Preemption gets challenged far too often in far too many states. Some locality decides they can mess around with gun laws to some degree or another, then gets smacked down over it, and someone else decides to try it again a little later down the road. It’s perpetual.
But what about zoning laws?
Most cities have them because there’s an idea that buildings that serve certain functions belong in one location, well away from other functions, such as housing. Houston is a notable exception, by the way, as they have no zoning laws. It’s kind of interesting.
Anyway, zoning is normally not considered a big deal most of the time, but what about when gun stores are specifically targeted? That’s an issue, especially, in my opinion, in a preemption state like Florida.
But a lawsuit challenging such a zoning law was tossed. Now, it’s back.
In a decision for gun rights advocates and local governments, a Florida appellate court has reversed a lower court’s ruling that had dismissed a lawsuit against the City of Dania Beach over its firearm zoning laws. The Fourth District Court of Appeal ruled on Wednesday that a genuine factual dispute exists, sending the case back to the circuit court for trial.
…
The city and its officials, including City Manager Robert Baldwin and Mayor Tamara James, argued that their zoning rules are permitted under a statutory exception that allows for ordinances that “encompass firearms businesses along with other businesses.” The circuit court initially agreed, granting a summary judgment in favor of the defendants.
However, the appellate court, in a majority opinion written by Judge Gerber, found that the city had not shown “without factual dispute” that the ordinances were not “designed for the purpose of restricting or prohibiting” firearms sales.
The court’s decision hinged on the specific wording of the law, which prohibits zoning ordinances that are intended to regulate firearms as a method of regulation. The court noted that while the city’s ordinances may group gun shops with other businesses, the plaintiffs’ allegations that the rules effectively restrict and prohibit firearm sales in a “City Center” zone—and relegate them to unsuitable areas—create a question for a jury to decide.
This isn’t exclusive to Dania Beach. We’ve seen this happen more than once, though usually in communities where they can get away with it.
The idea is to push gun stores as far into unsavory areas as possible as a means of dissuading people from buying guns at all, which isn’t exactly a restriction, but has the same effect.
Of course, what happens after that is people will claim that gun stores, which are now forced into bad neighborhoods, are the cause of crime in those neighborhoods, even though there’s no evidence of any criminal buying their firearms there.
I’ve seen it happen way too often to think otherwise.
And let’s understand that this is a targeted ordinance. It has nothing to do with retail sales or anything of the sort. It’s not even like an adult store that sells products you can’t show being used on primetime television, either. These are guns, which people see in entertainment deemed safe for just about all ages, yet can’t be allowed in certain parts of the city? Why?
The appeals court didn’t get into those questions, nor the answers. It did say it’s a matter for the jury, which I happen to agree with completely.
Let’s hope the jury understands the assignment.
Editor’s Note: From Congress down to local governments, the assault on the Second Amendment is never ending. Luckily, the fight continues, and ground is regained.
Help us continue to report on and expose these harmful gun control policies and schemes. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your VIP membership.
Read the full article here
