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

How solid is his case?




https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jan/9/supreme-court-asked-recognize-second-amendment-rig/

 

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.

 

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.

 

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").

 

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:

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.

 

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.

 

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?

 

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?

 

This is an Alan Gura case -- so it's solid. Alan took Heller and McDonald to the Supreme Court. He's also responsible for the successful carrying cases. If Alan is handling the case it's legit.

 

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.

 

District Court Order dated 2/26/2013
District Court Order dated 9/9/2013
Circuit Court Panel Opinion dated 5/16/2016
Circuit Court En Banc Opinion dated 10/10/2017