361 F. Supp. 3d 466
W.D. Pa.2019Background
- Property at 920 King Road (265 acres) formerly hosted a commercial gun club; Drummond (through GPGC LLC) leased it in 2018 to reopen a for‑profit shooting range.
- Township zoning: in IBD districts "Sportsman's Clubs" were allowed but undefined; April 9, 2018 amendments (1) defined Sportsman's Club as a nonprofit, (2) limited outdoor shooting to certain activities (excluding center‑fire rifles), and (3) made Sportsman's Clubs a conditional (not permitted) use in IBD.
- Drummond submitted plans and later a zoning application in early 2018; he alleges Township zoning officer Dorsey delayed, failed to inform him of hearings, and then rejected his application after the amendments were adopted.
- Plaintiffs (Drummond, GPGC LLC, and Second Amendment Foundation) sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 asserting: facial and as‑applied Second Amendment claims against Sections 601 and 311(D) and Table 208A; equal protection; deprivation of property/substantive due process; and interference with pursuit of livelihood. They sought injunctions, declaratory relief, and damages.
- Defendants moved to dismiss for ripeness (no appeal to Zoning Hearing Board), lack of derivative/associational standing, and failure to state claims. The court granted dismissal and denied the preliminary injunction as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to assert members'/customers' rights | SAF & Drummond can sue for members/customers (associational and third‑party standing) | Plaintiffs failed to plead derivative standing for customers/members | Court: SAF has associational standing; Drummond/GPGC have third‑party (vendor) standing |
| Ripeness of as‑applied claims | Appealing to Zoning Hearing Board would be futile; claims already concrete | Drummond did not appeal to ZHB, so no final administrative decision; claims unripe | Court: facial and course‑of‑conduct claims are ripe; as‑applied claims unripe for lack of finality (no clear futility shown) |
| Facial Second Amendment challenge to Sections 601 & 311(D) | Ordinance (nonprofit restriction; ban on center‑fire rifles) infringes ancillary Second Amendment rights (access, proficiency) | Regulations are time/place/manner zoning rules; alternatives exist; not a substantial burden | Court: Plaintiffs failed to plead lack of adequate alternatives; failed to allege a substantial burden; facial Second Amendment claims dismissed |
| Equal Protection & pursuit of livelihood challenges to §601 | Profit/nonprofit distinction targets Second Amendment activity and burdens livelihood; demands heightened scrutiny | The distinction is a land‑use classification tied to intensity/nuisance regulation; rational basis applies | Court: §601 is a land‑use classification; because the Second Amendment claims fail, equal protection reviewed under rational basis and upheld; pursuit‑of‑livelihood claim fails (no deprivation of right to pursue a calling) |
| Substantive due process (course‑of‑conduct) | Dorsey’s alleged "slow‑rolling," concealment of hearings, and misleading advice deprived Drummond of property interest and shocks the conscience | Zoning officer had no duty to personally notify; reliance on informal advice is at applicant’s peril; conduct does not shock the conscience | Court: assuming a property interest, alleged conduct did not meet the extreme‑egregiousness standard; substantive due process claim dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Hunt v. Wash. State Apple Advert. Comm'n, 432 U.S. 333 (association standing test)
- Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488 (organizational standing — injury to identified members)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading standard)
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (Second Amendment framework)
- United States v. Marzzarella, 614 F.3d 85 (two‑step Second Amendment test; means‑end scrutiny)
- Ezell v. City of Chicago, 651 F.3d 684 (ancillary Second Amendment interests; proficiency/access)
- Teixeira v. County of Alameda, 873 F.3d 670 (vendor standing to assert customers’ Second Amendment rights)
- Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365 (validity of land‑use zoning as police power)
- United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (rigor of facial‑invalidity standard)
- Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781 (time/place/manner analysis)
- Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7 (preliminary injunction is extraordinary relief)
- Williamson County Reg’l Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U.S. 172 (finality requirement in ripeness for as‑applied land‑use challenges)