My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11/3/1982
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1982
>
11/3/1982
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:49:40 AM
Creation date
6/4/2015 11:07:12 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
11/03/1982
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
210
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
s <br />2. The identical course is now proposed to be offered by the <br />Vero Beach Police Benevolence Association, which agency <br />shall now be recognized along with the Sheriff's Office <br />for application purposes. <br />3. Renewal applicants shall receive a reduced fee for <br />reapplication and shall be required to satisfy classroom <br />and range requirements upon every second renewal only. <br />Thesef revisions are the result of input from the Sheriff's Office <br />and concerned private citizens. <br />The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be <br />heard. <br />Bill Stegkemper, who worked on the proposed revisions <br />along with Attorney Paull and Major Raymond of the Sheriff's <br />Department, stated that his main concern at this point is <br />the qualification of demonstrable -need. He emphasized that a <br />person carries a firearm for self defense, and he believed <br />this should be spelled out in this ordinance even.though <br />Attorney Paull contends the present listing of purposes <br />means the same thing. Mr. Stegkemper stressed that the <br />courts say the police have a duty only to the public at <br />large and are not required to protect individual members of <br />the community. He felt strongly that the freedom to bear <br />arms is a general freedom, and it should not have to be <br />qualified. <br />Mr. Baylor of West Wabasso concurred with Mr. <br />Stegkemper. In addition, he questioned the need to shoot 16 <br />rounds of ammunition to qualify each gun when bullets are so <br />expensive, and further objected to qualifying at;a range of <br />15 yards as he felt self defense would not involve shooting <br />someone that distance away. <br />Commissioner Bird asked Attorney Brandenburg to comment , <br />on the basic reasoning behind the qualifications required, <br />and Attorney Brandenburg explained that if the county <br />undertakes to license someone and does not determine if that <br />person has the ability to handle the weapon safely, it <br />�1 p V 3 1992 8 6 six , 51 Px, E 91 <br />I <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.