News and Events: Barton Introduces Firearm Discharge Rules

County Commissioner Jeff Barton will propose rules to govern the discharge of firearms on subdivision lots of two acres and less Tuesday.

Barton emphasized that the rules would apply only in subdivision lots of two acres and less, and on lots of 10 acres and less between the hours of 10 p.m. and 6 a.m.

"This is not gun regulation, it's discharge regulation," Barton said. "Reckless shooting in established neighborhoods has become a problem we need to address. This does so in a common-sense fashion."

A committee of law enforcement officers, gun enthusiasts, safety experts, neighborhood and ranching representatives helped Barton and Hays County special counsel Mark Kennedy draft the proposed rules.

If accepted by a majority of the Commissioners Court's five members, the rules would become effective immediately.

For more on Barton's thoughts, see his blog on this website. Below is the back-up summary and part of the information Barton prepared for colleagues on the Commissioners Court.

HAYS COUNTY AGENDA, March 25, 9 a.m.

AGENDA ITEM: Discussion and possible action regarding the regulation of the discharge of firearms in the unincorporated area of the county, as provided for in Chapter 235 of the Texas Local Government Code.

SUMMARY: As members of the Court know, I have been working with a committee of local citizens to develop recommendations on the discharge of firearms. State law allows counties to regulate the discharge of firearms on lots up to 10 acres, but the Court must implement a local order.

This is a safety issue, a discharge issue, not a gun control issue.

Because the state law, the county’s options, and this issue in general are sometimes misunderstood, it’s important to reiterate that last statement. I am not suggesting the Court should restrict, regulate, or register gun ownership. I do not think we have that authority; I am against us trying to assert it. I believe there was broad agreement among committee members on this point. Every member of the committee I worked with to develop this proposal is a member of a gun-owning family. I have owned a gun myself since I was 14. The proposed order I am submitting for the Court’s consideration includes a preamble affirming the county’s commitment to the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution, guaranteeing citizens the right to bear arms.

Again, this is a firearms discharge issue – an effort to inhibit reckless conduct – not in any way an effort to regulate who owns a gun or where that gun is stored. In no way will it restrict a person’s right to defend themselves or their property.

Protecting Constitutional rights and the traditions of gun ownership were paramount to members of the committee. But there was also broad agreement among committee members that we have a persistent problem in Hays County with the inappropriate discharge of firearms within residential subdivisions. We heard this from law enforcement officers, neighborhood leaders, ranchers whose property adjoins subdivisions, and from gun safety experts.

The problem was underlined with deadly effect on April 8, 2007, when a 7-year-old boy, Daniel Galicias, was shot and killed while playing in his back yard. By all accounts the shooter meant no harm; he was taking target practice in his neighborhood. But the result was tragic. Daniel’s case helped crystallize the issue, highlighted the urgency, but the danger posed by stray bullets in that neighborhood is far from unique. I have heard reports from all four commissioners precincts about incidents that endangered, or at least concerned, neighbors. In my precinct, there are problems east of I-35 in working class neighborhoods and west of I-35 in affluent neighborhoods. Stray bullets, inappropriate shooting – it is a county-wide problem. Indeed, while chairing this committee, my own windshield was struck by a stray shot on FM 967 between Buda and Driftwood, spraying shattered glass on my daughter in the back seat (no one was seriously injured).

It is already against the law to shoot across property lines without permission. But enforcement is difficult until there is tragic proof – and then too little too late. Unless we adopt rules to change the equation, unless we give law enforcement officers the proper tools to address dangerous situations before they escalate, we can expect this problem to get worse as we become a more populated, more urban county. Not only are we packing more people more closely than ever before in Hays County, we are attracting more residents who are unfamiliar with Texas’ rural traditions and gun etiquette – too often we find people unfamiliar with basic gun safety. We are no longer a county where virtually everyone using a gun grows up on -- or maybe still lives on -- the family ranch, or emjoys an open field, an uninhabited wood, or a spacious arroyo behind the house. As with rules governing traffic, water well spacing, septic systems, brush burning, our changing conditions invite the Commissioners Court to establish a framework for the protection of health and safety – to level the playing field and mitigate the dangers posed by the irresponsible and the foolish.

No law is going to protect everyone. No law would have guaranteed Daniel Galicia’s safety. But good laws can improve the chances for future Daniels without infringing unreasonably on the rights of others.

What I am proposing does not close every loophole. It will not make the dim wise, nor turn led bullets to rubber. But, after months of working with a diverse committee of citizens – including two constables, a representative from the sheriff’s office, a gun safety instructor and activists with gun rights groups -- I believe we have crafted an approach that gets the most with the least, the most protection feasible with the least government intrusion to still be effectual.

Essentially, we would ban hunting and target shooting inside of subdivisions on lots two acres and less. This follows the 90-10 rule, focusing the regulation on 90 percent of the problem without becoming paralyzed with rules that try to foresee every variable in the other 10 percent of cases. If, a year from now, we find that shooting is a problem on larger lots, we can amend these rules to address the problem. Meanwhile, we take a cautious approach. Remember, we could simply ban all discharge on lots of 10 acres and less, but I am not proposing that.

This order, if adopted, will also ban shooting in subdivisions between the hours of 10 p.m. and 6 a.m.

But there are plenty of reasonable exceptions:

• To protect life, family, pets and property;
• For law enforcement;
• For indoor firing ranges;
• For licensed businesses;
• For the discharge of blanks at ceremonial functions, such as funerals or flag raisings;
• For other exceptions granted by the Commissioners Court.

What’s more, gun owners on a small lot can – for the purposes of our regulations – combine their lot with their neighbor’s to get out of the two-acre restriction. In other words, if your neighbors think you are safe, and agree that there is a safe place to shoot, they can pool their land with yours and so allow you to qualify for hunting and target practice – or whatever legal shooting you wish to do.

One member of the committee, Paul Velte, has expressed dissatisfaction with these proposed rules, arguing that no rules at all are needed. At least two other members preferred more stringent rules that would limit discharge on lots up to 10 acres instead of the two-acre limit.

I believe this is a good compromise and a good starting place. We will look to gun owners to help police their own ranks. We heard testimony from people who have problems with irresponsible neighbors on lots of five and six acres or more. If in the future this continues to be a problem, or becomes worse, we can consider further regulation, as I said. But for now I believe we should start with the least regulation necessary to effect change. We hope this will address most of the problem. It will bring public scrutiny to the issue, and give responsible gun owners leverage to change the behavior of less responsible comrades. Above all, it gives law enforcement a useful tool, a tool that may save lives without infringing too deeply in the meanwhile on how responsible citizens use their land (or their guns).

This rule won’t keep someone on 9 acres – or 900 acres – from firing recklessly. But we’re dealing in probabilities here. While it’s very possible to discharge a firearm on 900 acres safely, without imposing on your neighbors, it’s very difficult to do so inside a subdivision on a lot smaller than two acres. Or to do so late at night within in a subdivision – especially when there is no good reason. That is what we should address, and that is what this proposed order does address.

I should note that Mark Kennedy, our special counsel, has devoted a great deal of effort to the careful drafting of this order and, I think, has presented a product that steers clear of problems created in other counties by sloppy draftsmanship and vague or over-reaching language.

Attached as backup:

• Proposed Order regulating the discharge of firearms.
• Resolution and Preamble.
• Memo from Mark Kennedy addressing suggestions received by his office.
• Editorial from the Austin American-Statesman.
• News articles from Statesman and The Free Pres.
• Membership of the committee

I will propose that we name this order “Daniel’s Law,” in honor of the Galicias family.