for Plaintiffs to suggest that the United States Constitution requires Defendant to sustain a city-wide fireworks disaster before its health and safety concerns become legitimate. 5 . Most equal protection claims arising from challenges to fireworks ordinances involve laws governing the issuance of permits to sell fireworks. In these cases, plaintiffs often argue that city defendants have discriminated against certain fireworks distributors in the approval of fireworks permits. Unlike the case at bar, these examples may raise legitimate equal protection issues. But even in situations that indeed require more in-depth equal protection analysis, courts have typically refrained from rejecting an ordinance as ■ violating equal protection guarantees. See, e.g., Haddenham, 339 N.W.2d at 792 (<HOLDING>). This includes the Fifth Circuit, which, in
holding as permissible under the equal protection clause a law prohibiting nonresident sellers of fireworks from selling fireworks to nonresident purchasers during a limited period of time without first verifying that each purchaser is a licensed fireworks wholesaler manufacturer or permit holder holding that the state law violated equal protection principles holding that the seizure of fireworks pursuant to a state fireworks law did not violate the plaintiffs property rights under the due process clause of the united states constitution holding that lprs are entitled to the protection of the equal protection clause holding that a colorado amendment prohibiting legislative judicial or executive action designed to protect gays and lesbians from discrimination violated the equal protection clause