Residents tell Alamance County commissioners gun range noise, explosions and stray rounds threaten homes and churches

At the Nov. 18 Alamance County Board of Commissioners meeting, a group of residents from northwest Alamance brought photos, sheriff's reports and firsthand accounts accusing a privately operated shooting range of sustained noise, property damage and safety risks.

"It's made our once peaceful neighborhood feel like a war zone," resident Lee Hicks told commissioners, saying gunfire and repeated explosions often carry into the evening and rattle homes. Several other speakers, including pastor Tommy Fergus, described services and funerals interrupted by gunfire; Fergus said veterans in his congregation reported the noise "brings back memories of Nam." Butch McKenzie presented a photograph and a sheriff's report and said a 50‑caliber bullet was removed from a bedroom wall.

The persistent complaints included three recurring themes: (1) loud explosions and repeated gunfire that family members say have caused vibration, cracked concrete and emotional distress; (2) physical evidence the speakers say shows bullets and damaged trees crossing property lines; and (3) failed attempts at local mediation, including an allegation that the range operator declined a safety review offered by neighbors.

County Attorney Rick Stevens provided a legal overview in response. He cited a state law governing shooting‑range protection (referred to in his remarks as 14‑409.46) and explained that, under current North Carolina precedent, the local noise ordinance that existed when a range opened is the standard usually applied to noise complaints about that range. Stevens told the board that state law addresses noise regulation but does not generally impose a statewide inspection or mandatory engineering standard for private ranges, and that some remedies might be civil (property‑damage claims) or criminal if conduct violates other statutes. He said the county could adopt a local shooting‑range ordinance or land‑use regulations going forward, but such rules would generally apply only to ranges that open after the ordinance is adopted and would not automatically alter grandfathered operations.

Commissioners discussed options including referring the matter to the planning department, reviewing nuisance laws, and drafting a specific shooting‑range ordinance or setback requirement for future facilities. Commissioner comments urged planning‑board review and exploration of countywide zoning as a longer‑term land‑use solution.

What happens next: county staff and the county attorney offered to gather examples and draft possible ordinance language for board consideration; commissioners indicated they would also explore enforcement and civil remedies and discuss the matter with planning staff. The residents who testified requested clearer, enforceable standards and follow‑up from county leadership.

Clarifying details: speakers provided photographs and a sheriff's report, and one resident said he recovered a 50‑caliber bullet from household drywall; neighbors alleged sale or use of Tannerite (binary explosives) at the site and said repeated blasts have caused structural vibrations.

Status: No enforcement action or ordinance was adopted at this meeting. The board asked staff to research legal options and to engage planning staff for potential land‑use or ordinance remedies.