Landowner filed complaint seeking declaratory judgment that township ordinance prohibiting discharging of firearms within township, alongside zoning ordinances limiting shooting ranges to two non-residential districts in township, violated Second Amendment on its face.
The Court of Common Pleas entered summary judgment in township’s favor, and landowner appealed. The Commonwealth Court reversed. Leave to appeal was granted.
The Supreme Court held that:
- Owner’s conduct in discharging firearms on his own property in order to gain proficiency in their use was covered by Second Amendment, but
- Ordinance did not violate Second Amendment on its face.
Property owner’s conduct in discharging firearms on his own property in order to gain proficiency in their use was covered by Second Amendment’s plain text, where owner faced confiscation of his lawfully-owned firearms pursuant to township ordinance for doing so.
Township ordinance prohibiting discharging of firearms within township except in shooting ranges within non-residential districts was fully consistent with Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation, and thus did not violate Second Amendment on its face; colonial, founding, and antebellum generations recognized states’ longstanding power to regulate when and where firearms could be used for non-self-defense purposes, number of firearm discharge regulations proliferated after Second Amendment’s ratification, number of regulations during this time were aimed specifically at shooting ranges and target practice, and township adopted ordinance for protection of public health and safety and general welfare of residents and visitors.