We’ve seen some doozies in our time, but we can’t quickly recall a more bone-headed idea than two Surry County supervisors’ proposal to allow supervisors, but no one else, to be armed at board meetings.

In case you missed reporter Stephen Faleski’s article in last week’s edition, Board of Supervisors Chairman Robert Elliott asked that a work session agenda be amended to include a discussion of the gun ordinance the supervisors adopted on Nov. 3, 2022, to prohibit the carrying of “any firearm, ammunition, components, or combination thereof” inside any building or part of a building that is “used for governmental purposes by the county” and any recreation or community center “owned and operated by the county.”

Bacon’s Castle District Supervisor Walter Hardy then proposed an exception that would “allow board members who possess a concealed weapons permit to be able to be armed.” 

Without offering any specifics, Hardy said the change is motivated by threatening emails and social media posts directed at supervisors.

We’ve filed a Freedom of Information Act request to learn more about the threats Hardy references.

It goes without saying that anyone who has threatened physical harm to elected officials has not just crossed the line; they’ve violated the law and should be charged criminally.

There’s a process for addressing such threats, and it starts with passing along the threats to the county sheriff, who, depending on the severity of the threats, has the option of calling in State Police or even the FBI to investigate.

If the threats are credible, the sheriff can, and should, beef up law enforcement’s presence at board meetings. Those officers are highly trained not just in general use of a firearm but specifically in securing public spaces.

We understand that even law enforcement is subject to lapses, as the Secret Service showed in the near-assassination of former President Donald Trump at a campaign rally earlier this month. But on their worst day, police are much more qualified to keep order in a public meeting than county supervisors, who, under Surry officials’ proposal, would need only a concealed-carry permit from the state in order to pack heat at a board meeting.

As anyone who has obtained such a permit can attest, it hardly certifies you as having the training and skills required to safely maintain order in a government meeting.  

In our view, Surry supervisors, despite catching some heat for it, made the right call in 2022 to keep firearms out of government buildings entirely except for law enforcement officers. To now exempt themselves, but no one else, from that ordinance is unsettling.

Thankfully, a rush to approve the change was derailed by inadequate notice of a planned public hearing on the matter at supervisors’ Aug. 1 meeting. We hope that Elliott and Hardy use the opportunity to take a deep breath and reconsider a terribly flawed proposal.