|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
MI: Second Amendment Suit Over Howell Twp. Gun Range Playing Out
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://libertyparkpress.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
The owner of a firearms store says Howell Township officials violated the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution when they denied his request to establish a new outdoor gun range facility in the township. A federal lawsuit filed in November 2018 against the township is pending in federal court after Oakland Tactical Supply Mike Paige and township officials failed to reach a settlement. Last month, both filed responses to motions that further argue their cases. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(8/5/2020)
|
This case is a loser. The township has statutory and constitutional authority to institute zoning according to its community's priorities, and this land has already been zoned. It wasn't changed after-the-fact to prevent construction of a range.
I don't think any court would be able to find a reason to compel the township to rezone that area.
Sad to say, but that's the likely result. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|
