https://assets.nationbuilder.com/firear ... 1726607979
The short of it is there was an abandoned rock quarry at which people used to shoot that was eventually purchased by Oakland Tactical Supply. OTS had hoped to put a range on the land. The township then zoned the range out. OTS lost in court and at the 6th Circuit. FPC is on the case, with:
So this is essentially a case about the use of zoning to block commercial ranges.Whether the Second Amendment presumptively
protects against restrictions burdening the right to
train with firearms commonly possessed for lawful
purposes.
On what the panel in the 6th said:
Because of the theoretical possibility that a commercial range could be constructed in another zoning
district, however, the panel majority rejected Petitioners’ challenge at Bruen’s threshold, plain-text stage.
The panel refused to define Petitioners’ “proposed
course of conduct” as simply “training with firearms
that are in common use.” App.614a, 634a. 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.” App.621a (emphasis added).
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,” Ezell II, 846 F.3d at 894, because “the
presence of ordinary restrictions” that allow the operation of ranges “in some places cannot excuse extraordinary restrictions” that effectively ban them “in others,” Drummond, 9 F.4th at 228. It is also inconsistent
with the Second Amendment’s text itself, which
protects against laws that “infringe[ ]” the right to
keep and bear arms, U.S. CONST. amend. II, not only
laws that ban its exercise entirely.
