Tuesday night’s snowstorm put the kibosh on what was supposed to have been the first regularly-scheduled meeting of Alamance County’s commissioners since before Christmas. But aside from its import to the commissioners, this gathering had also been something like the equivalent of D-Day for a number of local firearms aficionados.
Among the items that were slated to come up that evening was a prospective ordinance to regulate shooting ranges that operate outside the county’s cities and town. Although the commissioners have historically eschewed any limits on recreational gunfire, they recently asked the county’s legal department to draw up these rules due to persistent complaints about a particular shooting range north of Burlington’s municipal limits.
Known as Rad Range Training and Events Center, this business along Jim Barnwell Road has had many of its neighbors up in arms since it took over the premises of another, historically-themed shooting range about four years ago. Originally focused on the noise from Rad’s operations, the gun range’s critics have since broadened their objections to include the dispersal of stray bullets, the immolation of woodlands, and other outrages that they blame on the gun range’s activities.
“It’s a biased ordinance. It only targets commercial ranges . . . and it’s unconstitutional on its face.”
– Rudy Cartassi, owner of Rad Range Training and Events Center
In response to these grievances, Alamance County’s Rik Stevens has roughed out a proposed ordinance that would criminalize gunfire deemed to be reckless or which veers onto neighboring property. Stevens has also proposed various safety and permitting requirements for Rad and other commercial shooting ranges in unincorporated parts of the county.
With the weather-related cancellation of Tuesday’s proceedings, these measures are now scheduled to debut with the commissioners at a makeup meeting on Monday, January 27. Yet, this six-day delay has done little to cool the ire of Rad’s owner Rudy Cartassi, who plans to be front and center when the proposed regulations come up for consideration.
“It’s a biased ordinance,” Cartassi declared in a conversation on Wednesday. “It only targets commercial ranges…and it’s unconstitutional on its face.”
No peace for gun range
Stevens’ proposed ordinance isn’t the first threat of county-level regulation that Cartassi has confronted since he set up his shooting range along Jim Barnwell Road.
In 2022, the gun range’s proprietor waged an unsuccessful campaign for the board of commissioners after some of his neighbors buttonholed the county’s governing board over the noise from his operations. Although his bid for elected office fizzed in that year’s Republican primary, Cartassi still managed to forestall any new regulations that would’ve impinged on his business.
Rad’s critics nevertheless returned to the county’s headquarters in 2023, and this time, they zeroed in on safety-related concerns, such as the extrusion of stray bullets from the gun range’s grounds. These appeals prompted the county attorney to propose criminal sanctions for errant gunfire that crosses private property lines. This proposed change initially won favor with the commissioners, although pushback from Cartassi and other 2nd Amendment advocates convinced them to scuttle this measure when it came up for a state-mandated “second reading.”
This setback has nevertheless done little to discourage Rad’s critics, who resumed their full court press of the commissioners in the fall of 2024. This latest barrage of complaints was reiterated by some harsh words from Alamance County’s sheriff Terry Johnson, who took Cartassi to task over his allegedly languid compliance with law enforcement. As a result, the commissioners instructed Stevens to draw up another set of proposed regulations before they adjourned their final meeting of 2024.
In response to the board’s order, Alamance County’s attorney Rik Stevens has drawn up a proposal that goes far beyond his erstwhile attempt to criminalize wayward gunfire.
The provisions of this prospective ordinance include mandatory safety measures like backstops and berms for all shooting ranges that aren’t insulated by natural barriers. It also proposes setbacks for outdoor facilities, which would have to maintain a separation of 100 feet from neighboring property lines and 300 feet from occupied buildings.
The proposed ordinance also contains a registration requirement for shooting ranges that operate on a commercial basis. Commercial enterprises would, moreover, be subject to fencing and signage requirements to discourage unauthorized access; a mandate for a “qualified range officer” to oversee shooting, and an obligation to have liability insurance to the tune of $1 million.
The provisions of this prospective ordinance include mandatory safety measures like backstops and berms for all shooting ranges that aren’t insulated by natural barriers. It also proposes setbacks for outdoor facilities, which would have to maintain a separation of 100 feet from neighboring property lines and 300 feet from occupied buildings.
The proposed ordinance also contains a registration requirement for shooting ranges that operate on a commercial basis. Commercial enterprises would, moreover, be subject to fencing and signage requirements to discourage unauthorized access; a mandate for a “qualified range officer” to oversee shooting, and an obligation to have liability insurance to the tune of $1 million.
Stevens’ proposed ordinance doesn’t contain any noise regulations beyond those already in place. It does, however, place other restrictions on gunfire, including time limits on recreational shooting – which would be allowed from 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday and on Sunday from 12:00 noon to 8:00 p.m. Other provisions would prohibit the “reckless discharge” of firearms – such as when the shooter is inebriated – or the discharge of projectiles onto neighboring property.
The county attorney has gone on to suggest some potential penalties for anyone who violates the ordinance’s proposed provisions. These sanctions include civil fines of up to $500 a day for shooting ranges that fail to comply with the ordinance. Meanwhile, reckless and offsite discharges, as well as transgressions of the proposed time limits, could be prosecuted as Class 3 misdemeanors subject to a maximum fine of $500 or 30 days behind bars.
Gunning for a fight
Cartassi told The Alamance News that he was prepared to throw everything he had at this ordinance when it was originally scheduled to come up for consideration on Tuesday.
“We had a bunch of people scheduled to be there,” he recalled, “and I call it a punk move when you cancel on me because of the weather.”
Yet, Rad’s owner isn’t the only one who had been clamoring to address the commissioners about the proposed ordinance.
Prior to the cancellation of Tuesday’s meeting, the county received feedback from 10 of the ordinance’s other detractors, who posted their misgivings to an online version of that evening’s meeting agenda.
A number of these posts came from members of the Durham Pistol and Rifle Club, which operates its own outdoor shooting range along Jim Minor Road, which is located in an unincorporated area between Mebane and Graham. John Murray, who identified himself as one of the club’s members, was particularly concerned about the cost that the ordinance’s requirement for shooting range officer would potentially foist on him and his associates.
“DPRC has 9 separate ranges, not including an archery and axe throwing range,” Murray acknowledged in the message he posted on Monday. “That would require DPRC to employ no less than 9 ROs during operating hours 7 days a week. We cannot afford that.”
Other critics of the proposed ordinance took issue with prospective mandates for fencing and mandates as well as the prospective permitting requirement for commercial shooting ranges. Some, like club member Sam Beeler, could see no point to subjecting the Durham Pistol and Rifle Club to the ordinance’s safety-related provisions.
“While safety is very important,” Beeler acknowledged, “DPRC has been safely operating as is since 1946.”
“Your attempt to regulate our hours of operation is unlawful. If you attempt to impose these unlawful limits on us you can count on state and federal litigation, which you will lose.”
– Richard Filcher
Meanwhile, a fair number of critics detected something inherently illegal about the county attorney’s proposed regulations.
“Your attempt to regulate our hours of operation is unlawful,” asserted Richard Filcher, a self-described disabled veteran. “If you attempt to impose these unlawful limits on us you can count on state and federal litigation, which you will lose.”
“This ord[i]nance makes it…increasingly unaffordable to practice a CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHT,” added fellow objector Walter Vila. “I oppose and cannot support any commissioner who approves measures restricting Second Amendment rights.”
Vila and other like-minded residents will have an opportunity to address the commissioners directly when they convene their makeup meeting at 6:30 p.m. on January 27. Cartassi insists that he’ll also be at this gathering – with as many patrons of his own gun range who can spare the time to attend the meeting in person.
“My people work for a living,” he added. “But we’ll be there on 27th, I’ll guarantee that.”
