If you’re under the impression that this was some sort of simple oversight by that intern who wrote the original ordnance, you need to think again. The gun-grabbing crowd will never stop.
Forest City passes ordinance after rewrite following Second Amendment backlash
After Cops & Congress reporting, town attorney revises urban archery code before commissioners approve measure with one no vote
By Annie Dance | Cops & Congress | News & Commentary
Forest City commissioners approved a revised urban archery ordinance Monday night after Cops & Congress reporting drew attention to broader weapons restrictions when used lawfully, buried inside the proposal and triggered hundreds of comments on social media.
Forest City gun ordinance draws Second Amendment scrutiny
The ordinance passed with one dissenting vote from John Mark Bennett.
Before the vote on Sept. 14, the town attorney, Elizabeth T. Miller, known as Beth, revised the code to explicitly protect the lawful defense of people and property — language that had become a central point of concern after the original ordinance was published in the town’s meeting agenda packet.
Miller, a registered Democrat, is also the attorney for the town of Rutherfordton. She has been practicing law since 1988, according to the state bar public directory.
The original proposal had been drafted by intern Ben Roach, according to their July meeting documents, and then reviewed by the town manager, Janet Mason, town attorney, and police chief Chris LeRoy before it was placed on Monday’s agenda. Roach is the son of Paula Roach, who serves as Rutherford County Deputy County Manager and Finance Director.
Despite those reviews, the first version proposed changes to Forest City’s firearms and nonfirearm weapons ordinances without expressly preserving an exception for a person lawfully defending themselves or their property.
That changed after the issue became public.
The revised ordinance now states that Forest City’s prohibition on discharging firearms does not apply to “any person while exercising a legal right to defend persons or property.”
The same protection was added to the section governing bows, crossbows, air rifles, slingshots and other nonfirearm projectile weapons.
Before the vote, SunShine McCurry, who is challenging incumbent Steve Holland for Mayor on the ballot, gave a public comment. She opposed urban archery because she didn’t want to “see a deer running through Main Street with an arrow through them” in “Christmastown USA.” She also raised concerns about “pregnant deer.”
Urban archery measure went far beyond deer hunting
The ordinance was titled as a measure “to allow deer archery hunting in the Town of Forest City and to ensure that all Chapter 13 offenses are classified as misdemeanors.”
But the proposal did far more than authorize deer bow hunting.
It rewrote sections of the town code covering alcohol consumption, begging, firearms, bows and other projectile weapons, while also creating a new section governing deer urban archery hunting.
Under the final version, the town continues to prohibit most firearm discharges inside municipal limits, but specifically recognizes exceptions for lawful defense of persons or property and for people acting under lawful directions from law enforcement.
According to the presentation in July, urban archery should be allowed by January 2028, after presumed approval by the NC Wildlife Resources Commission.
The ordinance also prohibits the discharge of bows, crossbows, air rifles and similar devices inside town limits unless an exception applies.
There’s more nuanced information, including 66 other towns listed that Forest City said have urban archery, in the town’s August meeting packet.
Following Monday’s vote, the exceptions now include lawful self-defense.
Hunting allowed, but only under strict conditions
The new code permits deer archery hunting only on private property and only during dates and times established by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission for the Urban Archery Season.
Hunters must own the property or carry written permission from the owner dated within the previous year.
The ordinance requires at least five acres of land. Adjoining parcels may be combined to meet that requirement, but hunters must have permission from every property owner involved.
No arrow may be discharged within 500 feet of a home, school, church, commercial building, government building, occupied structure, public street, park or recreational area.
Hunters must also remain at least 500 feet from the property line of the tract or combined tracts where hunting is taking place.
Those setbacks may significantly limit where urban archery can actually occur inside Forest City.
Hunting from public property is prohibited, as is hunting from or across public streets, highways or utility easements.
Hunters must use an elevated stand or platform at least eight feet above ground level and may not shoot when a person, domestic animal, structure, roadway or exposed utility line is in the anticipated path of the arrow.
Firearms remain prohibited for deer hunting under the ordinance.
Questions remain over the review process
The sequence raises a basic government oversight question: How did language affecting the town’s weapons code make it through several layers of review before appearing in a public agenda packet?
The final ordinance (5 pages instead of the original 4) still creates Forest City’s first formal urban archery framework, but it also now includes protections provided to law-abiding citizens that were not clearly stated in the version that drew my attention on Sept. 13.
There are also still questions about how broadly the final ordinance could be interpreted. While the revised version now expressly protects lawful self-defense, it continues to prohibit bows, air guns, slingshots, blowguns, peashooters and “other similar” devices that propel a shot, dart or pellet — including material described as solid, liquid or particulate.
An ordinary household spray bottle, such as Windex, would likely fall outside that language because it is not similar to the items listed, but the wording still leaves room for debate over where the line is drawn and how police would apply it in practice.
The policy choices and issues Cops & Congress uncovered have raised questions about the possible anti-second amendment views impacting the decision.
Why should Forest City be considering what Durham or other municipalities are doing? That’s what happened with their research.
The Forest City Board of Commissioners includes: Mayor Pro Tempore Dee Dee Bright, Commissioner John Mark Bennett, Commissioner Joey Brandle, Commissioner Chris Lee, and Commissioner Shawn Moore.
Parting thoughts:
The U.S. Constitution is the highest legal authority in the United States; in my view, it’s time to act like that, every day, with every policy decision, especially by a town’s attorney.
When a lawyer reviews a policy, their job is to prevent constitutional drift, ensuring the town achieves its local goals without stepping on protected liberties. This gets to the absolute core of local governance: a town attorney’s primary duty is to ensure that municipal actions align strictly with constitutional limits while protecting taxpayer’s interests.
More than 90% of Democrats consistently express support for making U.S. gun laws more stringent. Generally, Democrats are in support of tighter regulations and restrictions for lawful gun ownership, according to research. Republicans are more than twice as likely to own firearms than Democrats.
Those facts are hard to ignore when analyzing recent events.
Every ordinance, zoning decision, and police policy must respect individual rights, as local governments are fully bound by the U.S. Constitution and the North Carolina Constitution.