Quantcast
  1. Upgrade efforts paused for now. Thanks for your patience. More details in the thread in Tech Support for those who are interested.
    Dismiss Notice

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

Discussion in 'Legal' started by Aim1, Jan 9, 2018.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Aim1

    Aim1 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2015
    Messages:
    2,168
    How solid is his case?




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




     
  2. ray15

    ray15 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2017
    Messages:
    965
    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: Jan 9, 2018
    everydefense likes this.
  3. fastbolt

    fastbolt Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    3,157
    Location:
    Within the lightning of realization
    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.
     
  4. gc70

    gc70 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,433
    Location:
    North Carolina
    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: Jan 9, 2018
  5. ray15

    ray15 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2017
    Messages:
    965
    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.
     
  6. gc70

    gc70 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,433
    Location:
    North Carolina
    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.
     
  7. BSA1

    BSA1 member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2011
    Messages:
    7,492
    Location:
    West of the Big Muddy, East of the Rockies and Nor
    “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.
     
  8. GEM

    GEM Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2004
    Messages:
    10,688
    Location:
    WNY
    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.
     
  9. pintler

    pintler Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    519
    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.
     
    gc70 likes this.
  10. Berger.Fan222

    Berger.Fan222 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2014
    Messages:
    548
    Location:
    TX
    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?
     
  11. Frank Ettin

    Frank Ettin Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Messages:
    12,747
    Location:
    California - San Francisco Bay Area
    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.
     
  12. Berger.Fan222

    Berger.Fan222 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2014
    Messages:
    548
    Location:
    TX
    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?
     
  13. Frank Ettin

    Frank Ettin Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Messages:
    12,747
    Location:
    California - San Francisco Bay Area
    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:

    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:

    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.
     
  14. Sebastian the Ibis

    Sebastian the Ibis Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2008
    Messages:
    2,075
    Location:
    "The Gunshine State"
    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.
     
    Theohazard and gc70 like this.
  15. BSA1

    BSA1 member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2011
    Messages:
    7,492
    Location:
    West of the Big Muddy, East of the Rockies and Nor
    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.
     
  16. gc70

    gc70 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,433
    Location:
    North Carolina
    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
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice