JCC Supes Approve Changes to Gun Ordinance

By Desiree Parker Thursday, September 29, 2011

James City County supervisors voted 3-2 to approve changes to the county’s firearm ordinance.

The changes clarify the definition of a subdivision so it specifies property that is divided into two or more lots after August 31, 1964; that has a recorded plat; and that has lots created for residential or commercial purposes. The changes also add an option that make getting an exception from the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries easier than it is currently and update a part of the ordinance on pneumatic guns to bring it into line with state code. The board approved the changes, with supervisors Jim Kennedy and Bruce Goodson dissenting.

After explaining the proposed changes, Assistant County Attorney Lola Perkins told the board Tuesday that the county had met with owners of one property in the county who had concerns about the enforcement of the current ordinance regarding discharging a firearm in a subdivision.

Charles and Nancy Sheppard have previously complained to the board previously that they can’t discharge weapons on their 50-acre property because it is considered a subdivision, though they argue other buildings are far away from their large lot. The Sheppards' attorney, Steve Roberts, addressed the board Tuesday and said his clients wanted the board to add a large-acre subdivision exception, instead of the changes that were proposed.

County staff explained that residents can currently discharge weapons anywhere in the county to protect property or life, or to shoot dangerous animals such as coyotes.

Staff also pointed out that citizens can currently get an exception to hunt from DGIF through a permit; the proposed change would allow citizens to apply for a DGIF wildlife management plan, which is a somewhat simpler process.

The DGIF change would allow more people to hunt on their land with smaller acreage, compared to offering a large-acre exception, according to staff.

A wildlife plan would have to be approved by the Chief of Police, who can control variables such as what types of guns are used to execute the plan, or when the plan can occur. The Chief can also choose to deny a plan, but a police spokesman on hand could not recall a time when a plan had been rejected.

County Administrator Robert Middaugh explained to the Board that DGIF permits aren’t always approved, and permits would not be given if it somehow puts a citizen in harm’s way.

County Attorney Leo Rogers told the board that the county had received “numerous complaints about discharge of firearms on this property,” likely referring to the Sheppard’s land. He also said one citizen had challenged the definition of a subdivision and the change will make the definition very clear and help the county avoid litigation.

A few board members asked staff what the biggest changes were; staff indicated that very few changes were made. The biggest change, according to Middaugh, is it will be easier for citizens to get a DGIF plan, versus using the permit system.

Roberts said that he felt the change in the definition of a subdivision was a significant change, and he seemed concerned that staff didn’t indicate this to the board. “I think [this change] will result in unintended consequences,” he said.

A few citizens spoke to the board about the issue, including Melissa Conner from neighboring nonprofit Dreamcatchers, a therapeutic riding facility. She said she had “grave concerns” about gunfire being heard by people and animals on the facility and she asked the board to oppose the changes.

A representative for the gun rights group Virginia Citizens Defense League came and asked the board to “be as lenient as you can with this policy,” and pointed out that other localities such as York County have gotten rid of their local firearms ordinances altogether.

Kennedy said he felt that hunting conduct is already regulated without the proposed changes and that citizens can get the DGIF to approve permits already, so he decided to vote no.

Goodson said “to me, this is a problem we’re looking for,” instead of a real problem that needs to be addressed. He said he wouldn’t vote for the plan because “the family doesn’t support it, and the neighbors don’t support it.”

Chairman Mary Jones felt the new ordinance “provides more options for citizens," so she chose to vote in favor of adopting it along with fellow board members Jim Icenhour and John McGlennon.