257 A.3d 209
Pa. Commw. Ct.2021Background
- Jonathan Barris owns a 4.66-acre parcel in Stroud Township zoned R‑1 and used a private home shooting range prior to Ordinance No. 9‑2011.
- Ordinance No. 9‑2011 generally prohibits discharge of firearms in the Township except for enumerated exceptions (law enforcement, lawful necessity, hunting, farmers, clubs, and indoor/outdoor shooting ranges).
- The Ordinance limits permitted shooting ranges to parcels in O‑1 (Open Space) and S‑1 (Special/Recreational) zoning districts and the Township’s zoning ordinance requires a minimum five‑acre parcel for a shooting range; certain exceptions also carry dusk‑to‑dawn and 150‑yard setback restrictions.
- Barris applied for a zoning permit (2012) for a private range; the zoning officer denied it based on district and size/setback rules. Barris sued claiming the Ordinance violated the Second and Fourteenth Amendments and was preempted by state statutes.
- After an initial dismissal and remand for constitutional analysis, the trial court granted summary judgment for the Township; the Commonwealth Court reversed, holding the Ordinance facially unconstitutional under the Second Amendment as it effectively bans personal target practice on most residential property and the Township failed intermediate scrutiny.
- The opinion (Majority: Brobson, P.J.) leaves other due‑process claims largely undecided as unnecessary to the disposition; a dissent argued the Ordinance reasonably confines ranges to appropriate districts and should be upheld.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ordinance violates the Second Amendment by forbidding target practice on most residential lots | Barris: Ordinance burdens the ancillary right to maintain firearm proficiency (target practice) and is facially unconstitutional | Township: Ordinance permits ranges in O‑1/S‑1 districts, protects public safety, setback/time/standards are reasonable | Held: Ordinance burdens Second Amendment corollary right; intermediate scrutiny applies; Township failed to show the Ordinance is a reasonable fit — facially unconstitutional; summary judgment for Township reversed |
| Substantive due process (right to use property for target practice) | Barris: Ordinance unlawfully deprives him of property use and liberty interests | Township: Ordinance is a valid exercise of police power for public safety | Held: Court did not reach or decide substantive due process claims because Second Amendment ruling was dispositive |
| Procedural due process (enactment/application of Ordinance) | Barris: Procedural defects deprived him of rights | Township: Ordinance lawfully enacted and applied | Held: Not addressed further due to dispositive Second Amendment ruling |
| Requirement to exhaust administrative remedies before suit | Barris: Facial constitutional challenge negates need to exhaust administrative remedies | Township: Barris should have exhausted zoning appeals | Held: Where a statute/ordinance is challenged as unconstitutional on its face, exhaustion is not required; Barris was not required to exhaust administrative remedies |
Key Cases Cited
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (recognized an individual right to possess weapons for self‑defense in the home)
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) (incorporated the Second Amendment against the states via the Fourteenth Amendment)
- Ezell v. City of Chicago, 651 F.3d 684 (7th Cir. 2011) (holding firing‑range ban burdened the right to maintain proficiency and required a close fit under heightened scrutiny)
- Ezell v. City of Chicago, 846 F.3d 888 (7th Cir. 2017) (struck down zoning/distancing rules that effectively foreclosed ranges; emphasized need for evidentiary support under heightened scrutiny)
- United States v. Marzzarella, 614 F.3d 85 (3d Cir. 2010) (adopted two‑step framework for analyzing Second Amendment challenges)
- Association of N.J. Rifle & Pistol Clubs v. New Jersey, 910 F.3d 106 (3d Cir. 2018) (applied two‑step test; intermediate scrutiny for non‑core burdens and upheld magazine limit as reasonably tailored)
- Drake v. Filko, 724 F.3d 426 (3d Cir. 2013) (articulated intermediate‑scrutiny standard for Second Amendment regulations)