Federal judge: Howell Township did not violate gun owners' Second Amendment rights
A federal judge has once again dismissed a group of gun owners' lawsuit against Howell Township over a proposed shooting range.
U.S. District Court Judge Bernard Friedman last week ruled the township did not violate the gun owners' constitutional rights and dismissed the case. Friedman's order reaffirmed his 2020 ruling to dismiss the case in favor of the township after an appeals court sent the case back to him to reconsider in light of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling.
"Thus, the court finds that the proposed course of conduct, construction and use of an outdoor, open-air 1,000-yard shooting range, is not covered by the plain text of the Second Amendment," Friedman said in his order dated Feb. 17.
Mike Paige, who owns Hartland Township firearms store Oakland Tactical Supply, and five firearms owners sued the township in 2018 after Howell Township officials denied Paige's 2017 request to rezone land on Fleming Road for the range. The suit claimed the township violated the Second Amendment.
Oakland Tactical attorney Martha Dean, in an emailed statement on behalf of the plaintiffs, said, "The plaintiffs are disappointed in the court’s decision, and they intend to appeal."
Township attorney Christopher Patterson said the judge's ruling was "appropriate."
"It's not really a Second Amendment case," Patterson said.
Friedman had previously dismissed the case, but it was appealed and, in August 2022, U.S. Court of Appeals 6th Circuit judges sent the case back to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan in light of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling on gun rights in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen, which struck down a New York law requiring state residents to have a special need to carry weapons outside the home.
Despite the appeals court saying the case must be examined in light of a different standard, Friedman continued to uphold the township's zoning ordinance did not violate the Second Amendment.
RELATED: Township argues proposed gun range not covered by Second Amendment
RELATED: SCOTUS Second Amendment ruling keeps lawsuit over proposed Howell Twp. gun range alive
Gun owners file suit after zoning rejection
In 2017, Paige requested township officials amend the zoning ordinance to allow outdoor gun ranges on land zoned for agricultural-residential development, including a former quarry where he sought to develop Premier Precision Park, which would feature a 1,000-yard, outdoor shooting range and other amenities on about 350 acres His plans also included a conference center, restaurant, trout fishery and swimming beach.
Township planners denied the zoning change and expressed concern that it would have applied to any land in the township zoned for agricultural-residential use
Oakland Tactical and gun owners Scott Fresh, Jason Raines, Matthew Remenar, Edward Dimitroff and Ronald Penrod claimed in the suit that the township violated the Second Amendment by denying Paige's request to amend the township's zoning ordinance to allow shooting ranges on land zoned for agricultural-residential development.
MORE: Change of plans could bring more than 400 rental homes to Howell Township
Oakland Tactical and its attorneys have argued that the township effectively banned outdoor, long-distance shooting ranges and violated their right to train with firearms in a safe setting. They argued that access to firearms training should be covered by the Second Amendment.
"The township is trying to protect the neighborhoods," Patterson said. "The township obviously has an agricultural-residential zoning district and tons of our residential development is happening in that district," he said.
Township attorneys have argued Oakland Tactical is claiming an "overextended right" that is not covered by the plain text of the Second Amendment. They argued that the Second Amendment covers a right to bear arms, but not the shooting range.
"You can have a shooting range in the township, but it has to be commercial, by the highway, industrial or industrial flex zone," Patterson said. "(The plaintiffs) wanted to locate their range in the township's residential district ... You can't just be putting a shooting range in areas that are adjacent to residential."
"You have to look at the actual words in the Second Amendment. Having a shooting range isn't an 'arm.' You're not keeping or bearing an arm," he added.
Patterson also said other court cases since the referenced Supreme Court ruling have not found that training with firearms is covered by the plain text of the Second Amendment.
MORE: Teen arrested after impersonating Brighton firefighter at house fire
When Friedman dismissed the suit in 2020, he concluded local governments are not required to permit shooting ranges within a particular zoning district, and the township is not banning ranges because they are allowed in other districts.
In 2021, township officials amended the zoning ordinance to classify sport shooting ranges as either indoor or outdoor recreation facilities, and permit them in four types of zoning districts: regional service commercial highway service commercial, industrial flex zone and industrial — but not agricultural.
Judge Friedman declined to analyze existing and proposed amendments to the township's ordinance, because Oakland Tactical and the township "appear to agree that the recent updates to the Zoning Ordinance should not impact this case on remand..." according to his order.
The township argued ordinance amendments would not have impacted the judge's 2020 opinion.
Contact Livingston Daily reporter Jennifer Eberbach at jeberbach@livingstondaily.com.
This article originally appeared on Livingston Daily: Federal judge again rules against gun owners in Second Amendment case
