Property owners may occasionally face challenges when municipalities interpret zoning ordinances in ways that could limit certain lawful activities. We recently represented a client in a case where the municipality sought to apply zoning and code enforcement regulations in a manner that restricted the client’s ability to engage in target shooting on private property.
Generally, the primary objection of interpreting ordinances is to determine the intent of the legislative body that enacted the ordinance. In interpreting provisions of a zoning ordinance, a zoning hearing board must give undefined terms their plain, ordinary meaning. The municipality’s interpretation of their zoning ordinance was by no means plain or ordinary in this instance, in which our client was conducting lawful target shooting on his own property. The municipality argued the activity on his property rose to a level in which he was operating an “Outdoor Range.” The municipality inappropriately expanded the definition of “Outdoor Range.” For purposes of interpreting an ordinance, it is to be presumed that the municipality did not intend a result that is unreasonable to execute. The municipality’s interpretation effectively applied regulations meant for commercial outdoor shooting ranges to a single individual who was target shooting on his own property.
In a recent decision by the Illinois Court of Appeals that involved analogous facts to the instant case, the Court upheld a Building Official’s determination that the individual therein was not operating a shooting range under the City of Charleston’s applicable zoning ordinance. McMillan v. Bd. of Zoning Appeals & Planning, 2022 IL App (4th), 2022 Ill. App. Unpub. LEXIS 644. In McMillan, the City’s zoning ordinance prohibited shooting ranges except in one type of zoning district. Id. at *2. However, shooting ranges were only permitted in that district by special use. Id. Additionally, the City’s zoning ordinance did not define the term “shooting range.” Id. After a neighbor’s complaint was received, the Building Code Officer, charged with enforcement, conducted an investigation and sent written correspondence that stated, in part,
A shooting range is generally understood to be a place, often enclosed, where a person may practice shooting at targets. A shooting range may be open to the public, or it may be a private club. It may also be possible to argue that a shooting range exists anytime a landowner shoots at targets on his own land. Without a clear definition of shooting range, the city should exercise caution in enforcing the UDC against a single individual or a few invitees shooting targets on their own property. ***
If, however[,] there is a public invitation to enter the property to shoot targets, or a private club is established then it may be more reasonable and likely that a court may support a finding that a shooting range exists. I think the following factors are important indices of a shooting range prohibited by the UDC: public use or use by a private club that has membership rules, payment of compensation to the landowner, regular or consistent use by others besides the landowner.
Id. at 2-3. The property owner in McMillan had placed targets on six acres of the property but did not invite the public to shoot on the property. Id. at 6. The Building Official ultimately concluded that because the individual had neither opened his land to the public nor established a private club, his private shooting on his own property did not equate to an outdoor shooting range. Id. at 3-4. The Court considered the fact that others in the area would sight rifles and shoot at targets significant and upheld the determination that shooting on one’s own private property at targets did not result in the person operating a shooting range. Id. at *11.
Accordingly, we argued a similar result should follow here. Our client used the property for target shooting, hunting, and enjoying nature. He was the only person who shot at targets on the property.
We further argued that the municipality’s Zoning Ordinance facially violates the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment applies to the States and local governments as incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause. The individual right to bear arms includes a corresponding right to acquire and maintain proficiency in firearm use through target practice at a range.
There can be little doubt that target shooting was a regular part of colonial life. The popular “shooting match” was not only a common form of entertainment, but also practical from the standpoint of practice. Target shooting on one’s own property has existed since the 18th century, yet there is no evidence of a distinctly similar historical regulation effectively banning the practice without a structure being on the property and requiring a license for private target practice.
That is, despite shooting being a common practice in the early American Republic, there is no evidence of founding-era laws addressing public safety by prohibiting firearm training on private property.
With an acknowledgment of the safety conditions in place, the municipality ultimately backed down, and as with many civil cases, the matter resolved.
