This from Michigan Coalition for Responsible Gun Owners…The Michigan Supreme Court overturned the Court of Appeals ruling.
On April 1, 2014, the Michigan Supreme Court released its opinion in Addison Township v Barnhart. This case confirms the rights of existing range owners to operate their ranges regardless of township ordinances that have emerged since.
The case involves the Sport Shooting Range Act, a piece of legislation which the MCRGO has fought to protect from attacks in both the legislature and the courts. The MCRGO Foundation Civil Rights Defense Fund provided support for an amicus curiae brief to be written by the Law Offices of Steven W. Dulan, PLC, in the Barnhart case.
The Sport Shooting Range Act (SSRA) was passed in 1989 to protect shooting range owners as tensions were growing between range owners and their neighbors as a result of sprawl. The SSRA provided range owners with various immunities to nuisance lawsuits and other problems. In 1994, the SSRA was amended to allow the owners of existing ranges to expand their activities if they complied with the NRA Range Manual, even if the range was not in compliance with local ordinances.
In 1993, Jerry Barnhart received permission from Addison Township to build a range on his property. Between 1993 and 2005, the range was used for recreational shooting with family and friends as well as for teaching firearms lessons. In 2005, the Township gave Mr. Barnhart a misdemeanor citation for operating his range without a zoning compliance permit.
When the zoning case reached the Court of Appeals in 2012, the court ruled that the SSRA did not apply to Mr. Barnhart’s range, as he operated it as a business. Such acts, the court claimed, were inconsistent with the range being a “sport” range. In ruling against Mr. Barnhart, the Court of Appeals relied not on the definition of Sport Shooting Range given in the statute but on the definition of “sport” from the Merriam-Webster English Dictionary.
Had the Court of Appeals ruling been allowed to stand, range owners would have had to choose between their livelihoods and the likelihood of lawsuits.
The Michigan Supreme Court overturned the Court of Appeals ruling stating that the important factors in determining whether a range is eligible for the protections are the range’s design and operation, not the intention of individual shooters when they use the range.
