A federal appellate panel affirmed the dismissal of a lawsuit alleging Howell Township’s zoning restrictions prohibited a commercial shooting range in violation of the Second Amendment.
The panel could not hold that the “plain text of the Second Amendment” covers the plaintiffs’ desire to conduct commercial training at a specific location or long-distance commercial training to achieve proficiency shooting at distances up to 1,000 yards, reads the published Friday opinion from U.S. Sixth Circuit Court Helene N. White, a George W. Bush appointee.
“We need not conclude that the right to train with firearms is a necessarily protected right under the Second Amendment,” Circuit Judge R. Guy Cole Jr., a Bill Clinton appointee, wrote in a concurring opinion.
Circuit Judge Raymond Kethledge, also a Bush appointee, dissented, saying he would allow Oakland Tactical Supply LLC and the five individuals who want to use the proposed shooting range to litigate whether “training for purposes of confrontation or self-defense is limited to target shooting at certain distances” and whether the township’s restrictions are “consistent with the nation’s historical traditions of firearm regulation.”
Oakland Tactical leased a 352-acre parcel of land zoned agricultural-residential (AR) for the purpose of creating an outdoor shooting range.
The Township’s related ordinance doesn’t specifically allow “open air business uses,” and limits commercial land uses to agribusiness and home businesses.
Oakland Tactical managing member Michael Paige sought a zoning amendment in August 2017 to allow shooting ranges in the AR district, but the township board denied the request in November 2017.
U.S. District Judge Bernard Freidman, a Ronald Reagan appointee, dismissed the case in September 2020 and denied the plaintiffs’ request to reconsider that decision. While the case was on appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court decided New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n Inc. v. Bruen, declaring unconstitutional a law restricting concealed-carry permits, but on remand Freidman again dismissed the lawsuit.
“Even assuming that the Second Amendment offers ancillary or corollary protection for some forms of training, there is no way to read into the amendment’s ‘plain text’ a right to use and construct a 1,000-yard shooting range,” Friedman wrote.
