SOUTH PORTLAND – The South Portland City Council is on the verge of prohibiting the possession of non-lethal weapons on public property – despite pleas from residents calling the proposal a violation of civil rights.

At its meeting Monday, the council voted 6-1 to amend a city ordinance to make possession in public places of weapons such as bows and arrows, BB guns, air guns, and slingshots a civil offense. Violators of the law would be subjected to a fine, though they would not be required to hand over the weapon. The council is expected to make a final determination on the amendment at its Oct. 4 meeting.

The stance taken by the council is the softer approach of the two versions they debated Monday. The alternative would have banned the possession and discharge of such weapons anywhere in the city.

The approved version would allow for the transportation of the gun from one property to another, from the store to a home, or from a shooting gallery to home, as long as the weapon is in a closed container, whether it is a backpack, car truck or carrying case.

Mayor Tom Coward said the council is revisiting the city’s weapons ordinances on the recommendation of police Chief Ed Googins, who said the city’s regulations are out of compliance with state law. The bulk of the changes are to comply with state law. Currently, the ordinance regulates firearms, but not other so-called “toy” guns. It was the addition of regulations for bows and arrows, BB guns, air guns and slingshots – not required by the state – that many residents interpreted as a violation of their civil rights.

“Punish the criminals, not us,” said Tanner Street resident Gary Crosby. “I really think you are pushing our civil liberties.”

Lifelong hunter James Roy of Providence Avenue said he was taking the regulation personally.

“I feel this is a civil rights matter,” he said. “I think you are going to infringe on my civil rights even though I am committing no crime.”

Scott Ouillette of McKinley Street said common sense should be the deciding factor, not another regulation. He said his son grew up with a paintball gun and carried and cared for it responsibly.

“I don’t think we need this regulation,” he said. “I don’t think we need to regulate common sense.”

Councilors in favor of the amendment, however, disagreed that the proposal amounted to an infringement on rights, arguing that it was only meant to make the public areas of the city safer.

Councilor Rosemarie DeAngelis pointed out that the ordinance, if adopted, would not regulate possession or discharge of BB guns, air guns or bows and arrows on private property.

“You can have them on private property. You can use them on private property. You can display them on private property. We are just trying to regulate the use on public property,” DeAngelis said.

Councilor Patti Smith said such a regulation was important because of South Portland’s size and dense population.

“We know accidents happen,” she said. “I think we are trying to err on the side of safety in a very dense city.”

The density of the city and the possibility for improper use was also a concern of Councilor Linda Boudreau.

“My concern is due to the density of South Portland and the improper use in our city,” she said, adding the regulation “is meant to protect people in our parks, on our streets and in all public areas.”

Googins said police would benefit from having such an ordinance in place.

He said his department responded to 33 calls regarding pellet guns in 2009, and 11 through July of this year. He said on Labor Day weekend police responded to a scene where two individuals were on the front porch of a residence on Broadway shooting toward passing cars at tin cans, which were set up mere feet from the road.

“I feel this is an important issue for the community to debate and decide,” Googins said.

Councilor Tom Blake, who cast the only vote against the amendment, called the proposal hypocritical, pointing out that the school department supports teaching children archery in school while the city supports businesses that sell the items.

The city, he said, would be better off encouraging education about proper use, not adopting a regulation.

“We haven’t had a rash of problems. We haven’t had a rash of calls,” Blake said. “The public is not asking for this.”

Many in the audience agreed, saying it is the responsibility of parents to educate their children about weapons.

Aaron Bourassa of Sawyer Street said he grew up in Whitefield, a town, he said, where everyone owned BB guns.

Both of his children, he said, have BB guns and bows and arrows, which serve as entertainment for them.

“It is one of the things they like to do that I can do with them,” he said. “It would be a shame to lose that. It is about teaching responsibility and how to use it properly.”

Jake Myrick, a South Portland resident who is running for House District 123, said he agreed that the regulation is not needed.

“My son has a BB gun,” he said. “The bond we have shooting in the back yard and him getting excited is a bond that can never be broken between him and I.”

“This is a slippery slope we are going down,” he added later in the meeting. “You are going to affect a lot of people.”