Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ordinance Updates topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City staff outlines ordinance updates to restrict bows and crossbows, clarify firearm rules
Summary
At the March 23 Alpharetta City Council meeting, staff proposed ordinance edits that would permit and restrict the discharge of bows and crossbows on private property and clarify existing firearm discharge prohibitions; council members asked questions but did not vote during the recorded portion.
Alpharetta city staff on March 23 presented proposed updates to local ordinances that would clarify firearm discharge rules and create a permitting process and restrictions for the discharge of bows and crossbows inside city limits, staff said at the council meeting.
The changes, the staff member said, are intended to ‘‘fill gaps’’ in current local code, preserve local control and provide options that address certain behavior without necessarily producing a permanent criminal record. ‘‘We only amended two existing provisions,’’ the staff member told the council when introducing the package.
One amendment memorializes that the discharge of firearms remains prohibited within the city except when used in lawful defense of persons or property or at an indoor shooting range, the staff member said. Staff also described a new approach to bows and crossbows: permit holders would be required to shoot only on their property. Where a parcel is too small, the staff member said, the owner would need to provide a backdrop to prevent an arrow from leaving the property or, depending on the lot size and setbacks, shoot only interior to the parcel.
‘‘The person who gets the permit is required to shoot only on their property,’’ the staff member said, adding that the police chief would administer the permitting process so city staff would know who is authorized to shoot and could respond to complaints.
Council members asked whether the permit requirement was necessary. One council member said the city already retains enforcement authority without a permit and questioned whether the permit would add meaningful protection or merely create an extra step. ‘‘I'm not sure that that extra step is necessary at this point, but we haven't had these regulations outlined before,’’ the council member said, calling for clarity on how the permit would assist enforcement.
Another council member welcomed the review but expressed concern about a 150-foot measure mentioned in the discussion in relation to property lines and nearby dwellings. The council member said that on smaller residential lots a 150-foot requirement could be impractical and stressed that the council should consider impacts on neighbors sitting on back porches.
Staff framed the permitting approach as a way to provide clearer rules and an enforcement trail in the event of complaints; staff did not indicate a fee for permits in the recorded discussion. No motion or vote on the proposed language is recorded in the provided portion of the meeting.
Next steps were not stated in the transcript excerpt: the council asked questions and received clarification but did not adopt the ordinance language during the segments provided.
