Supervisors keep firearms amendment in the holster by Susan Robertson
PRINCE GEORGE - After causing a stir over a proposed amendment to a county ordinance regarding the discharge of firearms, the Board of Supervisors withdrew the item from the agenda at their regular meeting yesterday.
The proposed amendment to a county ordinance would have prevented residents living on less than five acres of land from discharging firearms on their property, but the item was withdrawn from the agenda at the last minute.
"I think there was so much negative public comment that we had to pull it," said Supervisor Robert J. Forehand Jr.
Originally the item was set to be discussed at a public hearing on July 26, but the county attorney, H. Martin Robertson, said the hearing had been improperly advertised, so the item was tabled until yesterday's meeting.
Citizens showed up in droves to give their two cents about the proposed amendment. A group even came in wearing bright orange badges that proclaimed "Guns Save Lives." But during the approval of the agenda, Supervisor Henry D. Parker motioned to withdraw the matter from the agenda. Parker's motion was seconded by Forehand.
The board then voted 4-1, with Vice Chairman William A. Robertson opposed, to withdraw the public hearing.
"They brought up a hot potato and now they don't want to deal with it," said Robertson. "I feel like the citizens were here and they needed to be heard."
Supervisors then voted to add an item to the consensus agenda to authorize the advertising of a public hearing, to be held sometime in the future, to receive public comment on the elimination of the county ordinance regarding the discharge of firearms.
Currently, county code prohibits discharging a firearm of any kind in a subdivision, except in lawful defense of a person or piece of property. The elimination of the code section would mean the county followed the state statute that says it is unlawful to discharge a firearm in an unsafe and reckless manner.
Chairman Joseph A. Leming said he voted to withdraw the matter because he believes an amendment to the county ordinance restricting a resident's right to discharge a firearm on personal property was unconstitutional.
"The Second Amendment protects our individual right to bear arms. I cannot in my wildest imagination believe that the founders ever even conceived that a citizen would have the right to bear arms (in their home) and not be able to discharge the (fire)arm," said Leming.
He also stated that the last sentence of the Fifth Amendment provides against the government taking a person's property without good cause for "public use" and without just compensation and hence, represents a "partial taking" and violates the Fifth Amendment.
The board has not set a date for the public hearing on the elimination of the county ordinance.
http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=15089201&BRD=2271&PAG=461&dept_id=462946&rfi=6.
