October 2023 - Parks & Recreation - 37

57-11, these historical regulations
" imposed absolute restrictions on the
right to carry a firearm for self-defense
in such areas. " As characterized by
the court, these " historical examples
of buffer zone statutes " justified the
" same burden on Second Amendment
rights "
as
Section
57-11's
100-yard
buffer zones. As a result,
the federal district court concluded,
" Plaintiffs are unlikely to succeed on
the merits of their challenge to Section
57-11's 100-yard buffer zones. "
Sufficiency of
Historical Record
In addition, Plaintiffs had argued the
County has not identified a sufficient
number of historical statutes in support
of its argument because the historical
record of statutes submitted
was " from states or territories that encompass
a low percentage of the total
population of the United States. "
However, as noted by the federal
district court: " Bruen did not
establish a minimum threshold for
the number of statutes that must be
identified as part of the historical
analysis to support the conclusion
that a present firearm restriction
is consistent with the Nation's historical
tradition of firearm regulation. "
On the contrary, the court
found the Supreme Court in Bruen
had " acknowledged that certain locations
are properly construed as
'sensitive places' at which the carrying
of firearms may be prohibited
based on only a limited number
of historical examples. "
Accordingly, in this particular instance,
the federal district court held
" the number of statutes and ordinances
identified by the County " was
sufficient to be considered analogous
under Bruen to many of the " places
of public assembly " covered by Section
57-11. Moreover, the court noted
Bruen " did not impose any specific requirement
that the historical statutes
considered must have applied to a certain
number of states or a certain percentage
of the relevant population. "
Conclusion
Having found Plaintiffs had not
established " a likelihood of success
on the merits of the claims "
that the County's ordinance violated
the Second Amendment, the
federal district court denied Plaintiffs'
motion for a Temporary Restraining
Order and a Preliminary
Injunction. As a result, the County
could enforce Section 57-11 pending
full trial proceedings to consider
the merits of Plaintiffs' claims.
On July 10, 2023, Plaintiffs filed an
appeal of the federal district court's
decision in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. On
July 24, 2023, Montgomery County
responded to Plaintiffs' appeal motion
(tinyurl.com/3cv7s4kr).
SEE ALSO: History Justifies 'Gun
Free' Public Park Resources?, James C.
Kozlowski, Parks & Recreation, May
2023, Vol. 57, Iss. 5, tinyurl.com/
5eff5w27; Gun Permittees Challenge
Park Firearm Regulations, James C.
Kozlowski, Parks & Recreation,
Mar. 2017, Vol. 51, Iss. 3, tinyurl.
com/3h92rh4p; Right to Bear Arms
Limited in 'Sensitive' Public Facilities,
James C. Kozlowski, Parks &
Recreation, Apr. 2011, Vol. 46, Iss. 4,
tinyurl.com/yycneb4n.
James C. Kozlowski, J.D., Ph.D., is an Attorney and Professor
Emeritus in the School of Sport, Recreation and Tourism
Management at George Mason University (jkozlows@gmu.
edu). Webpage link to an archive of articles (1982 to present):
mason.gmu.edu/~jkozlows/lawarts/artlist.htm.
A Beacon for a Cleaner Tomorrow
Visit us at NRPA Booth# 1231
orders@sternwilliams.com | 800-323-2359 | sternwilliams.com
PARK S ANDRECRE AT ION . OR G | O CTOBER 2 0 2 3
| Parks & Recreation
37

http://tinyurl.com/3cv7s4kr http://tinyurl.com/ http://tinyurl.com/ https://www.tinyurl.com/3h92rh4p https://www.tinyurl.com/3h92rh4p http://tinyurl.com/yycneb4n https://mason.gmu.edu/~jkozlows/lawarts/artlist.htm http://www.sternwilliams.com

October 2023 - Parks & Recreation

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of October 2023 - Parks & Recreation