Surry County officials say they have no records of the alleged online threats that prompted two supervisors in July to call for an amendment to the county’s gun ordinance to allow supervisors to come armed to board meetings.

Two years ago, the supervisors voted to ban guns in government buildings under a 2020 state law allowing – but not requiring – them to do so. At a July 18 work session, Board of Supervisors Chairman Robert Elliott asked that the meeting’s agenda be amended to include a discussion of the Nov. 3, 2022, gun ordinance. At the same meeting, Bacon’s Castle District Supervisor Walter Hardy Jr. proposed an exception that would allow supervisors – but not unelected officials or audience members – to arm themselves “immediately preceding, during and immediately following a meeting.”

Surry District Supervisor Tim Calhoun, who’d cast the only dissenting vote in the 4-1 2022 decision to enact the gun ban, told The Smithfield Times in July that at the meeting on the 18th, Hardy referenced unspecified threatening emails and social media posts among his reasons for wanting the exception.

The Times, on July 26, filed a Freedom of Information Act for any communications between Surry supervisors and county staff, or between supervisors and the Surry County Sheriff’s Office, that reference threats made against supervisors, including screenshots of threats made via social media and any emails from citizens to supervisors that were deemed threatening.

Surry County Attorney Lola Perkins, on Aug. 16, told the Times there were “no records responsive” to the newspaper’s request for screenshots of social media posts or emails deemed threatening, as “the county has not officially deemed any social media post or email from a citizen to be a threat or threatening.”

Hardy deferred to Assistant County Administrator and spokesman David Harrison when the Times contacted him on Aug. 21 for comments on his reasons for wanting an exception to the gun ordinance given Perkins’ response to the newspaper’s FOIA request. Hardy had previously deferred to Harrison in July when asked about the work session, resulting in Harrison releasing a statement on July 22 that “given the political climate of our nation today, the Surry County Board of Supervisors intend to ensure the safety of Surry County citizens, the general public, staff and board members while transacting the business of the county.”

The Board of Supervisors “appreciates the efforts of the Surry County Sheriff’s Department to ensure public safety at board meetings,” Harrison said in July, calling the proposed amendment “an added layer of protection and will provide assistance to the Sheriff’s Department if needed.”

Harrison, as of Sept. 6, had not released any further statements on the matter nor a date for the required public hearing that must precede any change to the gun ordinance.

Under state law, an announcement would need to be advertised for two consecutive weeks in a newspaper with circulation in Surry County, prior to any public hearing.

The Times, to date, has not received any public hearing notice from Surry County regarding the gun ordinance by that date. According to a Virginia Press Association database of public notices published in newspapers statewide, no other newspaper has published a notice within the past two weeks advertising a hearing on Surry’s gun ordinance. Only one hearing, on a proposed biannual tax billing cycle, is scheduled for Sept. 12.

Surry County Sheriff Carlos Turner, in July, told the Times he was “aware of the concerns of our supervisors and the revised gun ordinance that is being proposed,” but did not elaborate at that time on whether his office was investigating any specific threats.