Gun law repealed in Prince GeorgeIt formerly was illegal to shoot a firearm in a residential subdivisionA month-and-a-half-long battle over gun laws in Prince George County came to an end last night.
By a 4-1 vote, the Board of Supervisors repealed a section of the county code that made it illegal to discharge a firearm in a residential subdivision, finding a solution to a matter first brought to the board in late July.
The code will now rely on a state law that says it is a misdemeanor to recklessly handle any firearm as to endanger the life, limb or property of another person. If these acts occur while hunting or trapping, a judge could also revoke the person's hunting or trapping license for a year.
Board Vice Chairman William A. Robertson Jr., who spent 36 years as a police officer, was the lone dissenter.
Robertson agreed that the repealed code section was "too stringent," but he did not agree with relying on the state law. He offered his own proposal that said in certain heavily populated residential zones no person could shoot except in self-defense, but that was not brought to a vote.
"This is a public-safety issue, not a hunting issue," he said, adding that no one was prohibiting gun ownership.
Board Chairman Joseph A. Leming spoke to the constitutionality of the issue.
"I recognize it is a public-safety issue at hand, but I think the public safety is the sanctity of our Constitution and its amendments," he said. "I can't imagine our founding fathers would have said we would have the right to keep and bear arms, but not be able to fire those arms. I don't think that thought came across to them."
Public comment was brief, but more so in favor of the board's action.
Philip Van Cleave, a Chesterfield County resident, spoke on behalf of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, a gun-rights organization. He said the state law was sufficient in the matter.
Van Cleave said after the meeting that his support came from the belief it is becoming harder for gun owners to shoot guns, and it would be easier on law enforcement and residents to rely on a common state law as opposed to ordinances that vary from county to county.
This was the third scheduled hearing before the board on the topic, but the first to be heard. Proposals with different language were pulled from the agenda twice for various reasons.
http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RTD%2FMGArticle%2FRTD_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1031785049003&path=!news&s=1045855934842.
