Pennsylvania Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Home Shooting Range Case
From today’s order granting review in Barris v. Stroud Township:
The issue, as rephrased, is:
Whether an ordinance that limits target shooting to two non-residential zoning districts, and thus does not provide for shooting ranges at all private residences, is facially unconstitutional under the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution?
In addressing this issue, the parties are directed to discuss in their briefs the following subsidiary matters: (1) whether this Court should adopt the two-step framework for addressing Second Amendment challenges utilized by the lower court; (2) whether the core Second Amendment right to possess firearms for self-defense recognized in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), also implies a corresponding right to acquire and maintain proficiency in their use; (3) whether such a corresponding right, if it exists, must extend to one’s own home; and (4) the level of scrutiny courts should apply when reviewing enactments that burden individuals’ ability to maintain firearms proficiency.
The lower court had allowed plaintiff’s Second Amendment challenge to go forward; note that plaintiff wants to set up a range on his “4.66-acre tract of land,” not (say) in a studio apartment:
The Ordinance imposes a burden on the Second Amendment right to maintain proficiency in firearm use by essentially imposing an outright ban on target shooting everywhere in the Township except two specific zoning dist
Article from Reason.com
