The Dawsonville City Council reviewed Ordinance 05/2025 on Dec. 15, a second reading intended to regulate the discharge of firearms within the city limits, but the proposal failed to pass during the meeting.

City Attorney Kevin Tallent read the ordinance’s title and purpose for a second reading: to regulate firearm discharges within city limits, provide exceptions and definitions and establish penalties. Tallent noted the council had convened a special meeting the prior week to collect additional public input before any final action.

During debate a councilmember who identified themselves in the transcript as Speaker 7 opposed the ordinance and said he would vote 'no.' That councilmember summarized the facts that had been presented to council: there were nine calls to the Dawson County Sheriff’s Office over the past year related to firearm discharges within the city limits and, according to the speaker, none resulted in injury or property damage. The speaker also said the sheriff indicated the sound of a gunshot alone does not necessarily establish probable cause, making enforcement challenging without the ability to enter private property.

The speaker cited public comments suggesting the issue is concentrated in a particular neighborhood (Gold Creek) and argued the proposal would impose citywide restrictions for a local problem, called the 150‑yard hunter buffer and a 10‑home threshold arbitrary, and urged more precise justification before adopting new regulation.

The transcript records a motion to approve the ordinance and extended discussion; it does not include a detailed roll‑call for the vote. In later mayoral remarks the mayor stated that a state representative had criticized the ordinance as rushed and likely unconstitutional, and the mayor replied that the criticism was inaccurate and that local governments have authority to address public safety within their jurisdictions. The mayor also said the proposed ordinance "did not pass this evening." The transcript does not include the exact vote tally for the ordinance.

Next steps: the council did not adopt Ordinance 05/2025 at this meeting. Any future attempts to regulate discharge of firearms would require additional drafting, clearer justification of need and specification of enforceable elements, according to council debate.