Letter – Wild West in Surry

Published 1:57 pm Wednesday, July 24, 2024

Editor, The Smithfield Times:

On July 18, I attended the Surry County Board of Supervisors working session. 

Supervisor Robert Elliott added an agenda item concerning security. Supervisor Walter Hardy and Mr. Elliott expressed great concern about their security during board meetings. They indicated that they have received violent threats on social media and they feel they must be able to protect themselves.  

Subscribe to our free email newsletter

Get the latest news sent to your inbox

Their recommended solution is for board members who have a concealed gun permit be allowed to bring their guns to board meetings. Since firearms are presently prohibited in county-owned buildings, the county ordinance would have to be amended. 

Mr. Elliott requested that the county attorney to prepare public notice that the county ordinance be changed so that board members could bring guns to board meetings. He also requested that the amendment be a top priority so that the requisite public hearing could be held at the next board meeting on Aug. 1.

The request to have guns allowed in board public meetings is very concerning. It is being rushed through when caution should prevail and could result in dangerous situations for innocent citizens. 

If board members have been threatened, the Sheriff’s Department and the FBI should be notified immediately and they can evaluate the risk and mitigate the danger. If current weapons screening is inadequate to prevent an armed attendee, improve the screening equipment and procedures. If armed protection is warranted, let it be provided by officers in the courtroom who have current and appropriate training for this sort of situation.

Will every meeting include an announcement that board members have concealed weapons? How will board members use these weapons? What if a public speaker reaches for something in their pocket and a board member feels threatened and responds with his gun? How will other meeting participants be safe?

I am in full support of the highest level of security for our public officials, but I see this proposal as dangerous. The current ordinance should not be changed.

 

Dianne Cheek

Surry