In a recent YouTube video, Emily Taylor and Richard Hayes from “The Armed Attorneys” channel discussed a significant new gun law case that has landed in the courts. Here’s the full story.
The Critical Question
The discussion centered on a critical question: Can the government legally prohibit individuals from training with their firearms? They explore this issue through the lens of the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association (NYSRPA) case, which has major implications for firearm training.
The Case in Focus
The case at the heart of the discussion was Oakland Tactical Supply v. Howell Township. This case, originating from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, shared the tension between local government regulations and Second Amendment rights.
Not Allowed
Oakland Tactical Supply leased a 350-acre property intending to open a gun range, including a 1,000-yard rifle range. However, the township denied their request, citing zoning laws that did not accommodate outdoor shooting ranges.
District Court Repeatedly Denied
Taylor and Hayes outlined the case’s history, noting that it began in 2017 and before the NYSRPA decision. Despite the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bruen, which called to evaluate Second Amendment cases based on historical context, the district court repeatedly denied Oakland Tactical’s requests.
Going on a Cycle
The case has now cycled through various levels of the judicial system, ultimately landing back in the Sixth Circuit, which again denied relief.
Judicial Reasoning
The root of the Sixth Circuit’s decision lies in its interpretation of zoning laws about the Second Amendment. The court acknowledged that while the Second Amendment covers the right to train with firearms, zoning laws do not directly implicate this right.
The Direct Implications
This reasoning, as Taylor and Hayes pointed out, was both enraging and intellectually dishonest. Taylor argued that by circumventing the direct implications of Bruen, local governments are effectively chipping away at Second Amendment protections.
The New Government Trend
The hosts shared that the case exemplifies a broader trend of local governments finding ways to regulate firearm training indirectly. By enforcing zoning ordinances that limit where shooting ranges can be established, they effectively restrict access to training facilities. This tactic allows local governments to sidestep confrontation with Second Amendment rights while still achieving their regulatory goals.
The Implications
Taylor and Hayes shared concerns over the broader implications of this trend. They highlighted the fundamental issue: the government appears to be making it increasingly difficult for citizens to train effectively with their firearms. This stance, they argue, is particularly troubling given the historical context of the Second Amendment, which was intended to ensure citizens could defend themselves and their communities.
Responsible Firearm Ownership
The discussion also touched on the importance of training for responsible firearm ownership. Taylor shared that effective training is crucial for safe and proficient use of firearms, and restricting access to training facilities undermines this objective.
The Approach
The government’s approach, according to Taylor and Hayes, suggests a disregard for the practical needs of gun owners and a potential threat to their ability to exercise their Second Amendment rights fully.
The Role of the Supreme Court
The conversation circled back to the Supreme Court’s role in addressing these issues. Taylor acknowledged the enormous challenge the Court faces in selecting cases to hear. With thousands of cases exhibiting “negative treatment” of the Bruen decision, the Supreme Court could be overwhelmed if it tried to address every instance of misapplication.
Share Your Thoughts
So what do you think? Will the Supreme Court take up this case and others like it to ensure consistent application of Bruen and protect the right to bear arms, including the right to train with firearms?
