02-05-2018 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Honorable Mayor/President and City Council Members/EDA Members January 22, 2018 Page 4 The City may wish to consider reviewing the scope of any regulation on the discharge of firearms within the City. Should the City desire to move forward with support for the firing range being proposed by the Developer, it would likely be useful to revise the City's code to more clearly define where the discharge of a firearm is appropriate within the City. C. Shooting Range Protection Act Minnesota is one of several states that has adopted a shooting range protection act. 10 Under these laws, shooting ranges are given various protections against certain regulatory steps that municipalities may have taken. Under the law, a shooting range which is compliant with stated shooting range best practices "must be permitted" to do a number of statutorily -protected activities within its geographic boundaries." Among those activities are operation of the range and conducting activities which involve the discharge of firearms. The statute also provides that a shooting range which is a nonconforming use shall be allowed to conduct the same activities as conforming shooting ranges, so long as the nonconforming range complies with the best practices. 12 It is unclear, however, whether this statute sought only to protect shooting ranges which become nonconforming following the enactment by a City of certain regulatory limitations, or if it sought to give prospective shooting ranges protection to begin activities despite local regulation to the contrary. Typically speaking, a nonconforming use is only created where the activity was both previously being conducted and legal, but because of the passage of new regulations, has been rendered illegal. However, in such situations the property owner is afforded the opportunity to continue the nonconforming use, subject to various ongoing criteria. The counterargument would be that, under the terms of this statute, any proposed shooting range may be constructed and must be allowed to conduct the statutorily -provided activities so long as it is in compliance with the stated best practices. While there is little to no commentary on this issue, it seems unlikely that this statute sought to provide prospective relief to any proposed shooting range despite local regulation. In reviewing the City's authority to regulate the discharge of firearms, and applying it to the shooting range protection act, it would seem to logically follow that the protections provided by the later only applied to existing shooting ranges. Otherwise, the City's authority to regulate the discharge of firearms with respect to proposed shooting ranges would be essentially nullified. IV. Regulatory Authority in Relation to Proposed Development Because this issue has arisen with regard to a specific development request, this discussion would be remiss without addressing the relationship between the City's regulatory authority related to firearms and the City's authority to approve or deny the proposed project. It is important to note that, while these two things are clearly related, they are not identical. The City's authority to regulate firearms relates to its general authority to regulate activities pursuant to its police powers to protect the health, safety, and general welfare of the public -at - 10 Minn. Stat. § 87A.01 et seq. 11 Minn. Stat. § 87A.03, subd. 1. 12 Minn. Stat. § 87A.06, subd. 2. 514948v2 AMB MU205-46