OUR VIEW: Council should limit firing of guns in town
Advertisement
Text size: small | medium | large
Staff Editorial
Published: August 18, 2008
» SUMMARY: Rampant residential growth in Culpeper has made it unfeasible for residents to be allowed to shoot guns within town limits, even with a special permit.
Not so long ago, Culpeper was a quiet little rural town with a lot of open space. In those days, residents would reach for a gun to shoot unwanted garden pests. That time has receded into history.
With the change in the character of Culpeper, there has also come a time to consider changing or modifying activities that were allowable — and safer — in earlier days.
One such needed modification is closing a loophole in the current ordinance that allows town residents to discharge guns in town if they have a special permit. This exception is a throwback to the days when people would keep the population of groundhogs and other “varmints” under control by shooting them. While we usually strongly support the rights of gun owners, this is one of those instances when others’ safety has to take precedence.
Town Council voted at its Aug. 12 meeting to continue to study the recommendation from Scott Barlow, town police chief, that the exception be eliminated. The council is expected to have a second reading of the proposed change and possibly make a final decision at its Sept. 9 meeting.
Just to be clear: The requests for permission to discharge a gun in town are infrequent. Still, traps are available as a satisfactory and safer alternative to shooting a gun as a way to deal with the problem of unwanted garden and yard pests.
We encourage Town Council to act favorably on Barlow’s suggestion.
Page 1 of 1
Post a Comment
The commenting period has ended or commenting has been deactivated for this article.
Can't find what you're looking for? Try our quick search:
Reader Reactions
Posted by ( El Debibble ) on August 20, 2008 at 1:50 pm
SMC, pay attention and maybe next time you won’t point out that you don’t know what the subject at hand is.
We have a Police Chief making noise about something not critical and we have a bunch of Council people looking for deflection from how they have bungled the skate park. I don’t like the potential outcome.
The idiots skate without protective gear proving they are idiots. Barlow says it isn’t against the law, just the rules so he does nothing.
Suddenly these idiots have no place to skate cuz they can’t take care of what they’re given, so they take it elsewhere (boo hoo). However, it is against the law to skate board on the sidewalks and on private property. Uh oh! Barlow has to take some action, but how can he do that if he is busy making press doing something that doesn’t need to be done?
See how they are related?
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( SMC ) on August 19, 2008 at 9:00 pm
El Debibble… Although I agree with you on your statement about legally firing guns within town limits. I have to ask what your problem is with the “little idiots” that you referred to? In my eyes that statement made you look like the idiot. Look at it this way. If the kids can’t skate at the Park. They are going to skate in the shopping centers and any other public space available. Stay on the subject at hand and stop inserting your opinion on topics that no one is talking about.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( El Debibble ) on August 19, 2008 at 1:51 pm
The laws as they are do not allow you to recklessy fire guns in town. It is usually an idiot doing things like that and a pro-active law is not going to make a bit of difference to an idiot. If I NEED to discharge a firearm I do not NEED someone else’s permission to do so.
Learn the three rules that all responsible gun owners should know.
Barlow needs to come up with a way to stop the real crime that is occurring.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( semper fi mom ) on August 19, 2008 at 10:34 am
While I do not personally own any weapons (guns) I support the 2nd Amendment. In this instance, I think taking pro-active, protective measures (prevent unnecessary harm and/or death, damage to property; and of course, law suits) makes sense. No one is saying you cannot own/collect, etc. guns/weaponry AND the protection from harm in the home has not been prohibited, either. So (to the Hitler quote) and others worried about attack of their gun rights - the only thing you can’t do is shoot weaponry in your yard in Town. The reality is, it’s simply a matter of time before an accident does occur - and everyone loses in that situation.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( ed ) on August 19, 2008 at 7:57 am
1935 “This year will go down in history! For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient and the world will follow our lead into the future!“ - Adolph Hitler
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( El Debibble ) on August 19, 2008 at 5:54 am
Until you come up with an instance of where people were legally firing guns in the Town limit and were reckless then you have come up with no reason to “close a loophole”. I have never heard a gun fired inside the town limits.
Did anyone check on the regulations for live trapping and moving animals in VA?
Why not back some ordinances to close that loophole that seems to allow the little idiots to skateboard on Town property with no protective gear.
I encourage Town Council to make rules that we actually need.
Didn’t Barlow come from an area where one of the local town Councils was video taped saying they didn’t care what the State laws were that they were still going to harass legal gun owners and the State could sue them?
Report Inappropriate Comment