Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/06/2006

Home

Page 2-- March 10, 2006 Equal Protection-- Firearms dealership claims unfair treatment due to nature of business City felt public safety concerns warranted actions Citation: Koscielsld v. City of Minneapolis, 8th U.S. Circuit Court of AppeaIs, No. 05-1664 (2006) The 8th U.S. Circuit has jurisdiction over Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota. MINNESOTA (1/25/06) -- In 1995, Koscielski opened a firearms dealership in the city of Minneapolis. Two months later, the city halted the location, reloca- tion,, or expansion of firearms dealerships in the city. A new ordinance also made it illegal to operate such a business near a daycare center or a church. Koscielski's business was grandfathered, and thus allowed to stay open. In 2002, Koscielsld's lease was terminated as part ora private redevelopment project. Koscielsld then leased a new site for his dealership in a zone that did not permit firearm retailers, and he was ordered by the city to cease and desist. Koscielsld sued, claiming that the ordinances made it impossible for gun dealerships to operate within the city. Koscielski argued that he was discrim/~ anted against, citing the timing of the ordinances in relation to the opening of kis business, the city's failed attempt to close his business, and an alleged /r joyous reaction of a city official when his lease was canceled by the private developers. Koscielsld acknowledged, however, that the city did not influence the private developers to cancel his lease. The district court dismissed the case, noting that the interest of public safety warranted the special regulation of firearms dealerships. Koscielski appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. To prove an equal protection violation had occurred, Koscielski had to establish that his business was treated differently from businesses that were similar in nature to his -- not all retail businesses in general. He argued that shows, held at the Minneapolis Convention Center (adjacent to a church), should be considered the same as a dealership, yet they received different treatment, therefore establishing bias. Because gun shows did not store weapons and ammunition for extended per/ods, as gun dealerships did, they could not be considered the same. This heightened safety concern justified the creation of special ordinances to era the location of gun shops. Further, Koscielsld argued that the ordInances violated due process by making it impossible to locate his business in the city, and that they existed only due to an anmaosity toward firearms dealers. Due process claims related to land use had to illustrate that the govern_ment's action was "truly irrational" and not "arbitrau, capricious, or in violation of state law." According to Koscielsk/, there were only a"tiny handful" of lots, many of them cC 2006 Quin~an Publishing Group. Any reproduction fs pro~ibitect. For mom information please call (617) 542-0048. 100