HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-08-03 ad Hoc - Firearms Safety Committee MinutesOFR
M c'
O,sJ9 +1NCON4�pP�
Town of Reading
Meeting Minutes
Board - Committee - Commission - Council:
Date: 2015 -08 -03
Building: Reading Police Station
Address: 15 Union Street
Purpose: General Business
Attendees: Members - Present:
RE-LE IVED
FOWN CLERK
READING, M ;SS.
Ad Hoc Firearms Safety Committee P 3' 58 '
Time: 6:30 PM
Location: Community Room
Session: Open Sessioin
Kevin Sexton, Mark Segalla, Bryn Burkhart, John Scully, Ken Lafferty, David
Pinette, John Halsey (via telephone)
Members - Not Present:
Others Present:
Police Chief James Cormier, Board of Selectmen member Barry Berman,
Bylaw Committee Chair Stephen Crook, Alan and Donna Beaulieu,
Minutes Respectfully Submitted By:
Topics of Discussion:
Kevin Sexton called the meeting to order at 6:30 PM.
Kevin Sexton opened by explaining that we were there to vote on the proposed bylaw that
was discussed at the last meeting on July 13, so that it could be put in front of the BOS and
eventually Town Meeting.
Bryn Burkhart asked for information on procedure after the vote. Was the committee's work
done? Or might they be asked to rework anything? Kevin Sexton replied that anything was
possible but typically the BOS would discuss it and put it in a warrant to go to TM.
There was a discussion about the wording of the proposed section 8.9.1.2 - Discharges
prohibited. Bryn Burkhart had raised a concern about the third bullet of this section being
taken on its own, which might infer that one could discharge on private property with
consent from the owner without taking the 1000 ft /300 ft. distance into account (which was
delineated in bullet #2). Kevin Sexton raised this with Town Counsel in advance of the
committee meeting and Town Counsel said the bylaw was legally sound as written. He read
a portion of the email the two had exchanged.
John Scully asked Mark Segalla what the legal ramifications would be if someone discharged
a firearm using the state law limits (500 ft /150 ft), rather than the doubled distance
requirements in the proposed bylaw. Segalla said it would not be a criminal offense, it
would only be considered a bylaw violation with a fine of $300.
David Pinette asked if it might make sense to insert the word "charge" after the word "shot"
in the proposed section 8.9.1.1 that defined a firearm ( "from which a bullet or shot charge
can be discharged). It was discussed among those who were knowledgeable about firearms,
and concluded it would not further bolster or hinder the definition. It was determined that
no additional wording was needed.
Page 1 1
Kevin Sexton said that Town Counsel had run the proposed bylaw by the AG office to get
feedback, and no concerns were raised from the AG office.
John Halsey had to depart the meeting via telephone at that point. He said that he felt this
bylaw revision was the best compromise, one that took into account the public safety issues
but that also protected the concerns of private property owners. He mentioned that he had
received emails from concerned citizens but was able to help them see the logic of the
proposed bylaw and the compromises that were being made on both sides.
John Scully said that he was concerned about the conflict between state law, which
mandates 500 ft from a dwelling /150 ft from a road, and creating new distance
requirements of 1000 ft /300 ft in the proposed bylaw. He said that laws were confusing
enough and this proposal added another layer of confusion. While he was glad any violation
of the proposed 1000 ft /300 ft was not a criminal violation, he did not feel entirely
comfortable with the middle bullet (section 8.9.1.2, which delineates the 1000 ft /300 ft
distance requirements). Ken Lafferty agreed to this and said he also had concerns about the
middle bullet raising confusion.
Bryn Burkhart said she thought the concerns John and Ken raised were ones that should
have been able to be discussed in the last meeting before they were put into a bylaw
revision for us to consider.
John Scully responded by saying he felt the bylaw revision was "foisted upon us" at the last
meeting, and that he didn't say anything at the time because he wanted to digest it all.
Bryn Burkhart and Ken Lafferty agreed to this, saying that they did not expect to come to
the last meeting with a new option for the bylaw revision that had never been discussed as
an option in a committee meeting. The sentiment was that they would have liked to have
the chance to discuss the proposal as a committee before it was put into a bylaw revision.
Mark Segalla stated he was not at the July 13 meeting, and that while he and the Chief
would have liked to see a general ban on the discharge of firearms, he felt this was a good
compromise and one they could live with.
David Pinette said he felt it was a good option, and noted that the map of the current areas
where discharge of firearms is technically allowed may not be accurate, and in fact there
might be less legal space for hunting than the current map accurately depicts so the "green
space could be smaller ". He pointed out areas near the DPW garage and near Mattera Cabin
in particular. He mentioned that two of the areas near Mattera Cabin currently had No
Hunting signs posted, another area abutted Bare Meadow Conservation, thereby disallowing
any discharge of firearms.
Bryn Burkhart asked David Pinette if he supported the bylaw revision and he said he wished
the state laws were clearer, and more uniform, but that he did support it.
Someone from the public raised the question - If someone called the police department to
ask about the distance requirements for hunting, what would someone in the bunker say?
Someone mentioned that sometimes they would be referred to town clerk or town hall.
Mark said they would probably ask the officer on duty who was a hunter.
Donna Beaulieu, a community member who was present, asked why the committee would
not propose a general ban on the discharge of firearms, given that the map left very few
parcels where legal discharge on private property would occur. She said she was concerned
about the enforcement of the new bylaw revision because it was confusing and even the
police did not have a uniform system to address it. It would be simpler to make a general
ban so that there was no confusion, and Town Meeting would be inclined to support it if we
all voted in favor of it.
Page 1 2
Kevin Sexton said the committee was trying to be reasonable and come up with a bylaw
revision that would be acceptable to Town Meeting, and that Town Meeting was not
necessarily inclined to support a unanimous vote by the committee.
Bryn Burkhart responded to Donna Beaulieu by saying that she had asked the very same
thing at the July 13 meeting when she saw the proposed bylaw for the first time. She had
asked if the proposed bylaw left so few parcels where discharge of firearms could occur for
pleasure, and if the sentiment was that Reading had "always been a no discharge town"
(something that had been expressed at previous meetings), then why couldn't we officially
decide to make it a no discharge town? Why were we creating a more complicated, longer
bylaw to protect a few parcels of land? Burkhart said it was apparent the committee would
not agree, and Mark Segalla was not present (he had indicated in prior meetings that he
was in favor of a general ban as well), so she accepted this as a compromise because it took
the Timberneck Swamp parcel off the table.
Stephen Crook, TMM Precinct 2 /Chair of Bylaw Committee, mentioned that when the bylaw
got to TM, amendments could be proposed and debated. For example, someone may
propose reducing the distance requirements back to state law, or someone could propose a
general ban on firearms. We briefly discussed scenarios that could occur, and what the
protocol would be in raising, addressing and voting on the bylaw revision.
Alan Beaulieu, community member, stated that he felt it was within our rights as a town to
create our own distance requirements and not be concerned with the state requirements. He
mentioned that many towns make laws to suit their circumstances, and that we were
perfectly within our rights to make exceptions.
Barry Berman (BOS, there as an observer) suggested that when this goes to Town Meeting,
that the maps used be adjusted to account for the discrepancies David Pinette pointed out
so that they were accurate. Kevin Sexton said they would do that, and they were planning
to do a big presentation before Town Meeting.
Kevin Sexton asked if the committee felt it was ready to vote. John Scully remarked that we
could debate it for hours. The committee agreed to vote.
Kevin Sexton made the motion to vote, second by Mark Segalla.
The vote was as follows:
5 committee members voted to support the bylaw revision (Sexton, Pinette, Lafferty,
Burkhart, Segalla)
1 committee member voted against it (Scully)
No vote was recorded for John Halsey as he was not present.
Final vote: 5 -1 -0
The committee will have its final meeting on Monday, August 17 at 6:30 pm to approve the
minutes of all prior meetings.
Page 1 3