A gun-rights advocacy group has petitioned the Supreme Court to hear a lawsuit about a Michigan township placing onerous restrictions on shooting ranges and firearms training.

At issue is whether the Second Amendment presumptively protects against restrictions burdening the right to train with firearms commonly possessed for lawful purposes.

In the lawsuit Oakland Tactical Supply v. Howell Township, petitioner Oakland Tactical was seeking to construct an outdoor firing range on its property located in the “agricultural residential” district of the township, which the plaintiff considers a suitable location for that use, as evidenced by the fact that the township permits other similar commercial uses in the district (such as the rock quarry formerly operated on the property in question) and in fact freely allows target shooting on the property, so long as it is done privately rather than in a commercial setting.

However, the township’s zoning rules forbid operation of a commercial shooting range on the privately owned property— and in much of the rest of its jurisdiction—with the result that no commercial range exists in the township, severely burdening petitioners’ rights to train with firearms. In late May, the 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that the zoning law didn’t infringe on the plaintiff’s core Second Amendment rights. The 6th Circuit later denied a petition for rehearing of the case.

Now, the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) has filed a writ of certiorari asking the U.S. Supreme Court to take up the matter.

“Because of the theoretical possibility that a commercial range could be constructed in another zoning district, however, the [6th Circuit] panel majority rejected Petitioners’ challenge at Bruen’s threshold, plain-text stage,” the  filing stated. “The panel refused to define Petitioners’ ‘proposed course of conduct’ as simply ‘training with firearms that are in common use.’ Instead, the panel insisted that Petitioners could prevail only by demonstrating that the Second Amendment’s text protects the right ‘to train at a commercial facility anywhere in the Township.’”

In its filing, the FPC pointed out how the circuit court’s decision was a faulty one.

“That line of reasoning is flatly contrary to the analysis of the Third and Seventh Circuits, which have correctly explained that zoning rules restricting the location of firearm ranges implicate the Second Amendment even if they fall short of ‘an outright prohibition of gun ranges,’” the filing started.

The 6th Circuit’s other reason for rejecting the petitioners’ Second Amendment claims—that the Amendment’s textual scope does not encompass the right “to train to achieve proficiency in long-range shooting at distances up to 1,000 yards”—fares no better upon a closer look, according to FPC.

“As the Third and Seventh Circuits have held, four Justices of this Court have stated, and the panel majority itself conceded, the Second Amendment’s text necessarily protects some right to train with firearms,” the court filing stated. “It necessarily follows that any limitations on that right—such as where ranges may be located and how large they may be—must come from history, not from the Second Amendment’s plain text, which quite obviously imposes no such limits whatsoever.”

At the 6th Circuit level, the court ruled that the proposed 1,000-yard range is not necessary for gun owners for training purposes.

“It is difficult to imagine a situation where accurately firing from 1,000 yards would be necessary to defend oneself; nor have Plaintiffs identified one,” the ruling stated. “To the extent that historical evidence is probative of the scope of a right derived by necessary implication, like the right to train, the historical evidence Plaintiffs present—a handful of examples of riflemen making shots from 600 to 900 yards during the Revolutionary War—is not convincing.”

In the end, FPC said that the Supreme Court should take up the case and make a final decision on the matter.

“Following Heller, for nearly fourteen years the courts of appeals resisted this Court’s precedent and failed to adequately protect the ‘balance … struck by the traditions of the American people’ when they codified the right to keep and bear arms in our highest law,” the filing concluded. “If this Court does not grant review and correct the errors in the panel majority, history may well repeat itself.”

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

27 COMMENTS

  2. First they bitch about the lack of training and then bitch about getting training.
    As has been said many times, it’s all about control.

  3. It’s ok to get training, but not that kind of training. Sorta like you can have a magazine as long as it does not hold more that 10 rounds and you can buy as many guns as you want, but you are limited to only 1 a month.

  4. “It is difficult to imagine a situation where accurately firing from 1,000 yards would be necessary to defend oneself”

    hmmmm… then why do we have sniper training for military and police if distance is the factor determining when such shots are needed to defend against aggression? We could just give ’em a standard rifle and call it a day and tell them if its over, say, 300 yards don’t shoot the bad guy.

    I can “imagine a situation”, not difficult at all, where accurate shots from 1,000 yards would be needed to defend ones self and others. It may not be common, it may be rare, or what ever you might think it is or is not, but the fact remains the constitutional right doesn’t include a distance limitation.

    Now they are just being blatant about making stuff up. They don’t even try to hide it any more.

  5. There already is an outdoor range in Howell, MI, that is open to the public, the Howell Gun Club — Howell Club.org Then there’s the Livingston Hun Club just down the road in Brighton.

    What a terrible defense to claim it’s a hardship for gunowners when 2 existing rangers are so close. Really, that’s your best argument?

    • Its a hardship because the ‘government’ (the township) imposed a restrictive action upon exercise of the right. Anytime government does that its a ‘hardship’ upon the exercise of the right.

      What if the ‘government’ (the township) imposed a restrictive action upon you, to limit you to less than 1,000 words… that would be a ‘hardship’ upon the exercise of the right.

      • Zoning laws are Constitutional. In addition, the argument is that gun owners looking for a range would be out of luck.

        Well, that’s demonstrably false. Thus, a bad argument.

        • yes, zoning laws may be ‘constitutional’ in a ‘presumptive legal’ sense for most things, but when it comes to constitutional rights they may not always be constitutional. But that doesn’t mean a government restrictive action upon the exercise of a right is not a hardship upon the right.

          gun owners looking for a range would be out of luck, if that range was the place they were going to select to exercise their right and the government imposed a restrictive action that stopped them from exercising the right due to some zoning restriction. That’s a ‘hardship’ on the exercise of the right also.

          Whats to be determined now is if that ‘hardship’ is acceptable under the conditions of the arguments made and the judges decision here was plain stupid. So this will probably go further.

          • Any action, even if that action is legal and constitutional or not, a government takes that burdens or restricts or infringes the exercise of a constitutional right or the choice of exercising that right or where that right may be exercised or when that right may be exercised is a hardship upon the exercise of the right.

          • How is it a hardship when the proposed range doesn’t even exist, and two existing ranges that do service gun owners are just down the road?

            Are you okay? You’re not thinking clearly.

            • You don’t get it. Its not about there being other ranges of that the range doesn’t exist… I’m not talking about travel.

              Its about the arguments in the case, and in the case the arguments are grounded (at least some) in the 2A arena.

              Any action, even if that action is legal and constitutional or not, a government takes that burdens or restricts or infringes the exercise of a constitutional right or the choice of exercising that right or where that right may be exercised or when that right may be exercised is a hardship upon the exercise of the right.

              Even if that government action, legal or not constitutional or not, is preemptive before the place to exercise that right exists … its a hardship upon the exercise of the right.

              For example, if the city tells you that you can not build a shed on your property in the front yard because of some zoning ordinance, that places a ‘hardship’ upon you being able to build a shed. It doesn’t matter if it would be ok if you just moved it to the back yard as the fact that you could not build it in the front yard due to some zoning restriction placed a hardship upon you being able to build a shed in the front yard. Its the same with constitutional rights, any restriction action the government places upon them is a hardship upon the exercise of the right.

              • You frequent bathhouses and leather bars, so you don’t get to weigh in on anything.

        • Still Bad,

          NO, Idiot, “zoning laws” are NOT prima facie “constitutional”. They MAY be a constitutional use of local police power . . . and they may not (if you weren’t stupid, Like MajorLiar, you might do a little research into the history of zoning laws (particularly in light of the impending demise of ‘Chevron deference’)).

          A stupid argument is not made smarter by repeating it, and pretending you have a NEW justification. I’d say “do better”, but like MajorLiar, I doubt you are capable.

          • idiots always do this… they say in effect “But there is a law.” like the right doesn’t matter. That’s basically their arguments, that the law they want is never wrong and trumps anything else ’cause they say so.

            That’s the problem now. We’ve had idiot politicians and idiot judges and their idiot supporters be able to decide years and years of “we can do this because we made a law because we say so” with no consideration that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and the rights therein do not belong to government for them to decide in anyway if we the people which are the only owners of those rights individually can exercise those rights or not.

            Framers of the constitution clearly spelled out its suppose to be “We the people” and not “We the government”. Its clearly spelled out for government the intent and purpose and ownership of the rights was that they belong to the people and not government.

            And sure, there is room for the government to have some laws to help with ‘good order’ but ‘intentional mission creep’ by government over time has gone to far into ‘control and dictating’ rather than governing under control of the people. The government has become its own entity rather than being an entity of the people, and government now rises up to say to the people ‘we say therefore it will be because we say so’. That’s not how it is suppose to be.

            When the government starts using laws to bludgeon and deny and control and remove and restrict constitutional rights of the law abiding, its gone wayyyyy too far and a stop needs to be put to it.

    • Luckily your opinion has little bearing on the merits of the case which could very well create a circuit split.

    • Bad,

      And that’s your “rebuttal”??? Because there ARE other gun ranges, another one isn’t needed?? ‘Splain to me, Loosey, how that is different from “one gun a month is enough” or “no one needs more than 10 rounds” (both of which are about to get slam-dunked into the weeds by SCOTUS).

      And the Howell Gun Club and the Livingston Gun Club? Might those be, oh, I dunno, PRIVATE clubs, requiring membership, etc. to use the facilities?? (Just askin’, for a friend.) And if the 2A protects “rights”, what effin’ business is it of the township (and CERTAINLY you)?? “I don’t like it; I don’t think YOU need it, so you can’t have it!” is a stupid argument.

      • “And that’s your “rebuttal”??? Because there ARE other gun ranges, another one isn’t needed??“

        No, you somehow missed the fact that he’s responding to a particular argument the plaintiffs made, the claim of creating a hardship in finding a range.

        He pointed out there are already two ranges available to the public.

        • and once again Miner49er….And that’s your “rebuttal’??? Because there ARE other gun ranges, another one isn’t needed??

          Learn what context means

        • MajorLiar,

          Even IF “two other gun clubs” exist, are they “available”?? You wouldn’t know this, because you are a lying fake about your so-called “firearms experience”, but MANY gun clubs are “members only” facilities (or have, at best, LIMITED availability to non-members). Just because a gun club “exists” doesn’t mean it is “available” to Joe Schmoe.

          And that is the EXACT equivalent of the “right-of-center” argument that, “no, you don’t have a ‘food desert’; what you have is a lawless community who allows thugs to prey on innocent people and businesses, so no business in their right mind wants to locate there. There are five grocery stores within a 5 mile radius.” And you Leftist/fascist IDIOTS immediately start blathering about “racism” and “disadvantaged communities”. American gun owners have been one the MOST “disadvantaged communities” for . . . daring to try to exercise their INHERENT RIGHTS.

          A private gun club =/= an “available gun club”. Moreover, why do YOU get to decide how much work it should be for a gun owner to access a range. I’ll give you a simple example (since only SIMPLE examples work for an idiot like you): LA county has a number of “gun clubs” (some public, some members only), but exactly ONE public range that has targets out over 100 yards. ONE. “Well, you can just drive out into the country!” No, no you can’t. First of all, there AIN’T much “country” in LA County. Second, LA County being the fascist stronghold that it is, OUTLAWS discharging guns, even on PRIVATE PROPERTY, in LA County. In fact, to use a “long gun” out in the boonies? You have to drive to EASTERN Riverside County.

          OOH! I’ve got one for ya!! How about we only put polling places in churches in middle class or upper middle class neighborhoods? “I don’t want to go into a CHURCH to vote!” Tough shit, there are churches available and willing. SO WHAT if you have to go a few miles to vote! There are PLENTY of polling places, and all of them are accessible on even the pathetic LA County transit system. You’re just LAZY, right? THAT’S your argument, put back in your face. SUCK IT, MajorLiar!

          So, Still Bad’s idiot argument was prima facie stupid; your half-@$$ed attempts to support it are stupid, and it’s a STUPID argument (that you Leftist/fascists would scream like banshees about, if it were applied to any of YOUR “protected classes”). But y’all don’t give a sh*t about gun owners or their rights, so it’s all good, amirite??

          You are SUCH a pathetic, lying hypocrite (and a Leftist propagandist) that you are almost a parody of Leftist propagandists (but you’re too stupid to even recognize that).

          I can’t even honestly say “nice try” on that pathetic effort.

  6. “It is difficult to imagine a situation where accurately firing from 1,000 yards would be necessary to defend oneself …”

    Reference Ukraine starting calendar year 2022.

    Next question.

    • MajorLiar’s Buttplug (nice nic, by the way!),

      He’s up above, spouting his usual lies and propaganda. MajorLiar is as consistent (and pleasant) as herpes – he itches like crazy, he’s both toxic AND contagious, and he NEVER goes away. But he ALWAYS lies.

  8. Those using the argument that there are other gun ranges people can use is akin to what some college campuses did with free speech rights. They said you have the right to speak your mind, but you have to do it over “Here” in this cordoned off space labelled as a free speech zone (away from the opposing viewpoint group they are trying to debate). Sounds like a fascist way to do business.

Comments are closed.