Quote of the day—Cam Edwards

The Third Circuit panel found that not only did the township offer no evidence that its zoning rules are targeted to achieve a public safety benefit without imposing undue restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms, but that it neglected to explain why it chose to implement these specific restrictions, and why they did so only in the part of the township that was zoned for “sportsmen’s clubs.” Two other areas of town where “shooting ranges” are allowed to operate don’t have these same types of restrictions in place, but the township can’t explain why center-fire rifle firing should be banned at a sportsmen’s club and not at a shooting range.

Now the case goes back down to the district court for a third time, and hopefully this time around the judge makes the correct decision and finds that the township violated the rights of the gun range owner by arbitrarily imposing these zoning restrictions without being able to offer up any substantive reason for doing so.

Cam Edwards
August 17, 2021
Second Amendment In Gun Range Case


2 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Cam Edwards

  1. I’m missing something here. If your boss tells you to do something. And you refuse to do it. What should happen?
    So if a higher court instructs a lower one to decide in a certain way. And they refuse to do it. Why is that lower judge still a judge? Going to court for the third time seems like the punishment is being baked into the process.
    The range should have taken the first higher court ruling and acted on it. Let the township and the lower court impose real damages in stopping you.
    Since you already have the higher court on your side. The townships insurance would have paid like a slot machine.
    The problem I see is that none on the communist ever pay a penalty for their crimes. The imposition of going back to court two more times is criminal. And the township leaders should be paying that price.

Comments are closed.