THEORY OF DUH: Court Rules 2nd Amendment Contains Right To Buy, Sell Guns

[mrsat_98]

http://www.examiner.com/article/nint...endment-ruling

A U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel today ruled that “the right to purchase and sell firearms is part and parcel of the historically recognized right to keep and bear arms,” an opinion almost certain to make gun prohibitionists shudder.

The 2-1 opinion came in a case filed by the Second Amendment Foundation, the California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees, the Calguns Foundation, Inc., and three businessmen, John Teixeira, Steve Nobriga and Gary Gamaza. It is known as Teixeira v. Alameda County, and it was supported by an amicus brief filed by Virginia attorney Alan Gura for the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. The ruling may be read here.

The case challenged an Alameda County ordinance that prohibits gun stores from being located within 500 feet of a residential zone. Writing for the majority, Judge Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain noted that, “the Ordinance burdened conduct protected by the Second Amendment and that it therefore must be subjected to heightened scrutiny—something beyond mere rational basis review,” according to a SAF news release.

"(T)he County has failed to justify the burden it has placed on the right of law-abiding citizens to purchase guns. The Second Amendment requires something more rigorous than the unsubstantiated assertions offered to the district court."—Judge Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain

SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb praised the legal work done by plaintiff’s counsel Don Kilmer, a well-known California civil rights attorney. Gottlieb called this an “important ruling” because it reinforces the notion that the right to keep and bear arms as delineated in the Second Amendment “is not a second-class right.”

The 34-page majority opinion was written by Judge Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain, with a partial dissent and partial concurrence by Judge Barry G. Silverman. The lower court trial judge had dismissed the case, in which plaintiffs argued violations of Equal Protection and the Second Amendment. While the appeals court upheld dismissal of Equal Protection claims, it reversed and remanded on Second Amendment grounds.

Quoting the Supreme Court ruling in SAF’s 2010 landmark McDonald case, Judge O’Scannlain reiterated, “The right of law-abiding citizens to keep and to bear arms is not a ‘second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees that we have held to be incorporated into the Due Process Clause.’”

MEANWHILE, as this column reported earlier today, the National Rifle Association gathers in Louisville later this week for its annual convention. While this gathering gives rise to what has become known as “Bash the Second Amendment Week,” there was a small melodrama related to the election of new board members over the past few months.

An effort to recall NRA Director Grover Norquist, best known as an anti-tax champion, has failed, according to AmmoLand. Norquist had been targeted for past associations with Muslims. He testified under oath before a special Hearing Board, which noted in a report, “The material presented against Mr. Norquist included many unproven allegations, and distant associations. Mr. Norquist is charged with guilt by association with people who practice Islam or are of Middle-eastern or Asian descent—even many who are loyal, voting Americans.” (See link below).

Norquist garnered some high-powered support during his ordeal. They included Ed Meese, U.S. attorney general under Ronald Reagan; former NRA Presidents Sandra Froman and David Keene, and NRA Directors Todd Rathner, Joe Allbaugh, Wayne Anthony Ross, Scott Bach, Bob Barr, Jim Gilmore, Sen. Larry Craig and Ted Nugent. Also supporting Norquist were John Lott, author and president of the Crime Prevention Research Center; Brandon Combs, president of the Firearms Policy Coalition in California, Jeff Knox, director of the Firearms Coalition, along with SAF’s Gottlieb.

[FSP-Rebel]

Good

[presence]

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datasto...6/13-17132.pdf

long story short:

local "zoning" ordinance required no gun shops within 500 feet of a residence.
essentially made new gun shops illegal anywhere in the incorporated county.
court said sorry you can't do that

[mrsat_98]

http://bearingarms.com/bob-o/2016/05...buy-sell-guns/

A federal court in California has slammed the door on an attempt by Alameda County to zone gun stores out of existence.

The Second Amendment protects the right to buy and sell firearms, as well as the right to keep and bear them, a federal appeals court ruled on Monday.


In doing so, the San Francisco-based Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals revived a lawsuit filed by three business partners who had planned to open a gun store in Alameda County, Calif., but were denied a zoning permit.

“If ‘the right of the people 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 to bear,” wrote Judge Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain for the 2-1 majority, quoting the Second Amendment. “One cannot truly enjoy a constitutionally protected right when the state is permitted to snuff out the means by which he exercises it.”

The ruling by the Ninth Circuit builds on previous decisions by federal appeals judges recognizing the right to buy ammunition and to train at firing ranges as protected by the Second Amendment.

Alameda County had concocted a scheme in which gun stores in the densely packed county of more than 1.5 million souls could not be established within 500 feet of a home. The proposed store at the center of the case was 446 feet from the nearest home.

Alameda County’s anti-gun Democrats had grandfathered in existing gun stores in the county, but would not allow the establishment of any new gun stores, and it doesn’t appear that they would approve the establishment of new gun stores at the locations of existing gun stores once those existing stores closed.

The clear intent of the law was to make it very difficult for Alameda County residents to buy firearms by forcing them to travel outside of the county to exercise their right to bear arms.

Alameda County, based on Oakland, is now in the process of trying to determine if they will appeal the court’s decision.

Oakland has long been know as the “crime capital” of the San Francisco Bay Area, with a thriving thug culture and the infamous and well-earned reputation as one of the most dangerous cities in the United States.

[phill4paul]

As it winds it's way up to the 9 Nazgul that shall declare that rights aren't "unlimited."

[fisharmor]

Gura and Gottlieb continue to do what the NRA should have been doing for the last 150 years,
and the NRA continues to do what NOBODY should be doing, ever.

The more I read stories like this, the more I have to shake my head at these NRA fanboy nitwits you see at gun stores and shows. The NRA has been at best frozen in its tracks, and at worst complete collaborators with the gun control agenda, for the majority of its existence. Their MO has always been damage control.

Then these little groups had the testicular fortitude to.... TRY. To actually push back. And here we are, having shall issue concealed carry in most states, constitutional carry in an increasing number of states, outright bans overturned, and major court victories seemingly on an annual basis.

To be fair, the NRA proper I still have some respect for, since they still do their original charter job pretty well - and that job is FIREARMS TRAINING ONLY. It's the ILA which is unworthy to exist.
I think they should stop all the drama over who's in charge and what kind of brown people he's friends with, and start up a new and relevant batch of drama: eliminating the ILA wing.