 (c) sections 4 and 6 are a bit excessive. I do think the
recommendations that were made by Sheriff Blackwood makes more sense. Lengthening
hours to 7 am to 11 pm and as well changing the language of point 6 to the Sheriff's
recommendation.
Lastly I think 24-3 (e) the signs at 100 foot intervals on the property lines seems also excessive.
I can imagine someone that wants to lawfully shoot and having to put up signs every 100 feet
on private property is costly and excessive. Firstly if it is private property others should not be
on said property.
In the end what I'm thinking is if someone wants to come home from work or during the day and
enjoys to target shoot on their property and now has to go to the extent of this is many loop
holes to jump through. I do not think the sign provision or the excessive backstop specification
or the hours will provide any more safety.
I also worry that if this passes the county will be mired in litigation from lawsuits that stem from
groups that challenge the legality of this.
Thank you for sharing my 2 cents.
Respectfully,
Justin Tillett
Chair McKee said typically the BOCC remains silent during public comment, but this
evening it is likely appropriate for the Board to speak. He said he would address the question
of from where this ordinance came. He said there have been many complaints over the years
related to irresponsible shooting, and Orange County has no ordinances to address the
complaints. He said the procedure began with a public hearing in September 2015, and then
returned to the Board in January, as a part of a recreational land use text amendment. He said
the Board and the Attorney agreed to pull it out of that text amendment. He said if the Board
was seeking to pass this in secret, it could have done so that evening, but rather it was pulled
out and made into a general ordinance for review this evening.
Chair McKee said he takes responsibility for his role in the lack of sufficient
communication to the public about the issue. He said the Board must air the arguments for