Law Offices of Martha A. Dean, LLC

Law Offices of Martha A. Dean, LLC ... because your rights and your freedom matter.

144 Reverknolls Avon United States

1-860-676-0033

       ENVIRONMENTAL LAW: Our firm represents commercial establishments, land owners, outdoor shooting ranges and select individuals with environmental compliance, enforcement defense, dispute resolution, cost recovery, remediation, and legislative/policy objectives. We are committed to providing the highest quality legal services in an efficient, creative and cost-effective manner.  We serve as compliance/enforcement defense counsel to corporations on the full range of environmental and hazardous chemical/worker safety issues. We frequently work collaboratively with teams of legal and technical experts to assess and develop strategies for resolving clients' legal issues in the context of complex business transactions and liability disputes. 

     SHOOTING RANGE DEFENSE: We have achieved unparalleled success defending outdoor shooting ranges in litigation around the country. We also provide environmental, safety, and noise-related strategic advice and legal guidance to shooting ranges. 

     CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: We challenge inappropriate government action under the federal and state constitutions, appealing adverse decisions where appropriate. Past cases have involved the state's balanced budget amendment, free speech/campaign finance issues, arbitration clauses in adhesion contracts and the rights of consumers to a jury trial. Currently, we serve as local counsel to a national team representing organizations and individuals who are challenging Connecticut's post-Newtown firearms law under the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. 

       Whether on the public policy or the practical side of the law, we have distinguished ourselves by identifying cost-effective, creative, fast-track approaches that bring finality to difficult situations.

 Defense of Outdoor Shooting Ranges

(Updated April 2024) 

Attorney Martha Dean is the recipient of the NRA’s Freedom Award for her work nationwide defending outdoor shooting ranges. Her client’s cases have established national precedents favorable to ranges under the federal hazardous waste laws and the federal Clean Water Act. Dean has successfully defended ranges in federal or state courts and before local zoning boards in many states, including Alabama, Connecticut, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts, establishing precedents favorable to shooting ranges. 

Attorney Dean also serves as special counsel to shooting ranges nationwide, helping local counsel devise successful strategies for defeating developers and anti-gun groups that try to shut down ranges. She also works with sportsmen groups who are establishing new ranges.  Dean has taught “Outdoor Shooting Ranges: Winning Defense Strategies” for the NSSF’s Industry Summit (Savannah, GA, 2015); “Defending Shooting Ranges,” NRA Range Seminar (Boston, MA, 2015 and Providence, RI, 2009); and “Defending Shooting Ranges: Winning Litigation Strategies,” NRA National Firearms Law Seminar (Saint Louis, MO, 2012).

Cases

2017-2024:  Michigan – Oakland Tactical Supply, LLC, et al. v. Howell Township, MI - No. 23-1179 (U.S Court of Appeals – 6th Cir.)

  • Federal Court (Eastern District of Michigan) - Second Amendment challenge to a local zoning ban on outdoor shooting ranges.

  • Representation of owners of a significant proposed outdoor shooting range facility in Howell Township, MI.

  • Current disposition (January 2024): on appeal (second time) before the U.S. Court of Appeals (6th Cir.). Plaintiffs are represented by Cooper & Kirk (Washington, DC), the Firearms Policy Coalition (Sacramento, CA), Myers & Myers, and our office on appeal. Oral argument occurred 11/9/23. Decision is expected in early 2024.

2020-2024:  New Hampshire - Constance Martell, et al. v. Gold Bess Shooting Club, LLC, et al. – Docket No. 215-2020-CV-287

  • State Court (New Hampshire) - defense of outdoor shooting located in Woodstock, NH against sweeping attack by 27 property owners in the area on noise, environmental, and safety grounds.

  • Issues include the constitutionality of the NH Range Protection Act and the scope of the Act in protecting ranges from noise complaints.

  • Current disposition (April 2024): partial Summary Judgment granted in favor of shooting range. Litigation is ongoing with trial scheduled for August 2024. To date, the range has succeeded in:

    • defeating plaintiff-range opponents’ constitutional claim (Equal Protection)

    • defeating plaintiff-range opponents’ attack on the NH Range Protection Act and claimed inapplicability

    • defeating plaintiffs’ request for preliminary injunctive relief, keeping the range operating for the duration of the litigation obtaining an early, preliminary dismissal of all claims (Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings) in December 2021. (Since then, plaintiff-range opponents filed a successful post-judgment Motion for Reconsideration, and the case moved forward on cross motions for Summary Judgment, which were decided in April 2024.

2017-2022:  Massachusetts - Granby Bow & Gun Club, Inc. v. Town of Granby, Zoning Board of Appeals of Granby, et al. - 18 MISC 000029/20 MISC 000145

  • State Court (Massachusetts) - defense of a wide-ranging zoning challenge to a long-standing 1,000 yd outdoor range in Granby, MA.

  • Club achieved a complete victory on all issues.

  • Issues included the extent to which the normal, ongoing range operations of a shooting range that is a nonconforming use can be attacked as a change of use when target locations and distances are adjusted on the range and periodic maintenance that includes brush and tree clearing occurs.

  • In May 2022, following a trial on appeal before the Massachusetts Land Court, the Club succeeded in overturning the local zoning board of appeal’s decision that had upheld two cease and desist orders issued to the Club years earlier. The court found that the Club’s replacement shooter shed did not require a special permit, and the issuance of the special permit by the Town did not alter that fact or the Club’s long-standing nonconforming use status. The court also found that the placement of targets at varying distances – including at 500 and 1,000 yards – is part of the Club’s long-standing activities at its rifle range, dating back before zoning, and that these activities are part and parcel of the Club’s ongoing nonconforming use and therefore do not require a permit. At this time, the Club’s rifle range, including use of its new shooter shed and all target areas up to 1,000 yards, is once again fully open and operating.

2017-2020:  Indiana - Wise, et al. v. Precision Gun Range, LLC – Causes Nos.:  60C02-1703-CT-0001-16 / 60C02-1709-CT-000321 (consolidated) (Indiana state court) 

  • State Court (Indiana) - defense of newly-established outdoor rifle range against safety claims of certain down range property owners.

  • Allegations included false claims that the range was responsible for bullet impacts to trees, a trailer, a pole barn and two homes located at a higher elevation approximately half a mile downrange. Issues included the safe design of a shooting range and the credibility of competing long-range ballistics experts’ opinions concerning plaintiffs’ claims.

  • The Range succeeded in settling the case during COVID in 2020. Just prior to settlement, the range had filed a Motion for Summary Judgment based on the expert testimony for both parties in a separate and related zoning challenge to the range’s operations. The MSJ related to expert conclusions concerning the bullet impacts at issue.

     

2018: Alabama (appeal) - Howard Jackson v. Corporation for the Promotion of Rifle Practice and Firearms Safety, Inc., d/b/a CMP Talladega Marksmanship Park (Appeal from Talladega Circuit Court: CV -15 -9 0 0 4 0 8) – 1170378 (Alabama Supreme Court) 

  • Defense of expansive new premier shooting range facility, constructed and operated by the U.S. Civilian Marksmanship Program in Talladega, Alabama, against noise claims. Allegations included noise, zoning, environmental, and constitutional claims. The principal issue was the scope and applicability of the Alabama Range Protection Act to the new range. The case was decided on appeal by the Alabama Supreme Court. This firm was responsible for research, drafting of pleadings, and strategy.

  • The CMP Marksmanship Park prevailed in court on all claims on its motion for summary judgment. The lower court decision was appealed by plaintiffs and upheld by the Alabama Supreme Court. The CMP Marksmanship Park’s shooting ranges are open and operating.

2017: Alabama - Howard Jackson et al v. CMP Talladega Marksmanship Park - 61-CV-2015-900408 (Alabama state court)

2017:  Massachusetts - Westminster Rod & Gun Club (fka Tophet Fish & Game Club) / Town of Westminster, Board of Zoning Appeals - Case Number: 17-01 (local zoning enforcement appeal) 

  • Defense of long-established outdoor shooting range against zoning, noise, and safety claims. The principal issue was whether the club’s modern operations at its longstanding nonconforming use status shooting range amounted to an expansion of, or change to, the use that requires zoning approval. 

  • The Club succeeded in overturning on appeal the local zoning enforcement officer’s cease and desist order. The Board found there was not a substantial increase in the lawful pre-existing non-conforming use of the property as a fish and game club with a shooting range. The Club’s range is once again open and engaging in its long-standing shooting range operations.  

 

2017:  Minnesota - Brian Winczewski vs. The Township of Osage, Arthur Yliniemi, Osage Sportsmens Club, Inc., f/k/a Osage Sportsman Club, Inc. - Case # 03-CV-16-675 (Minnesota state court)  

  • Defense of outdoor shooting range against noise claims.

  • The Club succeeded in obtaining a withdrawal of plaintiffs’ complaint and order of dismissal with prejudice from the court.

2014: Iowa (appeal) - Zuendel Investment, Inc. vs. Board of Trustees of the Waterworks and Electric Light and Power Plant of the City of Winterset, Iowa - No. 3-1109 / 13-0475

  • Defense of a city that allows a sportsmen’s club to operate a shooting range on city land. Litigation was brought by a developer who was seeking to shut down the club’s long-standing shooting range. Amidst allegations of stray bullets, the plaintiff-developer claimed that the agreement between the city and the club, allowing use of the land for nominal consideration, was an illegal gift. The city prevailed on a motion for summary judgment at the trial court. The court of appeals held that the district court was correct in concluding that the developer failed to preserve for judicial review the issue of whether the lease or license agreement amounted to an illegal gift.

  • Litigation concluded on appeal in 2014 in favor of the city, and the sportsmen’s club continues to operate its long-standing shooting range. 

2013:  Iowa - Zuendel Investments Inc., v. Board of Trustees of the Waterworks and Electric Light and Power Plant of the City of Winterset, Iowa - Case No. CVCV033415

2008-2011:  Connecticut - Pasquale Dinatale, et al. vs. Blue Trail Range Corp, et al. - No. X03-CV08-4042635; No. X03-CV08-4041481S (consolidated) (Connecticut state court) 

  • Defense of long-standing outdoor shooting range complex located in Wallingford, CT against two lawsuits by a downrange property owner who claimed bullets from the ranges were impacting downrange residences. The cases amounted to a sweeping attack against the facility and the Town in which it is located based on safety, zoning, noise, environmental and other grounds.

  • The range succeeded on all claims, prevailing after a lengthy bench trial that focused heavily on expert testimony. The court found there were multiple potential sources of bullets and that plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of proof on the ultimate issue of whether the range was the source of the bullet impacts. The court also held that the range was protected against noise claims by the Connecticut Range Protection Act. The favorable judgment was not appealed by plaintiffs.

2004-2009:  Connecticut (appeal) - Simsbury-Avon Preservation Society, LLC, et al. v. Metacon Gun Club, Inc., its Members and Guests – Docket No. 07-0795-cv (U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit) (federal court) 

  • Defense of a long-standing shooting range in Simsbury, CT against federal environmental claims under the Clean Water Act and hazardous waste laws. The U.S. District Court ruled in 2007 in favor of the range on all claims, granting the range’s second motion for summary judgment following the issuance of the U.S. Supreme Court holding in Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715 (2006). Plaintiffs appealed. In 2009, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s decision, establishing a favorable precedent for ranges under the Clean Water Act.

  • The Club prevailed on all claims at the trial court and on appeal.  

2004-2008:  Connecticut - Simsbury-Avon Preservation Society, LLC, et al. v. Town of Simsbury, et al. – Docket No. X01 CV 04 4001892 S (Connecticut state court) 

  • Defense of a long-standing shooting range in Simsbury, CT against wide-ranging state law-based environmental, noise, and general nuisance/lead risk-based claims. 

  • The Club prevailed on all claims. The favorable judgment was not appealed by plaintiffs.