Beaufort County delays vote on gun‑discharge ordinance after packed public hearing

Beaufort County Council on March 9 postponed a vote on a proposed countywide ordinance that would prohibit discharging firearms within set distances of buildings, dwellings, parks and playgrounds after an extended public hearing that drew residents, law‑enforcement officials and hunting advocates.

The proposed ordinance (20‑26/06) drew sharply divided testimony. Supporters said the measure is aimed at preventing stray rounds from striking homes and playgrounds after several high‑profile incidents in unincorporated areas. "This could have been a Christmas tragedy," Port Royal Police Chief Jeff Myers said, describing rounds that pierced a house and landed near a park where children play. "Something needs to be done." (Chief Jeff Myers)

Opponents and several gun‑owners said the draft’s broad 500‑foot buffer and some exemptions were arbitrary and difficult to enforce in a largely rural county. "This draft ordinance is not accountability. It's an illusion of safety," said Eric Berman, a local resident and member of the City of Beaufort Historic District Review Board, who argued the ordinance would criminalize lawful activity and create enforcement nightmares in rural parcels. (Eric Berman)

Other speakers urged a middle path: keep momentum but refine the language, focus on negligent or reckless conduct rather than a fixed geographic radius, or adopt density‑based restrictions used by other counties. Julie Franklin, who said gunfire near her Buckingham neighborhood has forced her family indoors, asked council to study Boulder‑style models that restrict discharge in denser unincorporated areas while protecting lawful rural uses. (Julie Franklin)

Council members emphasized several recurring concerns: how to define and prove negligent or reckless discharge, whether local law can lawfully enhance state crimes, and whether the sheriff’s office and solicitor would be willing and able to prosecute under the draft language. County attorney referenced an Attorney General opinion and similar ordinances around the state, urging caution on constitutionality and enforceability.

To keep the process moving while addressing those concerns, Councilmember Bartholomew moved to postpone the second reading and arrange meetings with the sheriff, the solicitor, DNR and municipal police to "word‑smith" the ordinance; the motion passed unanimously. Council agreed to return the revised language for further consideration at a future council meeting.

What’s next: staff will coordinate a working session with law‑enforcement partners and the solicitor to produce revised draft language. The council scheduled internal meetings and aims to return the ordinance to the body after committee review and recommended edits. (The council did not adopt the ordinance at this meeting.)

The public hearing produced extensive community testimony — from residents who described bullets in yards and homes to landowners and long‑time hunters warning of unintended rights restrictions — and set clear expectations that the council must reconcile safety goals with enforceability and constitutional concerns before taking a final vote.