7/20/2010 6pm - York Count Board of Supervisors - York Hall, 301 Main Street

[DrMark]

Thank you to everyone who came out to support the side of goodness.

We got the win!!

I was hoping for a shutout, but they got a point on the board. Still, a win is a win!

 

[45acpForMe]

There were 4 anti speakers (one husband/wife team) and about 11 or so pro-repeal speakers including me. I thought that we made our point and supported Sheriff Diggs well.

I was surprised at the last minute ammendment to the amendment to keep the > 22 caliber rifle ordinace. I was also surprised by my Supervisor's vote. She nodded her head and smiled during the discussion seemingly in the right places then voted no. :-(

Both votes were close 3-2.

Well at least now there are 21999 laws on the books rather than 22000.

 

[2a4all]

Well done, everyone! Those who spoke effectively countered the (somewhat hysterical) anti arguments.

Pointing out that "reckless handling of a firearm" doesn't neccessarily involve shooting one was a stroke of genius! "You could be waving it around.", Sheriff Diggs said. "But how would you know if it was loaded", Sheila Noll asked.

I'm still amazed that at least one board member thinks that a 35 year old county ordinance that has never been used provides a measure of protection and should be retained. (All violators were apparently charged under state law.) :banghead:

You can't make this stuff up.

A big hand to Sheriff Diggs! :banana:

 

[DrMark]

A big hand to Sheriff Diggs! :banana:

Absolutely.

He rocks.

 

[simmonsjoe]

I clapped

Couldn't help myself. When board member Tom told board member sheila "all guns are loaded."

 

[45acpForMe]

I sent the BoS and Sheriff Diggs a thank you email. While I didn't agree 100% with the outcome I understand that these are politicians we are dealing with and they have to answer to their voters or perceived voters.

I think that the leaving the >22 rifle part in was political to counter anti criticism of repealing the 61 subdivision discharge ban. They can say "At least we still have a high powered rifle ban in the county!".

Tonight was more than a baby-step but a clean sweep would have better helped the cause in other counties as well.

Edited to add: And thanks go out to OCDO/VCDL members that travelled so far to add to the discussion. I know we far outnumbered the anti's. The anti-woman dissed people that don't even live in the county. I liked when Ron (from NN) got up and said that while he didn't live in the county he frequented restaurants and other locations in York County.

 

[DJEEPER]

ugh... i am absolutely disgusted with Sheila's ignorance.

she probably has nightmares about guns chasing her around all by themselves discharging at will.


I almost had to walk out of the room because the urge to throw a tomato was so strong....


Oh well, it is somewhat comforting to see that we have SOME people on the board who has some common sense. She is just a flippin idiot.

and i guffaw'ed when the .50 cal taking down an airplane came up. SERIOUSLY?! HAHA... what absolute morons.

 

[peter nap]

I just got back and kind of have internet. I'll be downloading video for hours.

Danny Diggs was the star of the show but I was proud to be part of the rest of the group.

Tonight is an example of what VCDL is really about. I heard anti's and kind of anti's all say they were NRA supporters. I didn't hear any of them say they were VCDL members.

Bruce Jackson drove from NOVA, Dennis and Philip from Central Va, Joe from West Point..Etc. This wasn't a CHP issue and it did benefit all gunowners in the area. That's the VCDL I love!

All the speakers were intelligent and factual. The anti's were irrational and a little paranoid.

I really can't think of much nice to say about the board. The best I can come up is some weren't as stupid as others.

There was a good turnout of locals but I thought there would be more Lafayette members.

I'd call it a big win. Nice job guys!

 

[VCDL President]

I just got back and kind of have internet. I'll be downloading video for hours.

Danny Diggs was the star of the show but I was proud to be part of the rest of the group.

Tonight is an example of what VCDL is really about. I heard anti's and kind of anti's all say they were NRA supporters. I didn't hear any of them say they were VCDL members.

Bruce Jackson drove from NOVA, Dennis and Philip from Central Va, Joe from West Point..Etc. This wasn't a CHP issue and it did benefit all gunowners in the area. That's the VCDL I love!

All the speakers were intelligent and factual. The anti's were irrational and a little paranoid.

I really can't think of much nice to say about the board. The best I can come up is some weren't as stupid as others.

There was a good turnout of locals but I thought there would be more Lafayette members.

I'd call it a big win. Nice job guys!

I think the key to understanding VCDL's support for one form of carry or another is that we are opportunists to some degree. Wherever we can make a difference at any given point in time, that's where we are. It's discharge in York County today, fixing open carry in state parks tomorrow (I don't know what is taking so long on this - I need to make a few calls tomorrow), or opening up another avenue for concealed carry permit holders to carry somewhere (the most dreaded P4Ps). It's all good - RKBA is a pretty vast area to cover, so we choose our fights as wisely as we can, trying not to forsake anyone.

 

[DrMark]

I just got back...

Nice meeting you, BTW...

 

[peter nap]

Nice meeting you, BTW...

It was nice meeting you all. It was a hectic night and we really didn't have time to talk much. Maybe next time.

I'm sorting video now and should be able to put some up later today.

 

[Pagan]

Fortunately when I got there they were talking about the parking scheme for the Yorktown area, and on the map being projected, I noticed my vehicle was in a 2 hour parking zone, so I had to cut out early, and miss the final vote, but atleast it turned out well. I swear, I thought the wife of the husband/wife team was gonna cry, when she was giving her extremely emotional speach to the BOS. I felt kind of bad for her, but now I just pitty her for having a husband that is just as irrational. Blind leading the blind...

 

[DrMark]

Fortunately when I got there they were talking about the parking scheme for the Yorktown area, and on the map being projected, I noticed my vehicle was in a 2 hour parking zone, so I had to cut out early, and miss the final vote, but atleast it turned out well. I swear, I thought the wife of the husband/wife team was gonna cry, when she was giving her extremely emotional speach to the BOS. I felt kind of bad for her, but now I just pitty her for having a husband that is just as irrational. Blind leading the blind...

Yeah, what a train wreck.

For those without a score card, that was Pam Pouchot, a fairly well-known anti. She's the author of the e-mail to HOAs in post 3 and the letter to the Daily Press in post 5 of this thread.

 

[DrMark]

BTW, my wife hit record on the VCR on the local community access channel.

She saw a little of the meeting before switching over to watch something more interesting to her. I'll have to watch the proceedings this evening.

 

[2a4all]

Here's the Daily Press report of the proceedings

http://www.dailypress.com/news/politics/dp-nws-york-gun-ordinance-20100720,0,4357672.story

After nearly two years debating the future of York's firearm discharge ordinances, a split Board of Supervisors Tuesday night narrowly repealed the county's restrictions on shooting guns in certain neighborhoods but decided to retain a restriction against firing guns larger than .22 caliber.

After a nearly two hour discussion — that included a public hearing that drew 21 speakers — two 3-2 votes finally drew the debate to a close.

In the first, supervisors Thomas Shepperd, Walt Zaremba and Sheila Noll succeeded in removing the firing resriction on all guns larger than .22 caliber from the original proposal. Then, in a second vote, supervisors Shepperd, George Hrichak and Don Wiggins voted to throw out the county's ordinance that restricted firing a gun in about 60 designated neighborhoods.

During the public hearing — that was based on an original proposal to rescend both the geographic and caliber-specific restrictions — six county residents spoke in favor of retaining the rules. In addition, nine more county residents spoke in favor of scuttling the restrictions. Six more speakers — most if not all of whom wore holstered hand guns — were Second Amendment advocates who had traveled from as far as Northern Virginia to urge repeal of the county ordinances.

Much of the supervisors debate centered on whether state laws would adequately protect residents.

During the discussion, York- Poquoson Sheriff Danny Diggs, an avowed gun rights advocate, repeatedly stated his belief that county resrictions were redundant,unnecessary and hadn't been used.

Diggs said the county ordinance provided nothing but "extra feel good."

 

[TFred]

Of course you know the purpose for the .22 caliber restriction... Obviously this is to protect the citizens of York County from an attack by someone using one of those Ugly Black "Assault" Rifles.

Because someone who is intent on hunting down and murdering people with an Ugly Black Assault Rifle, will certainly change their plans once they realize they would be in violation of a County Ordinance preventing them from discharging it...



TFred

 

[peter nap]

I'm going to FOIA the memo the CA supposedly went saying there was a lower burdon of proof for a County ordinance than a State Statute.

I was always under the impression that someone was innocent until proven guilty and the burden of proof was the same for a Misdemeanor ordnance vs a Misdemeanor Statute.

I want the learned Commonwealths Attorney to splain that to me. I'm sure it's true but being a dumb ol Redneck, I don't understand.

 

[45acpForMe]

Here's the Daily Press report of the proceedings

http://www.dailypress.com/news/politics/dp-nws-york-gun-ordinance-20100720,0,4357672.story

After nearly two years debating the future of York's firearm discharge ordinances, a split Board of Supervisors Tuesday night narrowly repealed the county's restrictions on shooting guns in certain neighborhoods but decided to retain a restriction against firing guns larger than .22 caliber.

After a nearly two hour discussion — that included a public hearing that drew 21 speakers — two 3-2 votes finally drew the debate to a close.

In the first, supervisors Thomas Shepperd, Walt Zaremba and Sheila Noll succeeded in removing the firing resriction on all guns larger than .22 caliber from the original proposal. Then, in a second vote, supervisors Shepperd, George Hrichak and Don Wiggins voted to throw out the county's ordinance that restricted firing a gun in about 60 designated neighborhoods.

During the public hearing — that was based on an original proposal to rescend both the geographic and caliber-specific restrictions — six county residents spoke in favor of retaining the rules. In addition, nine more county residents spoke in favor of scuttling the restrictions. Six more speakers — most if not all of whom wore holstered hand guns — were Second Amendment advocates who had traveled from as far as Northern Virginia to urge repeal of the county ordinances.

Much of the supervisors debate centered on whether state laws would adequately protect residents.

During the discussion, York- Poquoson Sheriff Danny Diggs, an avowed gun rights advocate, repeatedly stated his belief that county resrictions were redundant,unnecessary and hadn't been used.

Diggs said the county ordinance provided nothing but "extra feel good."

First the county ordinance is only for rifles in caliber greater than .22 not "guns".

Second, I only counted 4 people total against and I can't remember if all 4 were residents or not. I don't know where they got their 6 number from.

 

[DrMark]

http://www.wydaily.com/local-news/4746-york-supes-repeal-firearms-ordinance-on-3-2-vote.html

York Supes Repeal Firearms Ordinance on 3-2 Vote
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.

 

[DrMark]

The BoS Meeting is being re-broadcast right now... Cox Cable Channel 46 in York County.