Should town of Culpeper ban varmint shooting?
Advertisement
Text size: small | medium | large
By Allison Brophy Champion
Published: September 8, 2008
Culpeper Town Council aims to decide at its meeting Tuesday night whether it should be unlawful to shoot at garden pests within the corporate limits.
The Town Code, as currently written, allows the discharging of firearms in town for the purpose of killing “varmints” with a special permit, but Police Chief Scott Barlow feels the town has become too congested to safely allow that practice to continue.
He recommended to Town Council last month that the provision for a special permit for the “Discharge of Firearms” in town is discontinued considering the rapid population and housing growth. Since Barlow took over last April he has turned down two requests for permits to do so, he told Town Council in August.
Town Council held a first reading of the proposed ordinance change last month and at least one Councilman, Duke duFrane, expressed doubts about not permitting citizens to shoot at garden pests.
He said he had received more phone calls on the proposed ordinance change than any other in the past nine years.
“Nobody thought it was a good idea,” duFrane said. “People say, ‘I have varmints and need to shoot them.’”
At least one other councilman thought that was not a good idea.
“I think the best remedy is to change the ordinance,” Councilman Jim Risner said, encouraging the use of traps to deal with garden pests.
Councilman Chris Snider said people would continue to shoot at varmints in their garden regardless of whether the town adopted the ordinance change.
A recent report by the Culpeper PD showed five other Virginia localities, including the town of Warrenton and city of Manassas, do not allow the discharge of firearms within the corporate limits.
The city of Harrisonburg has a similar written policy to Culpeper’s with citizens permitted to “shoot at rats, birds, or other noxious animals upon his or her premises,” with a permit from the police chief, according to Section 16-6 of the Harrisonburg City Code.
However, according to the recent report compiled by the Culpeper PD, Harrisonburg Police Corporal Eddie Skelton said in his 14 years he had never seen such a permit issued.
“It is an old practice that was never taken off of the code,” the town report said.
Certain exceptions in the other localities were allowed for re-enactors, hunters and military personnel and in shooting galleries. In all cases, the ordinances did not apply to law enforcement or self defense.
Culpeper Town Attorney Bob Bendall of Manassas will weigh in on the issue at Tuesday’s Town Council meeting, specifi-cally what liability, if any, the town faces if Chief Barlow were to sign off on a special permit to discharge a gun in town.
Allison Brophy Champion can be reached at 825-0771 ext. 101 or
Culpeper Town Council meets Tuesday at 7 p.m. in the county boardroom, 302 N. Main St.
Here’s what’s on the agenda:
*Proposed amendment to the local gun law prohibiting the discharge of firearms in town altogether, including requests to shoot garden pests
*Spending $123,770 for nine new brick crosswalks on South Main Street
*Issuing requests for propos-als for design of a new police station at 740 Old Brandy Rd., a former church building that the town purchased last week for $2.85 million
*Submission of the fiscal year 2008 Annual Report
*Request by town resident Gordon Meriwether to close West Street and Blue Ridge Avenue on Halloween for safety reasons
Page 1 of 1
Post a Comment
The commenting period has ended or commenting has been deactivated for this article.

Reader Reactions
Posted by ( copper ) on September 09, 2008 at 12:35 pm
Semperfimom is right, nothing has ever happened but why take the chance. We should IMMEDIATELY ban all cars in Town, because someone could be hit and injured and since they are registered in Town, the Town could be sued. Then we can ban lawnmowers, chainsaws and any other item that MAY HARM someone. I know this sounds stupid, but one stupid rule to a non-existant problem only leads to other stupid rules or bans which infringe on citizens rights. If this ban goes forward, be assured the next step for gun haters like Chief Barlow will be to ban handgun ownership in Town, with a total ban on all guns to follow that. Remember the sign the Town of Culpeper had at the Park banning concealed weapons that they were finally forced to remove because it was illegal. Certain Town officials like the Chief want to impress their own views on the rest of us whether it violates our rights or not.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( El Debibble ) on September 09, 2008 at 12:02 pm
No, the Town is not liable. We do not need laws to legislate common sense. Semper fi you gotta be a closet liberal cuz all of a sudden you’re wanting to regulate the heck out something you personally have an issue with. We have Conservation Police (game wardens) to make sure the “proteced species” (my god) are protected.
All I see is Barlow demonstrating an agenda that was typical where he comes from.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( semper fi mom ) on September 09, 2008 at 8:58 am
IF a citizen is allowed to shoot at rats, birds, etc., in his/her garden, and something goes horribly wrong (i.e. bullet maims, kills a child); then the TOWN is liable, right? Seems obvious that, while nothing has happened to date, with the population being what it is-it makes sense and is a smart precaution. No one is saying you can’t own a gun (or 100 if that floats your boat)and use a gun for self-defense in your home - so don’t go all crazy about losing rights. Also, who double-checks that they actually don’t kill any protected species? Who makes sure the individual is trained properly and is an accurate shot? Do the taxpayers end up paying more to cover this kind of thing in addition to any sooner-or-later will happen law suit? Why risk any of it?
Report Inappropriate Comment