Opinion
Too many federal courts engage in a quiet or open mutiny against SCOTUS authority. SCOTUS must correct one such rebellion by a panel of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals by granting certiorari in Oakland Tactical Supply v. Howell Township, a Michigan case.
In Oakland Tactical, the company was denied permission by Howell Township, using zoning regulations, to create and operate a 1,000-yard shooting range. Other circuits have examined this question and have determined that the Second Amendment protects ancillary items and activities related to the core and reserved constitutional right, including the right to practice and train with firearms.
This is comparable to the First Amendment’s accepted protection of access to printer’s ink and paper.
In its recent New York Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen decision, SCOTUS set out a new methodology for courts’ review of Second Amendment cases: the two-step text and history standard. If a government action implicates the text of the Second Amendment in any way, then the analysis moves to the second step, wherein the government must demonstrate by historical examples that such restrictions were actually tolerated and accepted by those who crafted and adopted the Second Amendment in 1791.
Knowing that there are no examples of zoning restrictions of shooting ranges from 1791, the majority of the Sixth Circuit’s three-judge, anti-gun panel chose to derail the new SCOTUS standard of review in its first step.
In its decision, the panel asserted that the Bruen and other SCOTUS Second Amendment decisions are only about using firearms for self-defense. According to the Sixth’s panel, since self-defense is not justified at 1,000 yards, therefor Howell Township’s denial of permission for the Oakland Tactical’s shooting range using zoning regulations does not affect or run afoul of the Second Amendment.
What is entirely rogue is the Sixth panel’s position that the Second Amendment is only about self-defense and not about hunting, competitive shooting, personal challenge distance shooting, training, firearms instruction, or even a well-trained militia. The panel uses this dodge to halt the inquiry at the first step of SCOTUS’s new and required text and history methodology.
Building and operating a 1,000-yard shooting range has nothing to do with the Second Amendment, says the panel.
From the Montana perspective, I disagree emphatically. Hunting here often necessitates long shots. These long shots require long shooting ranges where hunters and others can test rifles and ammunition at distance, and develop distance shooting skills. Plus, there are hundreds or thousands of riflemen who compete at long-range shooting matches in Montana every year. These matches are conducted at, and practiced for, at plentiful Montana shooting ranges that offer long-distance shooting opportunities.
Montana gun owners would be shocked to hear that a federal court in the “East” believes that the Second Amendment only protects shooting at short distances.
This is why SCOTUS must take the Oakland Tactical case and use it to tamp down on rogue federal courts that make up disingenuous reasons to ignore firm and clear direction from SCOTUS.
Historical lore says that when Joe Stalin was informed about criticism by the Pope, he asked dismissively, “How many divisions has the Pope?” With the Oakland Tactical cert petition, we will learn if SCOTUS has the will to enforce its authority over errant inferior courts.
Gary Marbut, President
Montana Shooting Sports Association
About Gary Marbut
Longtime Montana political observer and participant Gary Marbut is president of the Montana Shooting Sports Association, the primary political advocate for Montana gun owners.
SCOTUS vs Rogue Courts~ 6th Circuit Court of Appeals Thumbs It’s Nose At the Supreme Court
There. Fixed it for you.
Re: ” the Second Amendment is only about self-defense and not about hunting, competitive shooting…” The purpose of the Second Amendment was clearly stated by the founding fathers in the Preamble to the Bill of Rights where it says “The convention of a number of states having at the time of their adopting of the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse, of its powers that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added”. Note that when the Second Amendment was written, every weapon was a weapon of war, there were no restrictions on the private… Read more »
I would submit that the court has no business restricting the definition of self defense to short range. At what distance does it cease to be short range? At what arbitrary distance am I no longer legally allowed to return fire? I’d bet that many criminals would like an answer to that one. What if the threat is at considerable distance, and escape is not a safe option? For those who think that such a situation is impossible or at least unlikely, consider the University of Texas Tower shooting, the D.C. snipers, the Paradise, Nevada music festival attack, and the… Read more »
Supreme Court wrote – commonly owned for lawful purposes such as self defense. Biased inferior courts read this as – commonly used for self defense. This is clearly a blatant effort to not follow SCOTUS precedent and should qualify as legal malpractice.
Totally ridickulous. Again, where in the hell does it say that gun ownership or usage shall not be infringed so long as it is within a self defense distance and we (the government) determine what that distance is? I can see them hoping for a win and then making ranges shut down the rifle section because self defense is done with a pistol at short range only.
Dream on bitches!!!!!!
Trump 2024
how can they knowingly and willingly violate precedent set by scotus and remain on the bench. it is hard to believe they are that ignorant, more probable is they are just evil. surely there must be some way to eradicate vermin like this, by which i mean put an end to. putting parameters on a Constitutional right removes it from a right to a permissive action.