## Facts

- Mark Koscielski operated a firearms dealership in Minneapolis beginning in 1995.
- Shortly after the business opened, Minneapolis enacted a temporary moratorium on firearms dealers; the City did not succeed in applying it retroactively to shut down Koscielski’s existing business.
- Minneapolis later adopted permanent zoning ordinances requiring firearms dealers to obtain conditional use permits, operate only in specified zones, and comply with separation requirements from churches and day-care centers.
- Although Koscielski’s original location did not satisfy the separation requirements, it was allowed to continue as a lawful nonconforming use.
- In 2002, Koscielski lost his lease due to a private redevelopment project; the City was not involved in the lease cancellation.
- Koscielski attempted to relocate in compliance with the zoning scheme but claimed he could not find a feasible site.
- He leased a new site in a zone where firearms retail use was prohibited and did not obtain a variance or a rezoning.
- The City issued a cease-and-desist order based on the prohibited zoning designation and the absence of a variance or rezoning.
- Koscielski and a related business plaintiff sued, asserting substantive due process, equal protection, and takings violations; the district court granted summary judgment to the City and dismissed the takings claim without prejudice as unripe.

## Issues

1. Whether the zoning scheme regulating firearms dealers was arbitrary or irrational such that it violated substantive due process.
2. Whether treating firearms dealers differently from other businesses violated the Equal Protection Clause under rational-basis review.
3. Whether the federal takings claim was ripe when the plaintiffs had not pursued available state compensation procedures.

## Decision

- The court affirmed summary judgment for the City on the substantive due process and equal protection claims.
- The court held the zoning scheme was rationally related to legitimate governmental interests, including public safety and land-use compatibility.
- The court held the differential treatment of firearms dealers satisfied rational-basis review.
- The court affirmed dismissal of the takings claim without prejudice as unripe due to failure to pursue state compensation procedures.

## Legal Principles

- Land-use regulations satisfy substantive due process if they are not arbitrary or capricious and have any rational relationship to legitimate governmental objectives.
- Federal courts give substantial deference to municipal zoning judgments and do not act as super zoning boards in reviewing ordinary land-use classifications.
- Where no suspect class or fundamental right is implicated, equal protection challenges to zoning ordinances are evaluated under rational-basis review and upheld if any conceivable legitimate purpose supports the classification.
- A federal takings claim is generally unripe unless the property owner has sought just compensation through available state procedures (absent unavailability or inadequacy).

## Conclusion

The Eighth Circuit upheld Minneapolis’s zoning restrictions on firearms dealers as a permissible, rational land-use regulation and required the plaintiffs to pursue state compensation avenues before litigating any takings theory in federal court.


Koscielski v. City of Minneapolis, 435 F.3d 898 (8th Cir. 2006)