BOC to consider ordinance regulating firing of guns

Wednesday, June 8. 2011
An ordinance that would stop the firing of guns in residential areas of the county is being considered by the Jackson County Board of Commissioners.

The BOC reviewed the proposed ordinance Monday night and commissioner Tom Crow pointed out several issues, including prohibiting property owners of larger tracts from firing a gun just because their property is not zoned agriculture.

“This is not only a subdivision, but any residential home in the county, whether that home is located on a half acre or 50 acres,” Crow said.

Crow said he “could go along” with an ordinance regarding firing a gun in subdivisions, but not from just any single-family dwelling.
County attorney Julius Hulsey was asked to present other options to the ordinance, including acreage exemptions, at the BOC’s next meeting, set for 6 p.m. on Monday, June 20, at the courthouse.

Hulsey said the ordinance was created following complaints about guns being fired in residential areas. He added that it does not stop people’s rights of “bearing arms.”

“It’s not intended in any way to restrict lawful use of arms,” he said.
Bookmark and Share
Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry
No Trackbacks
Comments
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
#1 Anon E. Mouse on 06/08/11 at 11:10 AM [Reply]
“It’s not intended in any way to restrict lawful use of arms,” he said.

...said the people who are trying to make it unlawful to use arms.
#1.1 Jackson County Voter on 06/14/11 at 09:56 PM [Reply]
Just so. If we can't practice with our guns, how useful will they be? I don't see any proposals to create a county-run shooting range in exchange. This is just another egregious attempt to restrict property & and second amendment rights.
#2 Recall on 06/08/11 at 04:49 PM [Reply]
Anyone who votes for this on the BOC should be recalled ! Balance the @#@# budget before worring about this crap.
Bicknell and Yates trying to kiss backside in West Jackson !
Hunter move back to Gwinnett and take your friends in Traditions with you !!!!
#3 concerned on 06/08/11 at 07:21 PM [Reply]
I support the proposed ordinance of firing in a subdivison especially houses that are in close vicinity. Recently, we have had this very problem in my subdivison and our houses are on less than 1 acre plots, so we are very close. There are children that play in the neighborhood and this is a scary thing to think that just anybody can shoot a gun and hurt someone unintentionally.
#3.1 The LAW on 06/09/11 at 12:17 PM [Reply]
You currently can not shoot a gun within 50 yards (150 Feet) of a road, it's the law. In your neighborhood this should prevent this. The only change I could see that would benefit is shooting within 100-200 yards of a dwelling. That is how a lot of counties work. I don't think there should be too many limits thought, it is our right to bear arms, and I exercise it, but I use common sense when discharging that firearm.
#3.1.1 sounds good, but... on 06/09/11 at 01:36 PM [Reply]
The state law you reference is apparently too complicated for our amateur hour sheriff's department. Experience in our neighborhood suggests that the deputies either don't comprehend the law (think it applies only to state roads when the law says public road or street), or are too quick to get back to their donuts.
#3.2 Jere on 01/20/13 at 11:28 AM [Reply]
This ordinance would set up aohtner bureaucracy within the Public Works Department, which will not produce any new service for the citizens. This ordinance would increase the costs of recycling and solid waste to our community. This ordinance is unfair to the thrifty recyclers, and it hides from the community the overall solid waste costs for our Community.In short:* This ordinance will not make our Public Works Department more efficient.* This ordinance will not increase recycling options.* This ordinance will not lower the County transfer station costs, and we currently have the highest costs in the State.Vote No!
#4 Michael McCarthy on 06/08/11 at 10:09 PM [Reply]
Keeping and bearing arms is not the same thing as shooting too close to your neighbors' children. This chaos needs to stop.
#5 Barry Goldwater on 06/10/11 at 05:08 PM [Reply]
There are enough laws on the books to govern discharging firearms. New ones are not needed, once again just enforce what is already law.

Now if we are talking discharging firearms into an unsafe firing range then that is something that needs to be taken up.
#5.1 Enough laws, Yes.... on 06/11/11 at 12:27 PM [Reply]
But, no one is talking about overhauling any laws and this proposed ordinance certainly has no effect on anyone's right to bear arms. This has become a real issue that needs to be addressed. How can anyone hammer the BOC for being proactive? Is it better we wait until someone's child is injured or killed and then react to the problem?

Unfortunatley I am all to familiar with this. Anyone with an ounce of common sense would realize that a subdivsion with homes, children playing, etc. is not the environment to sit off your porch shooting. This ordinance, like any other of it's kind is brought on by the incompetent idiots in the community who lack the mental capacity to grasp the potential consequences of their actions. Think about it.

I have quite a collection of guns and I am an avid hunter. I also have a carry permit and enjoy firing my pistols...but not in the backyard of a subdivision. I support this 150%
#5.1.1 Barry Goldwater on 06/12/11 at 04:48 AM [Reply]
So if a person is sitting on the porch in a subdivision firing a firearm he is already breaking the law. What about this ordinance would cause the law breaker to start obeying the law? What about this ordinance would make it more enforceable? What about this ordinance would protect children if it is not obeyed more than the current laws?

As with anything that requires action its not the law or rule its the people's actions or lack of that cause problems. So if you know someone is shooting guns illegally call the police and call them every time it happens. If you are not calling the police then you are just as guilty as the actual offender.

Personal responsibility, for many easier said than done.
#5.1.1.1 Not in Jackson County on 06/12/11 at 08:36 AM [Reply]
Actually, one shooting from his porch is not necessarily in violation of existing law. Unless the shooting position is within 50 yards of a public road or street, it does not violate existing law in the county. Unfortunately, the Jackson County Sheriff's Department is too screwed up to enforce existing law and a new ordinance will not infuse that department with competence, but it may eliminate the complexity of having to measure the 50 yards.
#5.1.1.1.1 Barry Goldwater on 06/12/11 at 05:07 PM [Reply]
I can assure you that most every subdivision has houses closer to the street than 150 feet. A lot would need to be over 1 and 1/2 acres to allow for a house to be built more than 150 feet from a street or a neighbors house. In fact in Jackson county I would imagine every subdivision, save one or two in, has homes on 1 acre or less lots.

Once again a new ordinance will not stop law breakers from breaking the law.
#5.1.1.1.1.1 Anon on 06/17/11 at 09:08 AM [Reply]
I don't think the state law says anything about how close the house is to the road, just that the firearm can't be discharged within 50 yards of a road. So the front porch may be off limits to shooting, but not the back porch or the back yard... Just sayin, although I am against this ordinance.
#6 Think it through on 06/16/11 at 04:15 PM [Reply]
It is one thing to propose a restriction on firearms in a subdivision and quite another to expand the restriction to all lots of less than 10 acres in size. It sounds like the real (not so hidden) agenda has more to do with the Chairman not liking gunfire in the larger properties near (but not in) his own Traditions subdivision. Hopefully, other board members will not let him get away with this BS.
#7 Jeff on 06/16/11 at 10:20 PM [Reply]
The HOAs need to deal with their own communities, and the county needs to let the people govern themselves. If a neighbor sees a blatant violation, then call the police or sheriff deputies. Bring it to an HOA meeting if its occurring in your subdivision. HOAs are considered to be a legal entity anyway, so they do have a say so. Just because the rich folk don't like the good ol boys shooting on their land that isn't even in their neighborhood doesn't mean they can petition the creation of an ordinance to suit them.

If the BOC want to approve this, then they need to allocate some county land to build a free shooting range on, but of course they won't be able to allocate the funds for it, because they can't even balance the budget.
#7.1 Michael McCarthy on 06/17/11 at 09:48 AM [Reply]
Jeff, you are mistaken. HOAs do not overrule laws. And the government is, under no circumstances, required to build a shooting range. How silly is that?
#8 Richard on 06/17/11 at 11:59 AM [Reply]
So, if this new law is accepted, will it further protect all the rabid dogs, cats, foxes, coyotes, skunks and other critters that freely roam our neighborhood and subdivision streets? Local law enforcement can't keep these in check, so if homeowners ar not allowed to shoot and remove these dangerous rabid animals, how will they be dealt with?

The right to bear arms must include the right to use them when it is necessary for self defense!
#9 Tim on 06/17/11 at 12:28 PM [Reply]
Oppose this ordinance. It’s an unnecessary, redundant and overreaching proposal. It’s not well thought out, researched and based on logic or facts, but instead an emotional, knee-jerk reaction, consistent with the trend of anti-gun bias influenced largely by the liberal media culture of today.

Jackson County is still largely rural and undeveloped, with a relatively low population density. Many of our neighbors have sufficient tracts of land for hunting and recreational shooting sports. We expect to occasionally hear the sound of recreational gunfire resulting from target shooting and hunting. It does not bother us at all when we hear gunfire in the area. We just smile and consider it to be the sound of freedom and part of what makes Jackson County great. Let's not take that away.

While an individual's behavior and actions must be safe and responsible to not present a true risk to public safety, the mere "sound" of gunfire does not present a legitimate threat. As such sounds can carry a considerable distance in quiet, undeveloped areas, hearing gunfire alone often results in unwarranted hysteria among some individuals. If the legal discharge of firearms within densely developed subdivisions with smaller lots is of concern, let the community associations deal with it themselves without the involvement of county government.

Existing state and local laws are sufficient and that proper enforcement of such laws would be more than adequate. The creation of new ordinances will do nothing to control the behavior of those whom by their very nature, ignore laws and rules anyway. A new ordinance will only serve to further encroach upon the freedom that we now enjoy, for the sake of appeasing a few who are largely uninformed. We all have the responsibility for our actions, and when those actions are improper, it may result in criminal and/or civil liability. Let's hold those who are truly guilty of reckless endangerment accountable for just that, but again, the creation of noise resulting from the safe, legitimate use of firearms is not a danger to anyone. In fact, the sound of lawful gunfire sends a message to would-be criminals that they should probably consider going elsewhere to engage in their crimes against persons and property.

We are very active politically and will vote at every opportunity. This issue is very near and dear to our hearts and is not an area where we can afford to compromise.
#10 Mike on 06/17/11 at 03:52 PM [Reply]
"ordinance that would stop the firing of guns in residential areas of the county"

Does mean that I can't shoot some one breaking into my house or car?
#10.1 When they came for my neighbor, I said nothing on 06/17/11 at 07:05 PM [Reply]
What was the county's position when the people of Hoschton were subjected to constant barrages of gunfire by their neighbors, Braselton? Where was the county when those people were complaining? Absent. Didn't say a word. I'd say if it is good enough for Hoschton to endure it's good enough for the county residents as well.
#10.2 Michael McCarthy on 06/17/11 at 09:21 PM [Reply]
Mike, you could still defend yourself silly.
Add Comment
E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications.

To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly.
CAPTCHA

 
   
 
Submitted comments will be subject to moderation before being displayed.
 
Copyright © 2008-2015 MainStreet Newspapers, Inc.