Supreme Court asked to recognize a Second Amendment right to sell guns

Status
Not open for further replies.

Aim1

member
Joined
Oct 24, 2015
Messages
2,310
Not very. He was not denied a license to open a gun store (which is not protected by the Second Amendment), he was denied a license to open a gun store within 500' of a residential area. It's more a zoning issue than a gun-rights one. I think the logic is too convoluted for the courts.
 
Last edited:
This case has been ongoing for a while.

When it originally went before a 3-justice panel of the Ninth Circuit, the panel decided the local zoning ordinance violated the Second Amendment. However, an 11-justice panel just ruled to uphold the ordinance. https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/10...-alameda-countys-controversial-gun-ordinance/

Now, since there apparently haven't been any other Federal Circuit Courts who have weighed in on a case involving local zoning issues preventing gun sales from a business, it would be a little surprising if the high court decided to hear this case. After all, it's not something that's exactly been shown to be a divisive issue among the rest of the circuit courts, meaning they haven't been hearing similar cases and offering differing decisions, requiring the high court's weighing in on the matter.

Then again, they may decide to hear it, for reasons that appeal to them. Guess we'll see. I'd not hold my breath, though. Not with all the other issues and cases that compete for the high court's attention.
 
Not very. He was not denied a license to open a gun store (which is not protected by the Second Amendment), he was denied a license to open a gun store within 500' of a residential area. It's more a zoning issue than a gun-rights one. I think the logic is too convoluted for the courts.

The Seventh Circuit might disagree. The Seventh slapped down Chicago's attempts to control guns through restrictive zoning three times in Ezell v Chicago I, II and III (link to "III").
 
Last edited:
This isn't being heard by the Seventh Circuit. And reading about the case, they aren't really comparable. Ezell v Chicago revolves around a city-wide ban of shooting ranges. That's a far sight from prohibiting gun stores within 500' of a residential area or school.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a gun nut. But I think challenges to this ordinance will ultimately fail. I am not an expert on socal zoning, but I'd bet zoning gets pretty restrictive from a lot of perspectives this close to a residential area.
 
This isn't being heard by the Seventh Circuit. And reading about the case, they aren't really comparable. Ezell v Chicago revolves around a city-wide ban of shooting ranges. That's a far sight from prohibiting gun stores within 500' of a residential area or school.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a gun nut. But I think challenges to this ordinance will ultimately fail. I am not an expert on socal zoning, but I'd bet zoning gets pretty restrictive from a lot of perspectives this close to a residential area.

Resolving circuit splits is a major reason the Supreme Court takes cases.

Here is how the Seventh Circuit summarized Ezell III:
Three provisions currently remain in dispute: (1) a zoning restriction allowing gun ranges only as special uses in manufacturing districts; (2) a zoning restriction prohibiting gun ranges within 100 feet of another range or within 500 feet of a residential district, school, place of worship, and multiple other uses; and (3) a provision barring anyone under age 18 from entering a shooting range.
It could reasonably be argued that restrictions should be more stringent for ranges where guns are intended to be fired than simply for stores that sell guns.
 
“The Second Amendment commands that ‘the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed,’” wrote Judge Marsha S. Berzon, a Clinton appointee, in the opinion for the court. “That language confers a right on the ‘people’ who would keep and use arms, not those desiring to sell them.”

Which is what the State of California is successfully doing with it's gun testing requirement.
 
SCOTUS won't take it just as in other more important cases. If they did, they would probably find it to be a reasonable restriction. I think it is a mistake to bring challenges that are most likely to fail as they enshrine the antigun whatever as precedent.
 
Ezell v Chicago revolves around a city-wide ban of shooting ranges. That's a far sight from prohibiting gun stores within 500' of a residential area or school.

FWIW, Teixeira maintains the number of parcels in unincorporated Alameda County that meet the 500 ft rule is zero, see p 12/13 of the en banc decision.
 
“The Second Amendment commands that ‘the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed,’” wrote Judge Marsha S. Berzon, a Clinton appointee, in the opinion for the court. “That language confers a right on the ‘people’ who would keep and use arms, not those desiring to sell them.”

Which is what the State of California is successfully doing with it's gun testing requirement.

This reasoning contradicts the typical interpretations of the right to have an abortion, which is most often interpreted to include the right to buy one. Abortion providers cannot be regulated out of business, so why can gun providers?
 
This reasoning contradicts the typical interpretations of the right to have an abortion, which is most often interpreted to include the right to buy one.....
Who has interpreted the right to an abortion in that way and where? On what facts have you concluded that the right to an abortion is most often interpreted to include the right to buy one? Have any court decisions done so? If so, cite them.

Have cities or counties adopted zoning rules treating medical facilities providing abortions differently from other medical facilities? Have such zoning rules been challenged in court? If so, cite the cases.
 
Who has interpreted the right to an abortion in that way and where? On what facts have you concluded that the right to an abortion is most often interpreted to include the right to buy one? Have any court decisions done so? If so, cite them.

Have cities or counties adopted zoning rules treating medical facilities providing abortions differently from other medical facilities? Have such zoning rules been challenged in court? If so, cite the cases.

I've found and cited your demanded proof before, and you deleted it.

Why should I waste my time again jumping through your hoops for you to delete it?
 
I've found and cited your demanded proof before, and you deleted it.....

And that is not true. I have reviewed your entire posting history. Eight posts of yours have been deleted since you've been posting on this site. Not one fits that description.

The closest is a post of yours responding to this post of mine:
...I believe there may be a long term strategy to keep adding folks to NICs till effectively 2A is debilitated and finally destroyed. ....
And you have absolutely no evidence to support that belief.

The so called evidence you posted that "there may be a long term strategy to keep adding folks to NICs (sic) till the 2A is debilitated and finally destroyed" was a 2013 YouTube video of Dianne Feinstein saying:
...If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, ‘Mr. and Mrs. America turn ‘em all in,’ I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren’t here....

An expression of a desire for legislation to ban and support confiscation of guns together with a statement that such legislation lacked the votes needed to be viable is not evidence of a long term strategy to pad NICS making more people disqualified from buying or possessing guns. They might both be anti-gun strategies, but they are different strategies.

So no, I have never deleted a post of yours in which you cited evidence I had asked for.

And so I gather that your attempt at deflection confirms that you can't support the claims you made in post 10.
 
“The Second Amendment commands that ‘the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed,’” wrote Judge Marsha S. Berzon, a Clinton appointee, in the opinion for the court. “That language confers a right on the ‘people’ who would keep and use arms, not those desiring to sell them.”

With the disclaimer of not being able to read the entire decision of the Court it appears they changed the case from being a discrimination zoning issue to a 2A by writing "not those desiring to sell them.”

The State of California required safety standards is based on being able to legally prohibit sell of firearms. Whether the Supreme Court the 9th Circuit Court reasoning interesting enough to hear remains to be seen.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top