OH NO! MORE OF THE DREADED BACKLASH!!!

[pablo_marmol]

On Monday, May 16, a 3-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion in Teixeira v. County of Alameda, a case challenging a restrictive county ordinance that, among other things, prohibits firearm dealers from being located within 500 feet of a residentially zoned district. The plaintiffs challenged the ordinance on behalf of actual and prospective firearm purchasers, arguing that the ordinance violated both the Equal Protection clause and the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. The appeals court upheld the dismissal of the Equal Protection claim, but reversed the dismissal of the plaintiffs’ Second Amendment claim.

In its opinion, the Ninth Circuit recognized that “if the right to keep and bear arms is to have any force, the people must have a right to acquire the very firearms they are entitled to keep and bear,” and that the people “cannot truly enjoy a constitutionally protected right when the State is permitted to snuff out the means” of exercising that right. The Court continued by stating there is no question that an ordinance restricting the commercial sale of firearms would burden the rights of law-abiding citizens, and that because of this burden, the ordinance clearly impacts the “core of the Second Amendment right.” Since the ordinance burdens conduct protected by the Second Amendment, the Court found that the plaintiffs’ Second Amendment claim must be allowed to procced, and that it must be analyzed under heightened judicial scrutiny. The Ninth Circuit also held that if the ordinance is found to effectively ban new firearm retailers from opening, a more rigorous level of judicial review, such as strict scrutiny, should be applied.

Since the Court reversed the dismissal of the plaintiffs’ Second Amendment claim, the case will now be remanded back to the lower court to proceed towards a resolution of the case on the merits under the guidance of the Ninth Circuit’s decision.

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/05/16/13-17132.pdf