By Desiree Parker
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Sheriff Danny Diggs got what he wanted when York County supervisors voted Tuesday evening to repeal a local firearms ordinance.
Supervisors voted 3-2 to repeal section 16-7 of the county ordinance that prohibited discharging firearms in certain areas, with supervisors Walt Zaremba and Sheila Noll dissenting. The board voted, though, to keep the limitation on high-caliber weapon discharge.
As with their June meeting, passions ran high at Tuesday’s meeting, with 14 people speaking in favor of repealing the ordinances (5 of whom were not residents of York County) and 5 residents asking the board to keep the ordinances. Most people speaking in favor of getting rid of the rule cited the Sheriff’s main arguments: The restricted areas are confusing for his men, state law already restricts weapon discharge making the ordinance redundant, no one has been charged under the county ordinances in anyone’s memory, and it’s an unfair restriction on people’s rights.
Most supporters mentioned Diggs and urged supervisors to support him.
Supervisors wrestled with the notion that the state ordinance would offer the same level of protection for residents. The state laws cover the following offenses: reckless handling of firearms; discharging firearms within or near buildings; discharging firearms in a public gathering place or within 1,000 feet of a school; and firing on or across a road (among others). Diggs said firearms offenses in the county always fall under (and are prosecuted under) these state laws, making the ordinance moot.
The county ordinance restricted discharge in about 61 heavily populated neighborhoods, generally through requests by the neighborhood associations but sometimes at the behest of supervisors.
Noll was concerned about taking away added protections for neighborhoods in the county. “There are so many neighborhoods…under our protection. I don’t want them not to be equally protected,” she said. Later in the meeting she added, “It’s better to be safe than sorry.”
“In my opinion, this [county ordinance] is doing nothing but making people feel better,” Diggs said to supervisors. “It’s not protecting them more and it’s confusing my men,” and it results in “penalizing those who want to discharge their firearms.”
Zaremba pointed out that the fact that no one had been cited under the county ordinance might “suggest that it works very well.” He argued that most of the 61 neighborhoods included in the rule don’t want weapons fired in their area. “There are lots of other places to shoot,” he said. “This rule has been on the books for 35 years; I don’t think it’s asking too much.” He also said the county attorney told supervisors the burden of proof is higher when it comes to proving state laws were broken, as opposed to county ordinances, which need less.
Diggs did agree the burden of proof is slightly less with county ordinances, but he then heatedly defended the second amendment, which protects an individuals’ right to bear arms. “If someone can safely discharge a firearm on their property, they should be able to,” he said. “I’m looking out for individual rights of the few who may be able to [do so].”
If the ordinance were unconstitutional, Zaremba argued, it would have been challenged. The issue wasn’t a second amendment issue.
Vice Chairman George Hrichak summed up the sentiments of the three supervisors who voted in favor of the repeal. He said the county was a different place 35 years ago and that people who shoot guns just don’t shoot in neighborhoods or busy areas. He also pointed out the strong support based on public input to support the move, and he argued (as many residents had) that criminals would not be prevented from firing a weapon whether there was an ordinance or not. He also felt the state law protects citizens and covers any dangerous discharges.
The wording of the vote confused supervisors enough that they spent several minutes trying to figure out just exactly what it was they were voting on. Eventually, however, they straightened things out and voted to follow the Sheriff’s suggestion.
Other business
The board voted unanimously to adopt more parking restrictions in Yorktown, with residents-only parking in some areas, a permit system for business owners, and two-hour parking in other areas. This plan had been put into effect temporarily by the board in June and staff had gotten no complaints.
Sunday churchgoers would have ample parking, staff said, and concerted enforcement would begin soon.
Hrichak asked if inebriated people would be allowed to park their cars downtown overnight to keep from driving intoxicated, and staff said the sheriff would not penalize such people. Read the full changes here.
Priscilla Caldwell, the operations director for the Williamsburg Hotel Motel Association’s tourist information center, came to the board to ask for their support in order to get signs placed along major highways directing visitors to their site. She argued the area didn’t have an independent information site, and that several legislators have already written endorsements for the center. In order to get the signs from the state department of transportation, the center needs support from a local government or tourism group.
The president of the York County Chamber of Commerce was on hand to say the chamber fully supported the WHMA’s plan and requested that the board do the same. He argued the information center would bring more people to the Triangle, improve the county revenues, and that the group was fully funded and wasn’t asking for money.
Add comment
Comments