103 F.4th 1186
6th Cir.2024Background
- Oakland Tactical Supply, LLC leased land in Howell Township, Michigan, aiming to build and operate a long-distance outdoor commercial shooting range, but was blocked by township zoning laws restricting the land to agricultural and residential uses.
- Five individual Michigan residents joined the lawsuit, seeking to use the proposed shooting range for firearm training, arguing existing options were inadequate or inconvenient.
- Plaintiffs challenged the township’s zoning ordinance in district court, arguing it violated their Second Amendment rights. The court granted judgment for the Township.
- While the appeal was pending, the Supreme Court decided New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, establishing a new Second Amendment analytical framework. The appellate court remanded for reconsideration under Bruen.
- On remand, the district court again sided with the Township; meanwhile, the Township amended its ordinance to clarify and expand where shooting ranges could be permitted.
- The case returned on appeal, with the court required to address how Bruen’s "plain text" and historical tradition analysis affects the plaintiffs’ challenge to both the original and amended ordinances.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does zoning restriction violate Second Amendment? | Zoning blocks all commercial ranges, violating the right to train, a core corollary of the Second Amendment. | Ordinance does not infringe because training can occur privately and commercial ranges are permitted in some zones. | Ordinance does not violate the Second Amendment; plaintiffs’ specific proposed conduct is not covered by the Amendment’s plain text. |
| Does the zoning ordinance constitute a facial ban on ranges? | Ordinance, even as amended, amounts to a de facto ban on outdoor ranges. | Amended ordinance expressly allows ranges in multiple districts. | Amended ordinance is not a facial ban, as ranges permitted in some districts. |
| Is the right to firearms training (or location-specific training) protected by the Second Amendment? | Training is necessary for effective self-defense; right should include commercial and long-distance training. | Only conduct closely tethered to "possess/carry in confrontation" is protected; not commercial or location-specific training. | Right to some training is a necessary corollary, but not commercial/location-specific/1,000-yard training. |
| Are damages claims based on the original ordinance still viable? | Damages must be based on unamended ordinance in effect when restriction first imposed. | Functionally no difference, as both ordinances permitted some training/ranges. | Damages claim must reference prior law, but result unchanged (no right infringed). |
Key Cases Cited
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (core Second Amendment right is to possess and carry arms for self-defense)
- New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (established new framework for Second Amendment challenges; plain text + historical tradition)
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (Second Amendment applies to states)
- Ezell v. City of Chicago, 651 F.3d 684 (right to maintain proficiency with arms is implied by the Second Amendment, influential but from another circuit)