OAKLAND TACTICAL SUPPLY, LLC; JASON RAINES; MATTHEW REMENAR; SCOTT FRESH; RONALD PENROD; EDWARD GEORGE DIMITROFF v. HOWELL TOWNSHIP, MICHIGAN - Articles

All Content

OAKLAND TACTICAL SUPPLY, LLC; JASON RAINES; MATTHEW REMENAR; SCOTT FRESH; RONALD PENROD; EDWARD GEORGE DIMITROFF v. HOWELL TOWNSHIP, MICHIGAN

Posted by: Tanja Trezise on Jun 3, 2024

Head Comment: COLE delivered a separate concurring opinion. KETHLEDGE delivered a separate dissenting opinion.

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: ARGUED: Peter A. Patterson, COOPER & KIRK, PLLC, Washington, D.C., for Appellants.

Attorneys 2: ARGUED: Christopher S. Patterson, FAHEY SCHULTZ BURZYCH RHODES PLC, Okemos, Michigan, for Appellee.

Attorneys 3: ON BRIEF: Peter A. Patterson, COOPER & KIRK, PLLC, Washington, D.C., Joseph G.S. Greenlee, FPC ACTION FOUNDATION, Las Vegas, Nevada, Martha A. Dean, LAW OFFICES OF MARTHA A. DEAN, LLC, Avon, Connecticut, for Appellants.

Attorneys 4: ON BRIEF: Christopher S. Patterson, David J. Szymanski, FAHEY SCHULTZ BURZYCH RHODES PLC, Okemos, Michigan, for Appellee.

Attorneys 5: ON BRIEF: Thomas R. Schultz, ROSATI SCHULTZ JOPPICH & AMTSBUECHLER PC, Farmington Hills, Michigan for Amici Curiae.

Judge(s): COLE, KETHLEDGE, and WHITE, Circuit Judges

Court Appealed: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit

HELENE N. WHITE, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff-Appellant Oakland Tactical Supply, LLC (Oakland Tactical) leased a parcel of land in Howell Township, Michigan (the Township) with the intention of constructing and operating a commercial shooting range offering long-distance target practice. It has been unable to do so, however, because the Township’s zoning provisions limit the parcel to agricultural and residential uses. Oakland Tactical and five Michigan residents who wish to train at its proposed range sued the Township, alleging that its zoning restrictions violate the Second Amendment. The district court granted the Township’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, concluding the zoning restrictions did not violate the Second Amendment. While Plaintiffs’ appeal was pending, the Supreme Court announced a new framework for deciding Second Amendment challenges in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022). We remanded for reconsideration in light of Bruen, and the district court again granted judgment for the Township. We AFFIRM.

Attachments: