Koscielski v. City of Minneapolis

September 17, 2002 | Self

[corvid]

The gun grabbers have announced their intentions to disarm America, and now they’re at it again: The City of Minneapolis is trying to force Koscielski’s Guns and Ammo-- the only gun shop in the Minneapolis—out of business. For the second time.

In 1995 federal firearms dealer Mark Koscielski opened his store several days before the city council passed a moratorium on gun shops. The city attempted to close down his operation, but a Federal Court judge ordered Minneapolis to allow Koscielski to conduct his business. Mark’s shop was grandfathered in according to that year’s zoning code.

In 2002, his landlord decided not to renew Mark’s lease, and the zoning board informed him that there were only two zoning areas in which it would be possible to run a firearms dealership. In actuality, because of the “revised” codes and the qualifying conditions required to open a gun shop (500 feet from a church a school, a park, a residence), there was no place in the City of Minneapolis for a firearms dealer to exist.

Thus, Mark—a disabled veteran—will soon lose his livelihood unless he gets relief through the courts. A consulting attorney prepared a litigation plan for Koscielski vs. City of Minneapolis, and his arguments are strong and carry potential nationwide application.

1. Minneapolis’s action may violate the Second Amendment rights of Koscielski’s customers. 2. Minneapolis’s adoption of an impossible-to-legitimate, satisfy ordinance my violate Koscielski’s right to substantive due process under the 14th Amendment. 3. Koscielski has a claim for violation of his right to equal protection. 4. Koscielski, on behalf of his customers, may have a claim under the Minnesota Constitution, which establishes the preservation of hunting and fishing rights. 5. Koscielski should have a claim for the “taking” of his business. 6. Koscielski may have a claim that Minneapolis, by confining such businesses to a zone in which there are no qualifying properties, has gone beyond regulating the location of firearms dealers and has effectively banned firearms sales in the City.

We have appealed to the NRA for help in funding this litigation, which promises to be long and costly.

If you believe that the Second Amendment means nothing without access to firearms and ammunition, and if you believe that liberal anti-gunners should not be allowed to fulfill their social agenda by driving federal-government-regulated businesses out of existence, please help us today, as the clock ticks on our freedom.

Send an e-mail to mailto:rdowlut@nrahq.org?subject=Mark P. Koscielski v. City of Minneapolis and ask the NRA to provide financial support for litigating this important case. Pass the word on to your freedom-loving friends, and urge them also to contact the NRA.

For further information, e-mail mailto:kgsguns@hotmail.com?subject=gunshop

Thank you very much.

[dighton]

Welcome to FreeRepublic. Neat name.

[July 4th]

1. Minneapolis’s action may violate the Second Amendment rights of Koscielski’s customers.

If this is the first argument, it's a weak one before the courts. It seems to me that this is first a zoning/due process/property issue, and not a Second Amendment issue. The case appears to closely parallel many of the zoning cases that have concerned porn shops, and cities that try to legislate them out of existence. Many of the same arguements should be able to be adapted in favor of the owner.

It's obvious that this shop owner is being targeted because of his business, but even the most conservative judges are not going to force someone to renew a lease because of the Second Amendment. Show that the government's taken your property, and you've got a case.

[corvid]

The analog argument involved a birth control/abortion clinic to which the municipality had applied restrictive zoning laws. Courts there ruled that the city, by restricting access to that which citizens had a constitutional right, was in fact violating the citizens constitutional rights. (There are a few of this type in the judicial rulings.)

It's obvious that no one can force a landlord to retain a tenant. However, the city has made it impossible for that same tenant to relocate, by adopting restrictive, discriminatory, and unreasonable zoning laws only in regard to gunshops. Remember, this city went to federal court to keep the FFL dealer out of business and based its argument on a zoning code that came into effect after said dealer was already doing business.

I hope you're wrong about how a judge would rule, but thanks for your thoughful interest.

[July 4th]

I hope you're wrong about how a judge would rule

I was just referring to the Second Amendment basis for the case. I think there's definite promise if one works through the takings law approach.

[July 4th]

Or not takings rather, but due process and fairness. I think takings law was recently very limited by the Supreme Court in Tahoe.

[Snuffington]

6. Koscielski may have a claim that Minneapolis, by confining such businesses to a zone in which there are no qualifying properties, has gone beyond regulating the location of firearms dealers and has effectively banned firearms sales in the City.

I would hope that this forms the core of their argument, because its a slam dunk.