Firearms discharge regulaton complicated by council approach

Sensibly regulating where in Horry County firearms may be discharged should not be as difficult as Horry County Council members and the county attorney are making it. Let’s be clear that in no way is it a constitutional issue to prohibit casual shooting in populated areas.

State law and ordinances in municipalities such as the city of Myrtle Beach prohibit shooting within 300 yards of a residence without permission of the property owner. State law addresses where guns may be fired in hunting. Horry County has no ordinance on target shooting. The matter came to the attention of the council in June when residents were understandably concerned about use of firearms in proximity to their homes.

In 2012, the council ended consideration of a proposed regulation on discharge of firearms after gun owners opposed it. After people complained this year about indiscriminate shooting, Horry County Attorney Arrigo Carotti offered the 2012 proposed ordinance, still on his computer. When The Sun News asked for a copy of the 2012 proposal, Carotti declined to release it, citing attorney-client privilege.

Carotti told members of the Public Safety Committee: “There was a draft ordinance that was circulated in-house and was inadvertently made public without having gone through the full vetting of staff or council, and that created a bit of furor in public.” According to a county government statement, Carotti “plans to adjust that document with the feedback he heard from the Public Safety Committee and provide various options for consideration at the next Public Safety Committee in January.” In other words, county officials don’t want any citizens – including property owners or gun owners who have concerns – to see the proposal at this stage.

We understand that’s the preference of council members and their attorney, but residents interested in the matter should be able to look at the 2012 material – a public document subject to the Freedom of Information Act – on which a new proposal is based. It’s that simple, and the attorney-client privilege claim is a stretch. “It’s absurd on its face,” says Bill Rogers, executive director of the South Carolina Press Association.

There are matters, exempted from the requirement that public business be conducted in open meetings, that are subject to attorney-client privilege. These include personnel and litigation. Any proposal involving guns may be sensitive to people, all the more reason for them to understand the details, but not exempt from open meetings.

Regulating the discharge of firearms differs significantly from attempting to control purchase and ownership; council members clearly are sensitive – perhaps overly so – to any conflict with the Second Amendment. Public Safety Committee Chairman Al Allen says “this is a very important subject and we need to be cautious and very, very careful in how we do it.”

Fair enough. The committee and the council also need to remember residents who have every right to feel secure in their homes, protected from indiscriminate target shooting.

This story was originally published December 10, 2016 at 10:14 AM with the headline "Firearms discharge regulaton complicated by council approach."