« Judicial nullification and arms rights | Main | A novel idea »
Great ruling from the 9th Circuit
It's rare that I can say that, especially on 2A matters, but Teixeira v. Alameda County meets that description. Basically, the county adopted and interpreted a zoning ordinance so that it in effect prohibited all new gun stores, and the 9th Circuit struck that down. Among other things, it recognized that a gun dealer may assert the rights of his future customers, that the Heller "categorical exclusions" (felons, commercial regulations, etc.) are to be read narrowly -- "it's sorta like that" is not good enough -- and suggests that language about a class of laws being "longstanding" and thus presumptively allowed requires a more specific showing that the type of regulation at issue is of a longstanding class.
The victorious attorney was Don Kilmer, of California.
6 Comments | Leave a comment
It's not crumbs.
Read the decision. It acknowledges a lot of 2nd Amendment issues which are important. not the least of which is the right to not only Keep and Bear arms .. but to purchase both arms and ammunition.
These are two issues which are becoming more common in anti-gun arguments in America.
And wouldn't that also include the RIGHT TO MANUFACTURE firearms?
hillary wants to shut down the gun companies by repealing the PLCAA should she be elected. Which I hope NEVER HAPPENS.
Isn't the language in this ordinance similar to that found in gun-free school zones law? I have seen overlays of some urban areas showing about the same thing.
As much of a victory as this ruling is, it's a bad sign that SCOTUS needs to rule on it. If SCOTUS can giveth, SCOTUS can taketh away. I think what we're missing is a ruling that would have been found if Jefferson Davis had been tried after the Civil War, namely is succession legal or not? If Yes, then this issue ultimately would be more likely to resolve peacefully. If No, then it resolves with a slave rebellion, which is the bloodiest of all rebellions.
...Succession isn't a legal question, it's a political question. The Souths loss in 1865 settled it. Had the Confederacy won, the question would have been settled the other way.
Well, nice to get a few crumbs from the table.
However their track record suggests one of their judges will force an 'en banc'. It was, after all, only a 2-1.
They will then sit on it forever like they are doing with 'Peruta". Or until they get a 5th anti-2A vote on the SCOTUS.