ELIOT, Maine — With many ballot questions circling town elections across the state Tuesday, one question for the town of Eliot is leaving a few residents concerned.
If passed, Question 10 or also known as Article 11 "Shooting Range License Ordinance" would set up ground rules for anyone looking to set up an indoor or outdoor commercial shooting range in town.
Guidelines and restrictions would also be in place for potential license holders, such as proper instruction to anyone firing a weapon and sufficient video monitoring of the property. The ordinance also states potential license holders must be "familiar with National Rifle Association Gun Safety Rules" as well as encourage additional guidelines to promote safe practices of guns or bows.
Resident Anne Sweeney said the area is no stranger to the idea, with a shooting range already located in town. However, she like many others, believe the new ordinance may not be a good idea.
"It was a real shock, and I am surprised how it came on the ballot because it's so innocuous," Sweeney said. "Anybody who comes here could have a shooting range as long as the property is three acres or more."
Like Sweeney, those in opposition said the wording of the ordinance leaves additional questions to be answered.
State Representative Michele Meyer, who represents the town of Eliot, sent NEWS CENTER Maine an additional statement on the question, saying in part "this shooting range license ordinance lacks other important components necessary for a full-fledged shooting range ordinance. I don't think it is wise to implement just a licensing of shooting ranges" and that the "proposal is an invitation with none of the necessary regulation to ensure safety and quality of life."
The town's select board voted unanimously to recommended to voters they approve of the ordinance, but could not be reached for comment when NEWSCENTER Maine reached out.
Some residents believe, if the ordinance does pass, it should be re-worked to specify a handful of details.
"I think the ordinance was well-intentioned. I just think the process that resulted in this particular ordinance fell short," Resident Phil Swanson said, who also disagrees with the proposal. "Unfortunately I think the language that was included in the ordinance is lacking and problematic, and I think the result is going to be a fairly loose ordinance."